Are you a Scientologist? pay a small fee to find out!
-
My point was that these stories might not have actually happened. Maybe there wasn't an actual person called "jesus" or "moses" (where are their last names anyway?) or "adam" but instead they are characters in allegorical stories told to us to help us understand the Quran's message.
We cannot verify these stories as historical accounts, which means we cannot believe in them as historical accounts. But we can verify them in our daily lives, thus we must use them as guidance to live by.
)Wa Salam
If they are not real people then why does Allah refer to them as messangers and people who came before? Did Allah send a "not human" or "un-person" (I know, its not a word, but two words used to describe an idea) for people of old to follow?
Allah says in the Quran that when messangers came to them (people, sinners, etc) they saids "Stories of the old". As in, those are mythes, it never happened. Then Allah sent upon them a chastisment.
Brother, I'm not sure if you are moslem or not, but if you are, truely when Allah says they were sent people, then they were.
If you are not moslem, then this is not a good median of communication (seeing how text has no emotion behind it and that it is very plain) to talk about such a subject.
Get back to me on this )
Allahu Akbar.
-
Am I a muslim?
It's not up to me (or you for that matter) to decide, is it?
I prefer not to call myself anything. God will name me what God sees fit. God is the best judge.
I can certainly claim to be muslim, just like billions of others do, but will that make me one?
Will I submit to God just because I say I do? of course not.
I like to avoid meaningless labels.If they are not real people then why does Allah refer to them as messangers and people who came before? Did Allah send a "not human" or "un-person" (I know, its not a word, but two words used to describe an idea) for people of old to follow?
"stories of the old" can also mean history. But basically what that verse means is that the people who say that these stories are "outdated" and have no meaning in their current lives, no relevance, they are the ones who are punished. And when we take these stories literally, when we do take the prophets as historical figures, the relevance to our lives is lost.
If they are not real people then why does Allah refer to them as messangers and people who came before? Did Allah send a "not human" or "un-person" (I know, its not a word, but two words used to describe an idea) for people of old to follow?
They are metaphors. We need to follow the examples of Adam and Moses and Jesus. They represent US in different situations. We need to look at their example so that we can make better decisions and live better lives.
-
Pheonix1, I still fail to see what proof you have of that these people never existed. Prove from the Quran that they are not real people.
You didn't understand the verse brother, maybe you understood it differently.
When Our communications are recited to him, he says Stories of those of yore.
When Our communications are recited to him, he says Stories of those of yore.The communications are the revelations. When it is recited to them "jesus was born" "Moses split the sea" "etc" they say these are just stoies of yore, mere stories of the old, of the anceint.
When Our communications are recited to him, he says Stories of those of yore.
Nay! rather, what they used to do has become like rust . upon their hearts.
Nay! most surely they shall on that day be debarred from their Lord."nay!" They are not stories of yore. They actually happened.
Those who refuse to believe it "rather, what they used to do has become like rust . upon their hearts."
Plus brother, I never said your are not a moslem. I never made a judgement about your label in your belief nor anything. I merely asked you if you were a moslem or not so I could explain more or less. Seeing how if someone is not a moslem and is trying to aquire knoweledge they need more refrences and information as opposed to someone who already knows.
"Brother, I'm not sure if you are moslem or not, but if you are,...". Like I said, I dont know if you are or aren't, dont take it personal, i really dont know who you are.
Again, like I said "(seeing how text has no emotion behind it and that it is very plain)". I dont blame you for not understanding my post. Its hard to convey emotions through text. But for Allah though
-
PEace PHoenix1
You can believe in all that you said in the above post and still believe that they were real people. So the two beliefs don't necessarily cancel each other out.
-
peace Reza,
Pheonix1, I still fail to see what proof you have of that these people never existed. Prove from the Quran that they are not real people.
I fail to see your logic. How do I prove something doesn't exist? You are the one who's saying they exist, so you provide the proof.
All I am saying is that since we have no proof of their existence, and the quran tells us to bring proof and verify, we cannot believe these people actually existed.
But maybe we'll find out later that they did. But whether they existed or not isn't the important thing. What's important is that we learn something from these examples provided in the quran.The communications are the revelations. When it is recited to them "jesus was born" "Moses split the sea" "etc" they say these are just stoies of yore, mere stories of the old, of the anceint.
I don't think this verse has anything to do with whether these things actually happened or not, but whether these stories have any relevance to our lives or not. I'm saying they do. But that relevance is only there when we look for the deeper, metaphorical meaning. That's my position. (at the moment at least...)
