My case for treating them as fictional...
-
peace everyone
By "them" I mean the prophets. Abraham, Moses, Jesus etc.
The thing is, in the quran, god asks us for PROOF again and again ("...bring forth your proof if you are truthful...". But regarding these people, it gives us no proof of their existence.
To me, that means that the quran isn't trying to prove these people as actual people from history, and so we can safely assume that whether they existed or not is unimportant and irrelevant to the message of the quran.
So we have to look at them as characters in a fiction book. Everything they do, and everything that is mentioned about them, is for a reason. Everything is there for the underlying message.
Let's discuss.sincerely,
Kafir bound to hell and a clear cut enemy of Allah.
peacebravo
-
LObster, I do think your a good person but be careful with too much questioning it becomes doubt,, a little scepticism is good but can lead to blind bias against any truth.
I also read his introduction on the wall of shame. He is CCEOA....Alhamdulillah
-
Lobby,why wouldnt 'god' tell folks lessons from real people in history?I personally find a real lesson form real people carries more weight than fiction,and surely god had all the examples in mans long history to choose from to make his underlying message apparent? If we say the quran is metaphorical or teaches by fiction then i would have to say is 'god' the author of confusion? I mean,metaphors/fictions can be interpreted to mean anything by anyone,and thus the objectivity and criterion status of the book disappears......
Also,this insistence on verification/evidence (which i agree with of course.) is counterproductive to the book because most folks cannot bring real evidence or verification for one god,never mind the quran.......This is where the 19 ers have a point (though only theoretical.) in that there should be some kind of protected infallible code to back up/verify the quran somewhat....
At least kyle only follows the parts of the book which he can verify....
Finally,if the quran wants us not to follow anything unless verified (1736.) then how can we have faith in the whole book(which is a requirement of the quran.) when it has not all beeen verified,and probably never will. (and thats without going into the parts which can be verified as wrong...)
Why would god give us intellect,heart and understanding,ask us to use them,and then doom us to hell/suffering when we use those faculties but come to a different conclusion....... ???
ps; being a good person has nothing to do with being religious....... -
(and thats without going into the parts which can be verified as wrong...)
Really? Start a thread on that, and list all these parts that are verified to be wrong.
I understand Lobster's point - though they may have existed, these people are relatively irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
-
What,start a thread so you guys can give your subjective apologetics on every verse? For every verse you have 5 opinions,have you seen a stick turn into a snake by the way,or the verified benefits of lashing 'fornicators'?
Do you know the difference between 'faith' and verification? -
Lobby,why wouldnt 'god' tell folks lessons from real people in history?I personally find a real lesson form real people carries more weight than fiction,and surely god had all the examples in mans long history to choose from to make his underlying message apparent?
peace Enquirer, well first you have to ask the question, "did god write the quran?" The answer may very well be no.
And maybe the people are real. Maybe the author, whoever it was, searched through history for examples. But two things- even if we are supposed to believe these people are real, it is not an important part of the message. Actually, it's not part of the message at all. And the belief in these people is not belief in their existence, but belief in their example.
Stephen Colbert once said "I believe in America....I believe it exists." He is a comedian and that was a joke. - the quran puts so much emphasis on proof, but doesn't give us any. which only means that we don't need any proof to understand what it's saying. So obvisouly we don't have to believe in their existence.
Also,this insistence on verification/evidence (which i agree with of course.) is counterproductive to the book because most folks cannot bring real evidence or verification for one god,never mind the quran.......This is where the 19 ers have a point (though only theoretical.) in that there should be some kind of protected infallible code to back up/verify the quran somewhat....
Well, the quran says that god is the ultimate truth. So if we keep learning more and more through verification, we'll get there.
The 19ers don't have any point because even if there is a miraculous code (there isn't, and the fact that they have to take out verses to make it fit is pretty good proof of that, although there's more), even if that code proves that the quran is from a higher intelligence than human beings, we still don't know if it's true or not. Maybe that higher intelligence is an alien life form? maybe it's a god who is lying to us? Who knows? The only way to know if the quran is true is by verification. Period.Finally,if the quran wants us not to follow anything unless verified (1736.) then how can we have faith in the whole book(which is a requirement of the quran.) when it has not all beeen verified,and probably never will. (and thats without going into the parts which can be verified as wrong...)
I don't think it's a requirement. But like Kyle, I will only follow what I know is true from this book. There are things in the quran that, at least if taken literally, that I think just don't work. That doesn't mean I can't follow the other stuff or we can't try to learn from the rest of the book. If we have a source, we should take all we can from it.
ps; being a good person has nothing to do with being religious.......
I don't know.
OPF, I don't know if that was actually my point.
And thanks for the recommmendation Samia. Could you spell his name without using numbers? And I think I agree with him. We can all be like those great men. That's why they're mentioned.
