Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(June 20, 2011 at 3:05 pm)Napoleon Wrote: You better not be implying I'm dumb mister!
But yes, I'd rather of not voted at all if I'd of realised the frickin aggro it was going to cause.
Not implying that you're dumb, but just that this particular topic, requires a level of research into the history of Islam which some of you may not be too familiar with.
(June 20, 2011 at 3:18 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Not implying that you're dumb, but just that this particular topic, requires a level of research into the history of Islam which some of you may not be too familiar with.
Yeah it's kinda boring. Like most history. Unless it's filled with lots of violence, then it's pretty cool.
Hey, wait a minute....
Maybe you could give me the quick version some time.
But Islam, if you go back to the original sources and time period in history when it was revealed (ignoring the various historical and scholarly outgrowth), presents a very simple concept: That there is one God who is the source of all creation and he has created mankind as his representative on earth for the purpose of growing through learning and experience into righteous individuals, and to assist mankind is achieving this goal, there are the five pillars of Islam.
That's the short version, but if you really want to spend some time to understand what Islam is, I recommend the book The Vision of Islam, by Sachiko Murata and William C. Chittick.
(June 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: 1. I never said to pretend that I never said that. Here is an article that talks about the compilation I mentioned.
I disagree because here is what you said in this post:
"I never said it was altered after his death. Let us just pretend this question never existed because it is wasting my time. To replace it:"
However, you did say that half of the Quran was rejected after Muhammad's death in this post (in # 2), which implies that it was altered, without ever supporting this statement. So, I want to know if you have changed your mind on whether or not half of the Quran has been rejected after Muhammad's death (or if it's just something that you're guessing is more likely to happen). Whatever it is, you should also tell me your reason for believing this.
(June 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: Compilation: By the time of the caliphate of Uthman ibn Affan, there was a perceived need for the compilation of the Qur'an. The Caliphate had grown considerably, bringing into Islam's fold many new converts from various cultures with varying degrees of isolation. These converts spoke a variety of languages but were not well learned in Arabic and so a complete written text of the Qur'an had to be compiled. Another reason for compiling the Qur'an was that many of the Muslims who had memorised portions of the Qur'an were dying, especially in battle.
1. Nothing in that quote supports that half of the Quran, or even parts of the Quran, were added and/or rejected from the Quran during it's compilation.
2. The underlined sentence is a proof that many Muslims memorized the Quran, from your own post, and when they were being killed in battles, that's when it was necessary to compile the Quran into a book. But the book was already preserved in their memories along with the thousands of written mansucripts which existed before the compilation stage. There were memorizers of the Quran who were still alive.
(June 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: Uthman is said to have begun a committee (including Zayd and several prominent members of Quraysh) to produce a standard copy of the text. Some accounts say that this compilation was based on the text kept by Hafsa. Other stories say that Uthman made his compilation independently, Hafsa's text was brought forward, and the two texts were found to coincide perfectly. [citation needed]
Yes, and even if Uthman made his compilation independently from Hafsa's copy, what basically matters is that both copies match perfectly (aside from the diacritical marks).
The main reasons for creating more copies of the Quran after he borrowed Hafsa's copy were to (1) to strengthen the authenticity of the original one, or Hafsa's copy, by comparing them with all the other copies; (2) to universalize the dialect of the Quran by writing it in the Kufi script so that Muslims can recite the Quran in any of the seven dialects (because the Kufi script has no vowel dots on the letters); and (3) to make separate copies of the Quran and then send them to other locations.
(June 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: Until this time there was reportedly only one written text of the Qur'an. According to Islamic accounts, this text was faithful to its original version. Non-Muslim scholars believe that, while this is entirely possible, there must at least have been slight variations produced from some corruptions.[6]
Thus, this became known as al-mushaf al-Uthmani or the "Uthmanic codex".[18]
Both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars accept that there have been slight variations between certain manuscripts of the Quran. However, the fact that the manuscripts differed from each other is not a proof that the present copy of the Quran does not contain the actual words of God's revelation to Muhammad (pbuh). Why? Because the Quran didn't exist only in manuscripts, but also in the memory of many Muslims, who have completely memorized the Quran from cover to cover. So, it is in this light that the Quran's preservation is so unique from the other scriptures. The belief in the Quran's preservation is not unreasonable because the Muslims who compiled the Quran depended on the dual system of both writing and mass memorization to preserve it.
