I renounced my faith in the divinity of the Qur'an today
-
Peace FJ
In essence though, I believe most people on this website are no different than the Sunnis, Shias, and every other religious sect that existed in every other religion. You want to interpret your scripture in a way that suits your needs, desires, or beliefs.
This does happen sometimes. But this does not take anything away from the book itself. The failure of some to stick to the text or perhaps wrongly interpret it is not a lack of truthfulness in the book.
I believe many Quranists are changing facts to rationalize their own viewpoints.
Where?
You cannot hold assumptions about the accuracy of a people's approach to a book without assessing their methods. I don't think you've done this. I think that this is being said based on just there being different views. If this is the case, then your statement is neither accurate nor fair. If this is not the case, then what corrupt method of approach have you seen to make you think this?What makes your interpretation in ANY WAY more credible or legitimate than others?
Good methodology and objectivity (as in no bias)
This is the very same thing you accuse Sunnis and traditionalists of doing. You say their interpretation is worthless or illegitimate. What makes your interpretations or opinions any more legitimate than Yusuf Ali, Muhsin Khan, or Pickthall?
I certainly don't recall saying their interpretation is worthless. I think it has issues at verses and I can back that via evidence. Evidence being actual meanings of the word, cross-referecing with the rest of the Quran something that at times (sometimes crucial) is taken for granted amongst some sunnis and shiites.
Denying history in order to rationalize your own viewpoint of the 1400 year old book?
This is new to me with regards to that which is classified as authentic history. Thus I must ask, are you talking with info from credible history? Can I have the source please?
-
But you are the one who posted that silly video in the first place hypocrite! hahaha bravo rotfl yay
jedi
And how did you stick to the topic? By insulting some and praising other? What a contribution lol!May God be merciful on you and guide you to the right path, and heal you spiritually! sun
Seems like its impossible to get rid of you. You are such a lonely poor soul. For god sake stop stalking me, stalker. STOP STALKING ME OR I WILL CONTACT THE ADMIN!
-
Peace FJ
This does happen sometimes. But this does not take anything away from the book itself. The failure of some to stick to the text or perhaps wrongly interpret it is not a lack of truthfulness in the book.
To me it does take away something from the book. It's a vague and unclear book that can be interpreted in many ways and if the Islamic God did create this book then the Islamic God is an extremely ineffective communicator.
Where? an interpretation to support your beliefs. It may not be deliberate but it may be an inherent bias and this you cannot deny exists.
You cannot hold assumptions about the accuracy of a people's approach to a book without assessing their methods. I don't think you've done this. I think that this is being said based on just there being different views. If this is the case, then your statement is neither accurate nor fair. If this is not the case, then what corrupt method of approach have you seen to make you think this?
Good methodology and objectivity (as in no bias)And the other traditional interpretations lack good methodology? As for the objectivity I HIGHLY doubt that. If you're a Qur'an alone Muslim you are just as biased as the traditionalists in looking for an interpretation that supports your own beliefs.
For example, a word has two possible meanings. One meaning is the traditional one and there is another meaning that is not as primitive or hateful or sexist. The Qur'anist will always lean toward the non-traditional meaning whether it is deliberate or not.
I certainly don't recall saying their interpretation is worthless. I think it has issues at verses and I can back that via evidence. Evidence being actual meanings of the word, cross-referecing with the rest of the Quran something that at times (sometimes crucial) is taken for granted amongst some sunnis and shiites.
Strange how different sects have different meanings of words isn't it? Do you believe the Quranist perspective is more legitimate than the perspectives of other sects?
This is new to me with regards to that which is classified as authentic history. Thus I must ask, are you talking with info from credible history? Can I have the source please?
I haven't offered any historical information yet so I have no source to offer. Is there a place in my previous post where I offered any specific historical information contrary to the Qur'an?
Typically though, to offer credible history one must take the approach of citing multiple independent sources or cite a book that does so.
Singular sources can be accepted as historical but not necessarily as credible. For example the Bible is obviously a book containing history but the credibility of that history is questionable.
In addition to pure facts though, historians are also analysts who attempt to present claims based on few pieces of information to make educated guesses on things. For example Biblical historians take the Biblical text to make guesses about who wrote these texts by the language of the text, inherent bias of the text, writing style, opinions probably held by the writer of the text, region of where the writer was located, beliefs of the writer, etc.