- even if we are supposed to believe these people are real, it is not an important part of the message. Actually, it's not part of the message at all. And the belief in these people is not belief in their existence, but belief in their example.
-
As normal lobby,your views are not concordant with those of any quran following fellow,except for kyle.....No wonder ahmed got upset..... ;D
However,i do feel you are stuck on the quran,i mean you seem to be trying everything to make it a decent book,even saying things which really are against the principles of the book,such as saying maybe god didnt author it,or such as only believing those part you verify,this contradicts having faith in the whole book(which the quran also seems to be suggesting in 1736,but this seems an internal contradiction so its not your fault!)....But anyway,i know you are a genuine seeker and an open-minded bloke.... -
peace enquirer,
I don't think I'm "stuck" with the quran, and if there's something that I know is wrong, I won't try to make it seem decent. But the thing is, I think the quran is saying something other than what some people believe, or at least it could be saying that, so I have to do whatever it is that I'm doing right now. I don't think what I said contradicts any of the quran's principles or ideas. The thing is, the quran tells us to believe in the truth, and it CLAIMS to be true, to have been inspired by god. So we have to test that claim.
thanks. -
Fair enough lobby,i did go through this phase myself for some time on this forum,i just dont want you to go round in circles or be scared of 'letting go'......It helped me to study theology and verify if that made sense,also do you still feel the quran can be objective and how would you go about finding its objective message.....?
Remeber,we can read what we want on to the book.....I do also feel you do go away from the general message of what most say the quran is saying...Maybe your a quranic mystic like kyle?
ps; i know we all need to go through our own research and journey,just feel i will give you some food on the journey... -
Peace Lobster,
while I agree that whether the stories are true or not is irrelevant but if you check the QXP translation Shabir quotes many examples to try and prove that the quran contains accurate history.
Whether he is going to be biased >D or >D misleading is something i don't know. I remember reading about the Egyption pyramids and historians say that slaves did not build them, but according to the Judeo-Christian tradition they were built by slaves, that's why so many people believe that they were built by slaves even though they actually won't.
-
attributes are proven through their embodiment
Explain, please.
Angel,
while I agree that whether the stories are true or not is irrelevant but if you check the QXP translation Shabir quotes many examples to try and prove that the quran contains accurate history.
QXP says a lot of things that the quran doesn't say. I like QXP, but a lot of times it stops being a translation and becomes an interpretation/explanation, and the angle that's taken by Shabbir (and Arnold) I just don't agree with.
I think everyone's biased, at least a little bit.
The quran's like poetry. TO actually understand what the author was trying to say, we have to read it carefully, concentrating on each word individually and try (we can only try) to understand what the words meant to the author, not what they mean to others or to ourselves. It's really hard to do that, and with a book as old as the quran, I'd say nearly impossible. And even if one does read it without any biases or preconceptions, different interpretations are still possible. But as far as the quran being a moral guide goes, I don't think it matters what the quran is actually saying, as long as we believe in the right things. -
Peace Lobster,
By "them" I mean the prophets. Abraham, Moses, Jesus etc.
The thing is, in the quran, god asks us for PROOF again and again ("...bring forth your proof if you are truthful...". But regarding these people, it gives us no proof of their existence.
To me, that means that the quran isn't trying to prove these people as actual people from history, and so we can safely assume that whether they existed or not is unimportant and irrelevant to the message of the quran.
So we have to look at them as characters in a fiction book. Everything they do, and everything that is mentioned about them, is for a reason. Everything is there for the underlying message.
Let's discuss.There are three types of statements
- Verifiable as true.
- Unverifiable.
- Verifiable as false.
From a historical prespective a statement such as "John said pigs can fly" can be verifiable as true because perhaps we can prove that John actually said that, despite the content itself being false. You see history is not concerned with content.
On the other hand, from a historical prespective, the accounts of the lives of the prophets in the great reading can be considered "unverifiable". So I can argue that they are true and you can argue that they are false and no one can decisevely win such arguments. But then when you think about it, so are all historical accounts of the lives of any person. For example, even modern figures, say Rashad Khalifa or Abraham Lincoln, people differ greatly on the "historical" account of their lives.
The great reading is clearly not recounting the history of those prophets. If you read one of the many books that were written about the stories of the prophets, you will see right away that 99.9% of the story is not from the great reading. In some cases, just the name of the prophet and one or two lines from an entire 100 page book has some basis in the great reading.
The only account that remotely resembles a story is that of Joseph in Chapter 12. But even there, much detail from a historical account point of view is not present so the objective of Chapter 12 is clearly not to give us a historical account of Joseph's live.