Plus brother, I never said your are not a moslem. I never made a judgement about your label in your belief nor anything. I merely asked you if you were a moslem or not so I could explain more or less. Seeing how if someone is not a moslem and is trying to aquire knoweledge they need more refrences and information as opposed to someone who already knows.
I know you didn't. My point was that "Muslim" is just a meaningless label. Anyone can call themselves muslims and not be one. Get my point?
Why call ourselves anything at all? -
oh whops my bad then i agree with khalil ;D
peace
-
Bismilah Al Rahman Al Raheem
Dear brother Pheonix1,
I'm becoming lost in the topic. I will post what I believe you are saying, then I want you to post what you are saying. Pretty much to recap our views.From what I understand
- You do not believe that Jesus actually existed, or that Moses parted the sea, or any of the other stories, because there is no proof of it. Correct?
- You believe that the Quran is the word of Allah, unchanged and untouched.
Once we clarify this, I will go ahead and re-explain my post, doing so now without being 100% sure of where we both stand is a bad call because we could be discussing two totally different subjects. )
Wa Salam brother.
-
if you havent seen it allready. This actually delivers a sharp, sharp image of scientology.
http//www.xenutv.com/cruise/sp-closet.htm southpark, in the closet. that cost them chef (he is scientologist) and was threatened and fought by tom tom cruise
-
peace magi,
I've watched that. Hilarious. Chef is a hypocrite. South Park has done every religion before this and when they do his, he starts talking about the show being "offensive."Reza,
From what I understand
-
You do not believe that Jesus actually existed, or that Moses parted the sea, or any of the other stories, because there is no proof of it. Correct?
-
You believe that the Quran is the word of Allah, unchanged and untouched.
-
I think that they are allegorical stories. But even if they did happen ( I can't be 100% sure), we have to take them as allegories to gain meaning from them.
-
It's a fact that the Quran has been touched and changed (maybe only a little bit but still). But is it the word of God? I don't know.
All I can say is this the TRUTH is from God. We have to verify the Quran. If it's true, then it is from God. We cannot blindly believe in it.
-
-
Bismilah
I seek refuge in Allah, from Satan, the rejected
Salam aleykom brother,
Who touched? When did they touch it? Where? Which verses have been touched? Where is the proof for this, brother?Elaborate, please.
(This is) an Arabic Qur?an with no distortion in it, so that hopefully they will guard against evil. (392
Will they not ponder the Qur?an? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found many inconsistencies in it. (482)Prove that the Qur'an is changed.
Allahu Akbar!
-
I'm well aware of different "versions."
I'm not sure your knowledge on Arabic or basic Arabic.
From my understanding of old Arabic, there were no accents, but it was presumed to be there.Take the word David for example. In OLD arabic, David would be written as "dvd". Even today, in Farsi people dont put accents because they know "dvd" is david. Everyone knows its not Dooveed, because it has no meaning. They know its not DAAVAAD, because it has no meaning. They know its not DEEVOOD, because it has no meaning. It is simply David. So as the language progressed so did the Arabic Qur'an. The word "dvd" remained the same, but to be read easier it now has "David". It has the "A" and the "I"
Lets consider the article, it does a great job explaining the doubt, but remember that the original Arabic still remains today.For one, who is "THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO THE TRANSMISSION OF IMAM WARSH"?
2nd, what is his credibility?3rd - The article only shows how some words "changed"
Thats like saying Allah trasmitted this message
"The brown fox is fast"
but it was changed to
"The brown fox is fsat"Its just a mistake, not by Allah, not by man changing it purposely, but by the COPYIST. So the ORIGINAL says the same thing AND the "changed"/"altered version", but the message is STILL that the brown fox is fast."
4th- For someone to make such a huge claim, all I see is Arabic words. When someone makes claims, they should support it with DIRECT photos from BOTH books, not just words....
This seems identical to the QuranBrowser some Christianity missionaries made and then "found mistakes" inside it by translating words into what they want.
Still not convinced brother, this proof has more holes than the WHOLEYBible
-
Salam
No brother, you completely missed my point. There is no change in the Quran, only progession of the language of Arabic. The words are still the same, and if they aren't, there is no proof of that, that site does a HORRIBLE job of "proving". They proved nothing at all other than make false claims without backing it up.
Language is bound to change, but that doesn't mean that the Quran in Arabic has, by any stretch of the imagination.