This is how Biblical historians put together the current and widely accepted theory of who wrote the Bible. This is just an example I'm offering as to how we could possibly speculate history of the Qur'an and Muhammad.
-
So I guess this chapter could be considered closed and concluded.
FJ has decided to not believe in Allah/God/... and the Quran, but retain some belief in hadith in its history teaching.
Others have decided to believe in all sorts of things, including Allah/God/... and the quran.
Seems from here on it will just be a social activity of replying back and forth.Well, this is just my opinion, for what it is worth, and I guess it is worth exactly as much as anyone else's opinion.
Peace to FJ and all other folks here.
-
So I guess this chapter could be considered closed and concluded.
FJ has decided to not believe in Allah/God/... and the Quran, but retain some belief in hadith in its history teaching.
Others have decided to believe in all sorts of things, including Allah/God/... and the quran.
Seems from here on it will just be a social activity of replying back and forth.Well, this is just my opinion, for what it is worth, and I guess it is worth exactly as much as anyone else's opinion.
Peace to FJ and all other folks here.
You do understand that hadith is not the only source of history correct?
Don't straw man my position.
-
"I renounced my faith in the divinity of the Qur'an today"
Peace -- when you had faith, what was it like?
What was the main thing that made you turn? -
"I renounced my faith in the divinity of the Qur'an today"
Peace -- when you had faith, what was it like?
What was the main thing that made you turn?I believed in God for months and became certain of God because of certain situations and life experiences. I thought that at certain times I was "experiencing God" and that the evil in my life came from sin and that if I sought refuge in God I would be free from sin and evil and escape my negative lifestyle.
So I researched Christianity and Islam because those are my parents faiths. I knew nothing about either one however because my dad is non-practicing and never speaks of Islam or prayed in 30 years. I had been to church before but never really thought about Christ.
Christianity felt like nonsense with the whole sacrifice thing and Islam made sense and the ideas of justice, afterlife, and being in God's favor appealed to me. I thought it was a divine truth so I converted.
-
failtfuljinn
As for the other guy who said he knows what is a good deed from the Qur'an that proves my point that the crux of most religious peoples faiths is their holy book. They look to their holy book for answers and think it is from God. I no longer accept the idea that this book is from God.
There are billions of books that exist on earth. All of them were written by men. Why should the Qur'an be any different?
The most lame argument I ever heared for Quran being man made.
"Since their are billions of books written by men Why should be Quran so different"It is very similar to when one says
"Since billions of people make hajj piligrimage in this particular way so how could there be another method"To me mentally you are at very intial stage of analysing any thing. The people who consider Quran as man made have come up with much better argument than yours 1st or 2nd grader argument.
What I understood is that you never have studied or analysed Quran in any depth, other than few basic confusing concepts which are being discussed by masses all over the internet.
Zulf
Seems from here on it will just be a social activity of replying back and forth
So long with your Independence.
Be happy because one thing I know is what ever you believe in, research about throughly and then be sinciere.Regarding good deeds from Quran, you have to first prove that it is man made, I will be first to not look into the book for good deeds and follow your sets of good deeds, but you miserably failed to do so.
-
failtfuljinn
The most lame argument I ever heared for Quran being man made.
"Since their are billions of books written by men Why should be Quran so different"It is very similar to when one says
"Since billions of people make hajj piligrimage in this particular way so how could there be another method"To me mentally you are at very intial stage of analysing any thing. The people who consider Quran as man made have come up with much better argument than yours 1st or 2nd grader argument.
Correct. There are sure many better scholarly and philosophical arguments to deny divinity of Qur'an. I can only name my own reasons in this topic because I think for myself. I don't let others think for me nor do I claim the arguments of others as my own if that is not truly my argument.
I honestly can't think of any reason to believe the Qur'an IS from God. Did God himself publish the copy of the Qur'an you read? Did your book get beamed down from heaven?
I mean if you want someone to believe the Qur'an is from God you should offer some type of evidence or I'll lump it in with all other books that were ever written and conclude it is written and created by men.