As I said, history is not concerned with content while the great reading is primarily concerned with content and the lessons learned. So in the great reading you find the events of the story of Adam recounted in different ways and same with other stories such as that of Moses. In each way of recounting the story, you get a different prespective and lessons learned and there is no chronological order in the great reading. This is exactly the opposite approach of recounting history where historians are trying to get to as nicely linear and standard as possible story.
So the criteria that you are using to determine what is true and what is false in historical accounts is not appropriate for the great reading. In fact, even using this criteria for historical accounts, you will certainly get many true historical accounts that are completely useless. Just think about it. For example, if you were to write a history of your own life to provide lessons for your future children and grandchildren. Would you put it as follows
- I was born on so and so date and here is the copy of my birth certificate to verify it.
- I graduated from High School on so and so date with a so and so GPA and here is the diploma to verify it.
- I worked as a so and so for this long and here are my tax documents and pay stubs to verify it.
- I married Miss X on this date and here is a copy of our marriage certificate to verify it as true.
- I had so many children and here is their respective birth certificates to verify it as true.
- Postscript by your children Our father died on so and so date and here is his death certificate to verify it.
Is this the legacy that you want to leave for the next generations? Or would you prefer to leave them something more useful? Why do you assume that Abraham and all the prophets would want something less than you?
I would prefer to leave for my children and grandchildren something about me that has some useful wisdom in its content.
The great reading is not a history book. It is a book of wisdom. I know that everything in it is true because it is all wise.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salam.
Lobster, i believe that these men did exist and i would ask you to check it before you say anything, you always have to verify stuff when you receive it, even if someone tells you it's a sunny day outside or snowing, don't just accept it and live by it, no, go outside and check it over and over untill you are 100% sure. 150% sure.
Ask The Exalted God Most Merciful to forgive you, pray, He has always answered my prayers, God always listens, He listens to the prayers of the believers. And be patient.
Peace.
-
peace Ayman,
I totally agree with you (unless I misunderstood you).
I was saying that the quran's point is not to show that these people are real, and that we MUST believe in their historical existence (maybe we disagree here?). I think that whether they existed or not is irrelevant. That's not what the quran is focussing on, because then it would give us evidence, it would give us the birth certificates and the diplomas and everything. It doesn't. So obviously, it is the underlying message of these accounts that we must focus on.
I say we should just forget that these people ever existed. Then only can we look at the quran without any preconceptions. -
Peace Lobster,
I totally agree with you (unless I misunderstood you).
I was saying that the quran's point is not to show that these people are real, and that we MUST believe in their historical existence (maybe we disagree here?). I think that whether they existed or not is irrelevant. That's not what the quran is focussing on, because then it would give us evidence, it would give us the birth certificates and the diplomas and everything. It doesn't. So obviously, it is the underlying message of these accounts that we must focus on.
I say we should just forget that these people ever existed. Then only can we look at the quran without any preconceptions.Do you think that whether you existed or not is irrelevant? What would make your own existence relevant?
Let me slightly rephrase something I said earlier
The great reading is not a history book. It is a book of wisdom. I know that everything in it is true (including the existence of prophets) because it is all wise.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace,
Do you think that whether you existed or not is irrelevant? What would make your own existence relevant?
Relevant to what?
If I left my children lessons from my life, does it matter whether I existed or not? Those lessons would hold true anyway.The great reading is not a history book. It is a book of wisdom. I know that everything in it is true (including the existence of prophets) because it is all wise.
Okay, I understand you. But still, just because the message is true, doesn't mean the characters actually existed. That's why I brought up fiction writing. A lot of times the stories contain lessons, but the people in it never actually existed. They are symbols. They either represent concepts or ideas, or they represent us in certain situations.
That's why I think it's irrelevant.
Only what the reading says about them is relevant to its message. The rest only comes in the way. -
Peace Phoenix, all,
I agree with you that the actual existence of any of the prophets and messengers is irrelevant as far as the underlying message is concerned. And actual proof of any history can never really be 100% guaranteed as a true account. Documents can be forged, testimony could be coerced, embellished, or just plain imagined, etc. Taking this path of thought to the most extreme, even your life and everyone/thing around you could be a figment of your own imagination. At the end of the day, it's all about you and how you interact with (and hopefully evolve from) your own mind.
Nevertheless, I kinda disagree with this
I say we should just forget that these people ever existed. Then only can we look at the quran without any preconceptions.
I don't think believing anyone actually existed interferes with the guidance of the qur'an. It's only when one becomes obsessed with the details that the message is lost. But to just say, "OK, Ibrahim was a real person", really does not take away from nor add preconception to one's qur'anic studies.
I think the history, even if cloudy, sets the backdrop for the mind to imagine the stories being told. In mentally visualizing, we watch the inner movie and then look for the guidance within.
Peace,
Tay