How Authentic is the Quran?
-
The article is an objective piece of information open to scrutiny
Objective article? It was written by a person. Can any man-made article be objective?
if you feel that it is inaccurate you're welcome to challenge it with some historical references of your own.
Sorry, i dont trust any historical source for this. The Quran doesnt allow it but its ok for traditionalists.
However, character assasination, especially one based entirely on the archaic and darkagesque idea of "prove your innocence" will get you nowhere. What motive does Muir, a person who criticises Islam in every turn have in praising the Qur'an for its authentic preservation?
Once again, from the top
I DONT KNOW MUIR, YOU DONT KNOW MUIR. USING HIM BECAUSE HE AGREES WITH YOU SHOWS HOW INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST YOU ARE. GOD ALREADY PROVIDES A SYSTEM OF VERIFICATION. IT DOESNT INCLUDE MUIR'S NAME IN IT.
whew...
However, character assasination, especially one based entirely on the archaic and darkagesque idea of "prove your innocence" will get you nowhere. What motive does Muir, a person who criticises Islam in every turn have in praising the Qur'an for its authentic preservation?
so i'll spend my life researching these people. is that what god told me to do? ah, im assuming u care what God told us..silly of me,
-
Objective article? It was written by a person. Can any man-made article be objective?
Do you know what "objective article" means? The term "objective" here isn't used as an adjective for the word "article", but rather "objective article" is the term for an article that does not discuss personal values but seeks to explain an issue using evidence.
Sorry, i dont trust any historical source for this. The Quran doesnt allow it but its ok for traditionalists.
Lol.
I DONT KNOW MUIR, YOU DONT KNOW MUIR. USING HIM BECAUSE HE AGREES WITH YOU SHOWS HOW INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST YOU ARE. GOD ALREADY PROVIDES A SYSTEM OF VERIFICATION. IT DOESNT INCLUDE MUIR'S NAME IN IT.
Turn your caps lock key off, it makes you look severely impeded. And I wasn't using "him", I was using the article firstly as an objective source of information pertaining to the preservation of Qur'an and I cited his reputation because he clearly has no motive for putting Islam on a 'good' light. You need to understand what people are saying before hitting "reply" and filling the textbox up with capslocked-drivel.
so i'll spend my life researching these people. is that what god told me to do? ah, im assuming u care what God told us..silly of me,
If you want to make a claim of course you have to research into it. We don't live in 1300 England; you don't just brand people heretics left and right because you're a lazy sod. If you make a statement, prepare to back yourself up. Muir made a series of statements and he provided proof for his statements (for a full list of reference read the book from which it was quoted - yes I know reading is arduous but one of these days you must). Seriously, you're sounding quite ignorant sitting there going "no i wont believe you i wont ever believe you and i dont want to know why".
So my challenge still stands if you want to prove the article wrong, provide some factual evidence to counter it. Else, shut up.
-
With due respects to you, Jaxal, can you not find this thread for us all?
LT, all someone has to do is ASK ME. Just like i ASK other members. ASK and ye shall be given http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif
I am asking you Jaxal -)
Thanks.Regards,
-
Do you know what "objective article" means? The term "objective" here isn't used as an adjective for the word "article", but rather "objective article" is the term for an article that does not discuss personal values but seeks to explain an issue using evidence.
Oh gosh , Neo. You're more like Cypher than Neo, I think. Even the choice of words in his expression is a personal value, to say nothing of his epistemological choices. Every decision you make is a reflection of personal value and this bunkum about academic neutrality is good to keep people like you as eternal information consumers.
Turn your caps lock key off, it makes you look severely impeded. And I wasn't using "him", I was using the article firstly as an objective source of information pertaining to the preservation of Qur'an and I cited his reputation because he clearly has no motive for putting Islam on a 'good' light. You need to understand what people are saying before hitting "reply" and filling the textbox up with capslocked-drivel.
Once again, YOU NEVER MET HIM. Perhaps he was saying it to suck up to some Arab guy. Im not saying this happened but im saying, if you believe Allah and his verses, Muir really IS as irrelevant as your favourite colour. The fact that you bring him here tells us that you don't care what Allah says. Ok, that's fine, but do be honest about it. Dont hide behind academia.
If you want to make a claim of course you have to research into it. We don't live in 1300 England; you don't just brand people heretics left and right because you're a lazy sod. If you make a statement, prepare to back yourself up. Muir made a series of statements and he provided proof for his statements (for a full list of reference read the book from which it was quoted - yes I know reading is arduous but one of these days you must). Seriously, you're sounding quite ignorant sitting there going "no i wont believe you i wont ever believe you and i dont want to know why".