What I understood is that you never have studied or analysed Quran in any depth, other than few basic confusing concepts which are being discussed by masses all over the internet.
Wrong. Not only did I practice Islam for 3 years but I studied it very enthusiastically.
Zulf
So long with your Independence.
Be happy because one thing I know is what ever you believe in, research about throughly and then be sinciere.Regarding good deeds from Quran, you have to first prove that it is man made, I will be first to not look into the book for good deeds and follow your sets of good deeds, but you miserably failed to do so.
Actually the burden of proof is not on me. The burden of proof is on someone making the claim that the Qur'an is divine word of God. I'm simply saying I have no evidence to believe this age old claim.
-
You do understand that hadith is not the only source of history correct?
Don't straw man my position.
-
Yes I do. But I don't consider hadith as being a very accurate source of history. I, e.g., don't believe in rocks stealing clothes and running away, or moons falling down in people's back yards, and so many other things... so the credibility of hadith as an account of actual historic events is not very strong.
-
Are there other sources claiming e.g. prophets marriages with 9 year old girls?
-
I was under the impression you take hadith, or some of it, as a reasonable historic account. Was this a misunderstanding from my side?
-
History is largely what the people who have the power to put it in writing and means to convey it to the masses, have decided is the history. You can find all sorts of angles on many historic event and times, if you dig deep enough, but only one will be mainstream, open for all who makes no extra effort to think freely, to suck up. Does this make it accurate? Why would it? That would be naive to believe. This world is not a very truthful one. If people don't mind killing each other, why would they mind lying?
Peace
-
-
To me it does take away something from the book. It's a vague and unclear book that can be interpreted in many ways and if the Islamic God did create this book then the Islamic God is an extremely ineffective communicator.
Depends on the purpose of the Book. It does at times make deliberate use of verses open to interpretation. This could be accounted by many reasons.
And the other traditional interpretations lack good methodology? As for the objectivity I HIGHLY doubt that. If you're a Qur'an alone Muslim you are just as biased as the traditionalists in looking for an interpretation that supports your own beliefs.
For example, a word has two possible meanings. One meaning is the traditional one and there is another meaning that is not as primitive or hateful or sexist. The Qur'anist will always lean toward the non-traditional meaning whether it is deliberate or not.
Well the difference is that some traditionalists when interpreting/translating fail to recognise the inconsistencies that their translation creates with the rest of the Quran. Thus they may take/interpret in favour of the sexist or hateful terms but this is with utter disregard for the many verses that explicitly state the equality between man and woman and so on. Thus your defence IMO is inaccurate.
Strange how different sects have different meanings of words isn't it? Do you believe the Quranist perspective is more legitimate than the perspectives of other sects?
Yes because it is more likely that a Quranist will have less bias from external sources taint their efforts/methodology of the intended message. For example some sects will heavily rely on the hadith, a seperate book, to render their translations EVEN THOUGH their translations would be incoherent and inconsistent with the rest of the Quran. Those without such influence and bias will focus on the scripture alone, assess root options and cross-reference more objectively thus greater odds of more accurate interpretation.
I haven't offered any historical information yet so I have no source to offer. Is there a place in my previous post where I offered any specific historical information contrary to the Qur'an
I think there was one part where you mentioned Muhammad's marriage to Aisha in a negative light, implying that he married her at 9 and also implying you belief in certain historical sources. This seemed like it needed to be back with sources IMO.
-
- Yes I do. But I don't consider hadith as being a very accurate source of history. I, e.g., don't believe in rocks stealing clothes and running away, or moons falling down in people's back yards, and so many other things... so the credibility of hadith as an account of actual historic events is not very strong.
Agreed. Many hadith are not strong evidence of actual historic events.
- Are there other sources claiming e.g. prophets marriages with 9 year old girls?
I'm not positive on this one but I would haphazardly say you're correct.
- I was under the impression you take hadith, or some of it, as a reasonable historic account. Was this a misunderstanding from my side?
Yes. I would say that you're impression is correct but not in the blanket way you seem to claim that I accept all hadith as reasonable historical accounts.
Is a hadith reasonably historical in the claim that the moon landed in Ali's backyard when Muhammad split it? Of course not. This is an outlandish claim with zero evidence.
