I renounced my faith in the divinity of the Qur'an today
-
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
-
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.
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.
I agree with this statement.
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
Yes I guess we can agree.
I may have to let this thread die and create a new one focused on just the existence of a god or creator being.
Even when I lost faith in Qur'an I initially tried to retain faith in a creator god. Now though I doubt the existence of any type of god as well. I'll have to create a new thread about that.
Thank you Zulf. If there is a God though I highly doubt it is the God of the Qur'an. If your God is real I have no trouble standing before him on Judgment Day for if he is Ar-Rahim the Most Merciful he will surely forgive me for not believing in his irrational and unclear revelations which are highly vague and disputable for which He provided me no evidence.
-
FJ,
I like your signature line.
I like it too! (it sounds quite Sufi to me...and I like that)
I also like @Faithful Jinn's way of debating in a calm, honest, sincere and civilized way with intelligent arguments.
I think God doesn't want blind, brainwashed followers shaped by a baseless faith... Why? Because He gave us the free will and freedom of choice, to test us!
The Qur'an itself states that when in doubt one should go and ask people of the Book!
I think it is always healthy to reread the Torah, since it is the very first Holy Scripture received directly from God witnessed by thousands of people! ) -
peace!
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... ???
...or most or many people have failed in being open to Allah's guidance and thus failed at understanding the quran, and just made a mockery out of it by following conjecture and lies, and stopped thinking and using their common sense. Sheep mentality and closed minds don't lead to greatness and freedom. We should not expect the quran, or anything else, to solve humanity's problems. It's just a book with text. And there will never be a thing that will conclusively show the light to everyone. The responsibility is on each one of us to grow and gain understanding. We need to stop blaming the outside. We cannot blame Allah or some scripture for the failures of each one of us. This is a highly useless, dis-empowered victim mentality. As long as we expect something outside ourselves to solve our problems, they will never get solved. That's immaturity. Let's grow up and stop thinking like sulky children in adult bodies. This is not the case only with religion. It is a mindset within oneself which reflects in ALL aspects of one's life... and especially relationships I tend to think.
It's just a matter of perspective.
All the best!
-
FJ,
Please forgive me if I am somehow discourteous by butting in here?
I am not a Qu'ranist nor is my knowledge of the Holy book deep or learned.
My experience of God comes through a different medium. If this is discounted here or by you I apologise for wasting your time or breaking forum etiquette.
It would seem that contrary to many claims that Qu'ranists are deeply influenced by a historical and cultural bias.
Many of the more mystical traditions (experiential as opposed to intellectual traditions if you will) would interpret what constitutes Allah, God etc whichever label we prefer in a very different sense The Dharmakaya of Buddhism or the consciousness that permeates the universe in Quantum physics.
Would it be worthwhile in looking at this through a different lens or from a different angle that may offer not just a fresh perspective but a means to read afresh the Qu'ran within a different paradigm?Just a small thought from someone who gained an unshakeable faith through many faiths.
Salaam Brother
-
FJ,
Please forgive me if I am somehow discourteous by butting in here?
I am not a Qu'ranist nor is my knowledge of the Holy book deep or learned.
My experience of God comes through a different medium. If this is discounted here or by you I apologise for wasting your time or breaking forum etiquette.
It would seem that contrary to many claims that Qu'ranists are deeply influenced by a historical and cultural bias.
Many of the more mystical traditions (experiential as opposed to intellectual traditions if you will) would interpret what constitutes Allah, God etc whichever label we prefer in a very different sense The Dharmakaya of Buddhism or the consciousness that permeates the universe in Quantum physics.Quantum physics makes no scientific claim of any type of "consciousness" that permeates the universe.
Furthermore none of these beliefs like the one of the Dharmakaya of Buddhism or the universal mind called the Brahman of Hinduism have any type of evidence to support them. Like all religious claims they are unfounded and contain zero evidence.
Would it be worthwhile in looking at this through a different lens or from a different angle that may offer not just a fresh perspective but a means to read afresh the Qu'ran within a different paradigm?
Just a small thought from someone who gained an unshakeable faith through many faiths.
Salaam Brother
It is definitely a perspective I have explored and actually kind of embraced as I have always tended toward the pantheistic world view of the Sufis in which all paths lead to God who could also be known as the Universal Consciousness but I have no reason to believe that other than because I choose to believe it. It is just a baseless spiritual claim.