"But the changes are still there, aren't they?"
no, they aren't. I fail to see any change...if by adding the accents to words to make it easier to read and the progression of the language, then you are wrong. That is not change in Allah's word. Change is this"Do not walk on the water with your feet"
to this
"Do not swim under water with your shoes"That is what change is, not mistakes by copyists, or progression of language.
brother, the fact that you were pointing out wasn't a fact, it was a misunderstanding on your behalf and an absolute lie from the article/lack of showing proof. If someone has such a huge claim like that, they need proof, not just words spelled differently.
Wa salam.
-
wow Reza
That made so much sense i never thought of it that way!
jazak Allah kheir bro
indeed it's true, arabic was written like that, and later became more sophisticated. the words are the same and the meaning is the same.
phenomenal
i'm actually enjoying both sides of this debate very much because my beliefs lie somewhere in the middle here
keep up the good work guys
-
Bismilah Al Rahman Al Raheem
I seek refuge in Allah, from Satan, the rejected.brother, real ALL of this.
Wa Salam
Why is that?Lol. brother, I cant explain WHY, but I can show you that it has. It's not hard to see at all by just recalling books you've read in school. Remember shakespear? Compare his english to english now. If anyone tells me it has remained the same, they are either blind or illiterate. It is grossly obvious that language has changed. What about grammer and spelling? Yeah, that too. Again, look at the grammer and spelling used. They may be simmilar, but they they have changed.
I can show a perfect example. Go back 100 years. What was the definition of gay? Happy, joyful. Now what is it also used as? Homosexual. Among people it is used as homosexual, happy, and even someone who someone else dislikes.
yeah, I know what your going to say, "but it still means happy". Yeah, it obviously does, that doesn't mean that language hasn't changed. The fact that it is used as homosexual now is profound evidence.
Do we in our day to day lives talking to friends use "Thou"? Do you normally go to your friend and ask "Art thou in thine house?" Do you even speak like that in your everyday life? Clearly not from your posts.
As for "WHY" it changes. My linguistics teacher didn't know why. So to ask me, is something. Plus, the reason WHY it changes is not even relevant to the actual changing and what we are talking about.
Also, "Differences between British English and American English
Main article American and British English differencesAmerican English has many spelling differences from English as used elsewhere (especially British English), some of which were made as part of an attempt to make more rational the spelling used in Britain at the time. Unlike many 20th century language reforms (for example, Turkey's alphabet shift, Norway's spelling reform) the American spelling changes were not driven by government, but by textbook writers and dictionary makers. Spelling tendencies in Britain from the 17th century until the present day (e.g. -ise for -ize, programme for program, kerb for curb (noun), skilful for skillful, chequered for checkered, etc.), in some cases favored by the francophile tastes of 19th century Victorian England, had little effect on American English.
The first American dictionary was written by Noah Webster in 1828. At the time the United States was a relatively new country and Webster's particular contribution was to show that the region spoke a different dialect from Britain, and so he wrote a dictionary with many spellings differing from the standard. Many of these changes were initiated unilaterally by Webster.
Webster also argued for many "simplifications" to the idiomatic spelling of the period. Many, although not all, of his simplifications fell into common usage alongside the original versions with simple spelling modifications.
Some words with simplified spellings in American English are words such as center, color, and maneuver, which are spelled centre, colour, and manoeuvre in other forms of English.
American English also has many lexical differences from British English (BrE). American English sometimes favors words that are morphologically more complex, whereas British English uses clipped forms, such as AmE transportation and BrE transport or where the British form is a back-formation, such as AmE burglarize and BrE burgle (from burglar)."
It is the same English, it is clear that they spell things differntly too? If someone spelled "color" as "colour", what does that mean? That the language is changed in terms of spelling. Maybe even prononciation. But when we say, "I like to color" is EXACTLY the SAME THING as "I like to colour".
"In many ways, compared to British English, American English is conservative in its phonology. Dialect in North America is most distinctive on the East Coast of the continent; this is partly because these areas were in contact with England, and imitated prestigious varieties of British English at a time when those varieties were undergoing changes."
"The interior of the country was settled by people who were no longer closely connected to England, as they had no access to the ocean during a time when journeys to Britain were always by sea. As such, the inland speech is much more homogeneous than the East Coast speech and did not imitate the changes in speech from England."
Language changes whether you admit to it or not, brother. But the fact still remains, the Quran is unchanged in its meaning and the words are still the same whether its missing 1 dot or 2, one dash or 15.
If I wryte lyke this, duz this meen that this iz diferint frum this If I write like this, does this mean that this is different from this.
Clearly not, the spelling changes, but the meaning is the EXACTLY same.
Allahu Akbar and inshaAllah you will read ALL my post and not pieces or just the highlighten portions.
And brother BOOST, All praise and thanks be to Allah. ).