Is a hadith reasonably historical in a claim describing the Prophet and his followers doing battle with an enemy tribe and taking their war booty? I would say this is reasonably historical given the context of the realities of that time period and region and how it fits in with not only the historical narrative but also the Qur'an (which can also be considered a historical narrative much in the same way as the Bible)
- History is largely what the people who have the power to put it in writing and means to convey it to the masses, have decided is the history. You can find all sorts of angles on many historic event and times, if you dig deep enough, but only one will be mainstream, open for all who makes no extra effort to think freely, to suck up. Does this make it accurate? Why would it? That would be naive to believe. This world is not a very truthful one. If people don't mind killing each other, why would they mind lying?
Peace
Look at what I posted to nimnimak about the Bible and how Biblical historians analyze the Bible. Just because something is not taken at face value as a 100% truthful and purely historical document does not mean it does not have historical value.
There is much to be gleamed from a text besides its own personal claims. These historians don't accept the Bible as absolutely factual yet they can still make historical claims and analyses about the book. Which is how we get Biblical scholars who come to a general consensus on who wrote the Bible and when each book was written as well as the opinions, beliefs, identities, practices, biases, and whatnot of the Biblical writers. This same method can be applied to the Qur'an and the hadith. Historians have done so and have come up with plausible Islamic historical claims.
If you have such a shallow viewpoint on history that you think there's only one way to analyze historical information from a document which is to read that document and accept everything it says, then I don't know what to say to you.
-
I honestly can't think of any reason to believe the Qur'an IS from God. Did God himself publish the copy of the Qur'an you read? Did your book get beamed down from heaven?
No he did not, these are just signs and guidance from time to time as per different situations that Prophet and Muslims encountered in early days. You have very wrong concept of Quran. I guess ZULF is saying the truth your most of the knowledge is based on Hadith.
Moreover the burden of proof lies on you because you are making a claim here that Quran is man made, and I am defending it, defendant is innocent till proven guilty.
when the Claim was made some 1500 years about Quraic Ayats that they are Divine, many people like you doubted it, and Quran has answered them and today still after so many years it exists and this is biggest proof.
Now today you are making the claim so burden of proof lies with you.
-
No he did not, these are just signs and guidance from time to time as per different situations that Prophet and Muslims encountered in early days. You have very wrong concept of Quran. I guess ZULF is saying the truth your most of the knowledge is based on Hadith.
Moreover the burden of proof lies on you because you are making a claim here that Quran is man made, and I am defending it, defendant is innocent till proven guilty.
when the Claim was made some 1500 years about Quraic Ayats that they are Divine, many people like you doubted it, and Quran has answered them and today still after so many years it exists and this is biggest proof.
Now today you are making the claim so burden of proof lies with you.
For something to be from your god you would first have to prove that your god exists.
Why would I believe the Qur'an is from your god if I don't believe the Islamic God exists?
As for you nimnimak I must say that you take an unfalsifiable position in regards to Islamic history. The only detailed recorded sources of Islamic history come from Muhammad's followers and the early hadith recorders. If you claim to deny any single claim that has a basis in these sources then your position is unfalsifiable.
In response to that though, why even believe a man named Muhammad existed in the first place? Do you accept claims about when and where he was born, what clan and tribe he comes from, his family members, how he died etc?
Do you accept claims about his wives or his marriages or any of his customs?
-
For something to be from your god you would first have to prove that your god exists.
Why would I believe the Qur'an is from your god if I don't believe the Islamic God exists?
So the best way is to prove the source wrong which makes such claims, Which you cannot.
In response to that though, why even believe a man named Muhammad existed in the first place? Do you accept claims about when and where he was born, what clan and tribe he comes from, his family members, how he died etc?
Do you accept claims about his wives or his marriages or any of his customs?
You are so impressed by psuedo intellectuals. Muhammad Peace be upon him existed and there is abundant proof regarding this, just to mention one
The Inscription Of Zuhayr - The Earliest Dated Hijz Inscription, 24 AH / 644 CE.
This is the earliest dated hijz inscription. It was written by Zuhayr "at the time of Umar's death" in 24 AH, thus mentioning the name of the second caliph. This inscription, it appears, is destined to be the most famous of all the Arabic inscriptions as the UNESCO has added it to the Memory of the World Register of Documentary Collections. The Discovery Channel also mentioned the importance of this inscription in the news.