(June 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: Uthman's reaction in 653 is recorded in the following:
"So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.'"[Qur'an 33:23][Bukhari Sahih al-Bukhari, 6:61:510]
And I underlined two important things, which are: (1) Uthman used Hafsa's manuscript to make the standardized version of the Quran while intending to keep the words identical (i.e. "perfect copies") and (2) He sent a copy to other Muslim districts while burning the manuscripts which did not match with the standardized Quran to prevent variations from spreading.
(June 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: Although the order of his earlier script differed from the Uthmanic codex, Ali accepted this standardized version.[17]
I believe that is correct. As for the scripts being different from the Uthmanic codex, or the Kufi script, I have addressed the issue in the comments below.
(June 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: Some scholars suggest that the early Uthmanic texts of the Qur'an differed in terms of punctuation from the version traditionally read today. It is believed that early versions of the text did not contain diacritics, markers for short vowels, and dots that are used to distinguish similarly written Arabic letters such as r[?] & z[?] or t[?] & ?[?] or f[?] & q[?]. One claim is that dots were introduced into the writing system sometime about half a century after the standardization of the Uthmanic text around 700 A.D.[19]
Yes, the introduction of diacritical marks in the Quran came after the Uthmanic text, but again, this indicates only a difference in pronounciation and not a difference in the meaning behind the verses. What is important to realize is that the word "Quran" means a "recitation." Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Quran is what is important irrespective of whether the script is different or not, or whether the Quran contains vowel dots or not.
(June 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: When the compilation was finished, sometime between 650 and 656, Uthman allegedly sent copies of it to the different centers of the expanding Islamic empire. From then on, thousands of Muslim scribes began copying the Qur'an.
As quoted in your own post, which I underlined above, there is an authentic hadith in which Uthman himself said that he sent copies of the Quran to different centers of the Islamic empire. As far as surviving copies of the Quran, the oldest that I know of are the ones in Istanbul (Turkey) and Tashkent (Uzbekistan). Also, there are old copies of the Quran in Egypt and one in a museum in Britain as well. There are surviving manuscripts from very early times but the oldest ones that I know of are the ones which I mentioned above.
(June 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: 2. See #1. And do you have any proof that they recited it in its entirety daily? Any written recitations that match perfectly with the Quran?
I know this from reading books on the history of Islam, along with the fact that even today there are thousands of Muslims who have memorized the entire Quran (who are known as hafiz) starting from the time of the Prophet (pbuh). If you don't accept this as a correct answer, then, please tell me what you kind of a "proof" you are looking for aside from the historical information that I provided (since you don't seem to trust any of them).
(June 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: 3. Yes, it is your interpretation, because technically, if some country attacked another country several to five hundred years ago then they did not "leave you in peace".
I believe that my interpretation is reasonable, though, because what matters is whether or not the country lets the Muslims live in peace at the present moment, not what they did 500 years ago.
(June 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: 4. Actually, you could interpret that as "culturally attacking" the Muslim countries. Not quite no offense intended Ryaan, but you are just like the Jews and Christians who insist that their texts didn't advocate slavery, genocide, cruel and unusual punishment, delusional faith, and time wasting. And, no I don't think we should stay in those countries.
Yes, maybe I'm not different from the Jews and Christians, afterall. I never said I was.
And fine, I agree with your last sentence. It was my own misunderstanding in thinking that you would want them to stay in those countries.
(June 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: At this point I think I should say that having read Minimalist's message about you being one of the "better Muslims around", I was expecting someone who would present logical arguments instead of accusing me of things I never said, and presents arguments over and over and over, even after I disassemble them.