Lazy? Ok, if you think so. To me, I've done my work and it brought me to one conclusion. Man-authored texts will get you nowhere. The thing to do is to follow Allah's path and act on it, not be stuck with these flowery reports. Allah already warned us (6/112-113) and told us what to do (6/114) but I supposed we need to ask you to get Muir to provide the tafseer for us.
So my challenge still stands if you want to prove the article wrong, provide some factual evidence to counter it. Else, shut up.
That's just it. Im not proving the article wrong or right. This article is not my furqaan and Muir is not my god or prophet. Im just saying, MUSLIMS DONT NEED THIS. If you think they do and u think of urself as one who believes in the Quran, please provide evidence. Else, shut up.
-
See how easy it is mquran?
There you go Differences in the Quran. and Changes In The Quran
Did you actually read the thread Jaxal? If you did, you would have noticed that I've already responded to them. I will now ask you, since you claim to have read those two threads already What is your criteria for saying the Quran has been altered?
-
My criteria is very simple and straight forward. Addition or subtraction of a word constitues alteration. That is just comon sense.
Sigh..i'll start again
-
Do you believe the Quran at present time has been altered?
-
If you do, please tell me what makes you think so? What is your evidence for this? What tells u the present Quran has been altered. Please dont define 'altered' again, if you can help it.
-
-
Why do u want me to keep repeating myself? The very nature of this discussion provides the answer to first question. And the links i have given answers ur seconds question.
Fair enough. So you DO believe the present Quran has been altered. Good.
Secondly, the links you provided say this, essentially That there are MANUSCRIPTS in certain places which are different from the 'modern quran' so to speak.
Now, this is something which hasn't been said WHY do you believe this? Given the situation, I will rephrase for your convenience what makes you choose to believe this person's assertion over God's assertion?
-
SaLaM mquran
I will choose to believe the evidence not the person. Lets get that straight. Even before this, i knew there were alterations in the Quran. letters were added to make the pronounciation easier for the people in countries such as africa. Its the different pronounciation of the Quran. Im sure you know about it. Even sunnis admit to that. They just choose to beleive that it is ok to add letters to the Quran as to make it easier to pronounce.
-
I will choose to believe the evidence not the person. Lets get that straight. Even before this, i knew there were alterations in the Quran. letters were added to make the pronounciation easier for the people in countries such as africa. Its the different pronounciation of the Quran. Im sure you know about it. Even sunnis admit to that. They just choose to beleive that it is ok to add letters to the Quran as to make it easier to pronounce.
So from what SUNNIS admit to you, you believe the Quran has been altered ? What Allah tells u is not worth the bother, right?
Excellent, Jaxal. You reveal more of yourself day by day. -
SaLam mquran
Why shouldnt i beleive them if they can provide me the evidence? Can you refute that evidence? I havent seen anyone refute that evidence. Unlike you, i dont care where the evidence comes from. As long as its accurate. Now, unless you or anyone on this forum can bring a counter proof to that, you dont really have much to say apart from it being a sunni source or a christian source. http//www.geocities.com/bigjaxal/s1.gif
-
Why shouldnt i beleive them if they can provide me the evidence? Can you refute that evidence? I havent seen anyone refute that evidence. Unlike you, i dont care where the evidence comes from. As long as its accurate. Now, unless you or anyone on this forum can bring a counter proof to that, you dont really have much to say apart from it being a sunni source or a christian source.
Actually, I don't care where evidence comes from either. However, with reference to the underlined section in the above quote, 'as long as its accurate', i'd like to ask you these questions
-
what determines accuracy?
-
who sets the criteria for this determination?
-
-
Why dont you show me something to refute this evidence brought forward. Then we can talk about determining whats accurate or not
No no, this has nothing to do with my views yet. YOU claim this evidence is accurate (please see above). Don't you know WHY its accurate. Is it accurate because they told you so? Why can't you tell us why its accurate? Or can any devil beguile you with words and u'll believe him (6/112-113) ?
-
Not that it would matter. But i have seen the difference with my own eyes. Now, you prove to me its wrong
So any idiot can produce a goatskin with quranic writings on it and you'd use that as evidence ? As long as its in a museum , of course? Is that right , Jaxal ?
Tell me where the Quran says we should use these 'manuscripts' for proof of its authenticity. For the very first time in our discussion, lets bring God into it.
-
Everything is wrong. You are right
Jaxal, you're a big waste of time. The truth is, you have no idea why you believe in anything. That's not a problem in itself as long as you're willing to self-examine, rather than keep evading the issue. If I were you, I do some reading, some thinking and ponder on the Quran. Actually open it if you believe its from Allah and take your concepts from there. Im more than willing to answer your directly because I have the evidence and thus can speak for myself. If im wrong, show me why and i will correct my views. I dont post threads which i've never read and expect that to be my answer. That kind of thing is the sole domain of empty vessels.