-
So the best way is to prove the source wrong which makes such claims, Which you cannot.
You can't prove the source true which means your claim is meaningless.
You are so impressed by psuedo intellectuals. Muhammad Peace be upon him existed and there is abundant proof regarding this, just to mention one
The Inscription Of Zuhayr - The Earliest Dated Hijz Inscription, 24 AH / 644 CE.
I'm not making a claim that Muhammad never existed. I believe he existed and did many things include start a religion in Arabia and conquer and unify that area of Arabia in the 7th century. I don't believe he spoke to God.
My question is why accept some sources and deny others. Answer my questions.
Are you claiming the hadith cannot be used as any type of historical source?
Do you believe in the history of Muhammad's birth, clan and tribe relationships, family members, marriages, etc?
-
Okay I'm not going to get into a long analysis of everything you said about the term "ma malakat aymanukum" just yet. I simply use the established translations and 8 different ones all gave me the same translation.
Why would I accept your horse excrement over the horse excrement of another? They're both crap.
What a contradiction! Without analyzing you are characterizing Pazuzu's post crap. Are you looking for the truth or arguing for winning? Can't you see , Pazuzu's analysis based solely on Quran? Seems to me , all the points put forth by you are from aetheist or islam hater's webpages , with the sole aim of puting doubts on Quran and Islam.
-
What a contradiction! Without analyzing you are characterizing Pazuzu's post crap. Are you looking for the truth or arguing for winning? Can't you see , Pazuzu's analysis based solely on Quran? Seems to me , all the points put forth by you are from aetheist or islam hater's webpages , with the sole aim of puting doubts on Quran and Islam.
His analysis isn't any more relevant than anyone elses. Not only that but it goes against every single translation of the Qur'an I have.
-
Yes. I would say that you're impression is correct but not in the blanket way you seem to claim that I accept all hadith as reasonable historical accounts.
No no, I don't think you accept all hadith as reasonable, that would be beyond madness. But my opinion is that when we find outlandish and insane lies in a piece of literature, then we ought to look at the rest with caution.
Is a hadith reasonably historical in the claim that the moon landed in Ali's backyard when Muhammad split it? Of course not. This is an outlandish claim with zero evidence.
Is a hadith reasonably historical in a claim describing the Prophet and his followers doing battle with an enemy tribe and taking their war booty? I would say this is reasonably historical given the context of the realities of that time period and region and how it fits in with not only the historical narrative but also the Qur'an (which can also be considered a historical narrative much in the same way as the Bible)
It may seem reasonable because it tells about things that were common in those days. But some text that narrates about for the time periods common events.. doesn't necessarily make the specifics accurate.
If you have such a shallow viewpoint on history that you think there's only one way to analyze historical information from a document which is to read that document and accept everything it says, then I don't know what to say to you.
Shallow is to only accept the mainstream "facts". (Not that I claim that you do)
I certainly do not think there's only one way of interpretation... reading and accepting at face value. That's what one should never do with anything. That's gullible and naive, as you would agree.
So I'm not sure where you got that from.Anyhow, I think we both agree largely on historical accounts and methods, but perhaps we have a different view about the existence of an intelligent creative force.. and on the quran... but that's ok. Let's all strive to improve our understandings.
Peace n cheers
-
What a contradiction! Without analyzing you are characterizing Pazuzu's post crap. Are you looking for the truth or arguing for winning? Can't you see , Pazuzu's analysis based solely on Quran? Seems to me , all the points put forth by you are from aetheist or islam hater's webpages , with the sole aim of puting doubts on Quran and Islam.
And Qur'an & Islam, if they are truth, should stand and endure those "doubts" and prove them inconsistent, showing their superior universal truth accessible to all as God intended His message to be to all humankind and all the jinns, shouldn't they?
Sometimes the debate here infantly looks like "my toys are better then your toys"
I do not know what the problem is, whether it's the Arabic language, or something else, but Islam today is in a horrible shape and the results of Muslims and their countries is deplorable everywhere, so it seems the Qur'an has failed in its universal message of transformation of men... ???
God bless sun