I did provide many arguments in this post and I tried to answer them logically. Having said that, how many of them did you refute? I don't think that you actually disassembled them because you were not able to prove that I was wrong, but instead, you posted quotes from Wikipedia which is not specific enough to falsify my arguments and wrote a few other comments which I addressed in a later post as well.
As for accusing you of things that you didn't say, I have pointed that out in the first comment in this post, but if I'm still wrong, then feel free to correct me again. However, if there is anything else that I accused of saying which you didn't say, then that is due to my own misunderstanding of your comments, not something that I did intentionally (which I also admitted in the comment above). And that's only one thing so far. But, I apologize for the false accusation even though it was a mistake.
(June 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm)Atheist Jew Wrote: 5. Yes, but I only did it once or twice whereas you have done it a dozen times. Big difference there.
Yes, I did post more links than you (which is not a bad thing). The links are there to provide you with additional materials if you are interested in reading them and to back up my arguments with a reference. That's all.
I had more time today so I made this post as a reply to this post. I may not continue this discussion for too long, though.
June 24, 2011 at 2:15 pm (This post was last modified: June 24, 2011 at 2:23 pm by Atheist Jew.)
1.1. "However, you did say that half of the Quran was rejected after Muhammad's death in this post (in # 2), which implies that it was altered, without ever supporting this statement. So, I want to know if you have changed your mind on whether or not half of the Quran has been rejected after Muhammad's death (or if it's just something that you're guessing is more likely to happen). Whatever it is, you should also tell me your reason for believing this."
In the section on Islam in the book "God Is Not Great-How Religion Poisons Everything" the compilation and rejection is described in detail. It is a very good book by a man who has won numerous international awards.
1.2. But they were in possession of different parts of the Quran we know today since the Quran was made up of Muhhamad's sayings which were written down by various people. Not to mention that unless you can show me a copy of the Quran that is precisely the same as the one we have today that is dated before Muhammad's death, and by this I mean anytime before he died, and not around the time before his death", then your argument is not valid. Also, why wouldn't the other manuscripts match with the Quran?
2. You do know that people can do anything within reason if they have belief? I am sure that if the Torah and the Bible were recited by a prophet and people were told to memorize the books and it was a tradition to memorize it the same results would be produced.
3. That is your opinion, since the Quran does not say that.
4. You didn't reply directly to my answer. And I said false acussation"s", since there were more then just the one you mentioned. Not to forget that two of your answers are dependent on assuming that if something was from a certain time period then it simply must be from whatever time you consider useful in your answers.
5. You still have not answered my question.
6. Shakespeare wrote all those plays without ever experiencing court life. Does that mean he wrote the divine truth?
WHAT ABOUT SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, OR TEN?
Its purely monotheistic? Unlike christianity's brand of 'polythistism disguised as monotheism' garbage ™? Problem of evil must really suck for the muslims.
There will not be any reputation wars. There used to be a negative reputation until members abused it for a flame war. There will not be another one. you will not rep someone neutrally if you are clearly not neutral about them in the comments. If you have nothing nice to say, shut up, no one wants to hear your whining. No need to allow this to derail a thread further questions PM me, otherwise continue discussion[/modhat]
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
This is bull shit. Why are atheists all of a sudden trying to put Islam on a violence pedestal. It is no better or worse than the other religions in the world! The reason all of this violence and irrational activity comes from it is due to a mixture of things, some being, the manipulation of the religion by Islamic governments to brainwash citizens, the false education given to Muslim children, the poverty of the majority of the worlds Muslims, etc...
What it is is religion mixing with hate. The Bible preaches the same inhumanity as the Qur'an but the western world is very different compared to the Muslim world.
So please stop trying to say that Islam is special! It is not the most hateful religion! It's merely only one of the great hateful religions with worshipers in terrible circumstances.
Quote:"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity. " Martin Luther King, Jr.