Do you have any evidence for why I should believe in a universal consciousness such as you're describing?
-
FJ,
Firstly I am afraid that quite a few quantum physicists posit consciousness permeating the universe, a quantum mind if you will. I will be quite happy to offer sources if you think I am being less than honest.Secondly I was suggesting an experiential paradigm shift. That by utilising certain methodologies one can see the world in a very different way.
I see that you ask me for proof.....well if I were to offer proof it would be anecdotal. Of what use would that be to you?
If you do not see the merit in this fine, I am only relating what I have found to open up new vistas of enquiry and faith.
I have no axe to grind nor have I anything to prove.
I have found that certain forms of experiential enquiry can be very useful in how we see the universe and ourselves.
The paradigm shifts these elicit are often accompanied by 'eureka' moments where are deepening realisations can bring both understanding and faith (I mean faith based on experience and intellect)
Evidence for universal consciousness? As I am sure you are aware numerous scientists posit just that and listing them or their theories would be fruitless.
I was suggesting that this evidence based purely intellectual approach to God is fundamentally flawed.
If it has lead you to a spiritual dead end vis-a-vis a knowledge of the divine what would you lose by approaching it from a different angle.
Of course I fully understand that you may find such a suggestion silly, superstitious or illogical even.
However what does it matter if we appear silly, many superstitions have roots in fact and logic is a finite vessel.
I think I have overstepped the mark and made a suggestion that was not received well and this may lead to confusion over what I propose. If this is the case you have my sincere apologies.
I made the suggestion in good faith. From reading your posts I think you are a sincere and honest man and I had no intention of misleading.Salaam
-
Well if these scientists are offering scientific data to support their claims of a universal consciousness I'd like to be aware of it.
In my very minute and mediocre reading about string theory, the big bang bang, and physics I have not heard this claim made by any scientists.
Like I said though it is a concept I have actually explored and used to even entertain and believe.
There is a Sufi saying that "There are as many paths to God as there are souls on earth."
I used to believe our soul was akin to pure light energy and that when we died this energy would continue even if our flesh was destroyed. This energy would exist in a spectrum invisible and naked to the human eye and possibly in a dimension totally unknown to man, racing through the cosmos in its return to become One once again with the Universal Consciousness it was spawned from in the Big Bang. What I called Allah, the Hindus called Brahman, etc.
But even though it sounds nice, and transcendental, and universal, this belief is based on nothing substantial or reasonably convincing. There is as much evidence for this being true as there is that unicorns and fairies exist and rationally I now know that I have no valid reason to believe such a thing.
-
Not only that but it goes against every single translation of the Qur'an I have.
This does not mean that Pazuzu,s translation is wrong. If there is one universal meaning or understanding of Quran , there would not have been so many different translations. Which translation is acceptable or accurate , you have to decide using your own reason.
Food for thought - Why every single translation of the Qur'an you have , are against Pazuzu,s translation ?
-
This does not mean that Pazuzu,s translation is wrong. If there is one universal meaning or understanding of Quran , there would not have been so many different translations. Which translation is acceptable or accurate , you have to decide using your own reason.
If the it's up to individual reason then reason is subjective and every person has a right to interpret it in their own way. I'm not saying Pazuzu's translation is wrong but I have no reason to believe it is correct either.
Food for thought - Why every single translation of the Qur'an you have , are against Pazuzu,s translation ?
Because established Islamic scholars had a different opinion than that of Pazuzu?
-
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
As far as I am aware , those 'doubts' are answered and proved inconsistent by many authors in different forums , but doubters rarely listen or analyze those answers. They tend to stick to their opinion.
Right. It's human nature to boast that "his toys are better then others toys" , which is the main obstacle to find the truth.
so it seems the Qur'an has failed in its universal message of transformation of men... ???
I didn't find any ayat in Quran , where it claims that Quran is revealed for the purpose of transformation of men. If you got any , please share.
-
Pazuzu would you care to translate verse 3350 for me?
Pickthall
O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.Clearly this verse says that Allah has made lawful those whom your right hand possesses out of the spoils of war.
Never did I say that whom your right hand possesses means sex slaves. It simply means slaves.
What does those under oath even mean? Are you saying they WEREN'T slaves? You think these people willingly became slaves after being defeated in battle?
Your translation makes no sense to me and it seems like a shallow euphemism or sugarcoating of the facts.