What Constitutes a Muslim?

savage_carrot

Have you heard of the Chinese whistle game?

You do mean whispers yes?

http//www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/preface_to_the_second_edition.htm

Read the above especially the topic 'Muir Rejects the Forgery of the Qur'an'.

el-Aziz

In simple words, a Muslim is one who declares that ?there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah?. This automatically gives a social passport and acceptance to the individual by the rest of the Islamic mobs.

I believe that the question first raised was not about what social acceptance have been given to those accepting the liturgy of the islamic religion, but rather what actually defines a muslim.
Well well, just my picture of it anyway!

So at the end of the day the zillion dollar question still remains. ?What constitutes a Muslim, Christian or Jew?? Well, in this case, your guess is just as good as mine! You don?t have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out! All we need is a free and rational mind to discover the truth and thus God.

Great post...I'm seriously thinking of putting the last two sentences on my wall. Who am I qouting?

ADIL

Have you heard of the Chinese whistle game?

You do mean whispers yes?

http//www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/preface_to_the_second_edition.htm

Read the above especially the topic 'Muir Rejects the Forgery of the Qur'an'.

Indeed whisper! You sound like a smart carrot!

I shall read that source in my spare time but once again these scholars are doing nothing but exhausting their own intellect. I?ve read the ?Origin of the Koran? by Ibn Warraqa though http//www.secularislam.org/research/origins.htm

Human memory elapses with time and it would be impossible to conclude that certain hafiz memorized the entire chapter of the story of Joseph and passed it to the next person without any change. Memory tests have shown in controlled studies that memory elapses with time. You can do this test in the comfort of your own home by revealing a short story to one person and then that story is told to the next and so forth. At the end the last person would repeat it to everyone else. You will be surprised how much change in the transmission of information occurs within a short span of time. Speaking of the Quranic revelations, one can only accept the notion that a change in transmission of information didn?t occur due to some sort of miracle! Other than that the historical evidence and common senses tell us that the probability of these revelations coming to humanity as intact as it was revealed by Gabriel is insignificant.

savage_carrot

Peace,

Other than that the historical evidence and common senses tell us that the probability of these revelations coming to humanity as intact as it was revealed by Gabriel is insignificant.

Yes, please do read that resource, other than that I believe you should start a seperate topic for the above mentioned quote, as it is also the basis for the rest of your understandings regarding the quran. I believe everyone can learn from such a discussion. Thanks.

ADIL

To represent the phenomenon of Muhammad's revelations in these terms is, from the standpoint of scientific research, the gravest nonsense. The fit of epilepsy leaves the patient utterly without memory of what has taken place. In fact, the patient completely forgets that period of his life and can recollect nothing that has happened to him in the meantime because the processes of sensing and thinking come to a complete stop during the fit. Such are the symptoms of epilepsy as science has established them. This was not the case at all with the Prophet at the moment of revelation, for his cognitive faculties used to be strengthened-rather than weakened-and do so to a superlative degree hitherto unknown by the people who knew him most. Muhammad used to remember with utmost precision what he received by way of revelation and recited it to his companions without a flaw. Moreover, revelation was not always accompanied by paroxysms of the body. Much of it took place while the Prophet was perfectly conscious, during his usual wakefulness. We have advanced sufficient evidence for this in our discussion of the revelation of the surah "al Fath" upon return of the Muslims from Makkah to Yathrib after signing the Pact of Hudaybiyah.

Scientific investigation therefore reveals that the case of Muhammad was not one of epilepsy. For this reason very few orientalists have upheld this claim and these turn out to be the same authors who upheld the charge of forgery against the Qur'an. Obviously, in charging Muhammad with epilepsy, their motivation was not the establishment of historical fact but the derogation of the Prophet in the eyes of his Muslim followers. Perhaps, they thought, propagation of such views would cast some suspicion upon his revelation, for it was precisely the revelation that came as a result of the so-called epileptic fits. This, of course, makes them all the more blameworthy and, from the standpoint of science, positively in error.

Savage carrot, I know this topic belongs to a different thread but I briefly skipped through the article. Overall some good points are discussed. One of the points brought by the author is that of the Orientalists claims that asserts the prophet was suffering from some sort of epilepsy. But the author fails go give a reference as to who specifically makes such claims and in what context. His very quick to give Munir?s long quote to back his points but fails to use a short direct quote of other orientalists that makes such claims. The Author then concludes without any citation of scientific evidence that ?Scientific investigation therefore reveals that the case of Muhammad was not one of epilepsy?.

My question is (1) where is the orientalists claim that asserts that he was suffering from epilepsy and (2) where is the so called ?scientific investigation that reveals? this claim to be otherwise?

I am wondering if the author knows anything about the symptoms of schizophrenia or perhaps his confusing schizophrenia with epilepsy! 1 in 10 people suffer from the former. The two disorders are not the same. There is a good article that relatively covers this subject. It is also related to this topic in the following link
http//koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/irin/wahiusa.html

In any case, the author must refer the reader for the verification and citation of the scientific literature and must not act as the judge, the jury and the executioner.

wa'salam

savage_carrot

Peace,

The article I gave to you was in specific reference to the topic 'Muir Rejects the Forgery of the Qur'an'. As that was the point of the discussion. Maybe you have some observations regarding that?!? The rest is open to debate and since not in the scope of this thread or the context of the discussion you started, should be taken elsewhere. Do you believe the prophet and the rest who received revelations were schizophrenic/hallucinating/trancing? Please start a seperate topic as there are specific rules put in just for this sort of thing. Thanks.

Btw, about that link, in the very first point the person talks about an 'Islamic religion' and that the claim of prophethood is unique in 'Islam'. Other religions have prophets as well and the quran invites us to believe in ALL prophets so this amongst many other points are strange to put it mildly, as if he never read the quran on his own. The point is also titled erroneously. The second point is full of hearsay which is quite revolting. Overall the article does not seem well written or unbiased, and I invite other users to read and verify for themselves.

I would strongly recommend anyone interested in sincerely learning about the quran to ONLY read the quran and to not take any other sources as a basis for adding on and embellishing what it says...

neo

No disrespect, but that is the most pointless 5 paragraphs I've read on this site. You use a lot of words, but ultimately say nothing.

Thank you for your feed back!

You mistake; for me to give you 'feedback' (which is one word by the way, not two) it would imply you 'fed' me something and you did no such thing.

neo

Have you heard of the Chinese whistle game?

You do mean whispers yes?

http//www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/preface_to_the_second_edition.htm

Read the above especially the topic 'Muir Rejects the Forgery of the Qur'an'.

Indeed whisper! You sound like a smart carrot!

I shall read that source in my spare time but once again these scholars are doing nothing but exhausting their own intellect. I?ve read the ?Origin of the Koran? by Ibn Warraqa though http//www.secularislam.org/research/origins.htm

Human memory elapses with time and it would be impossible to conclude that certain hafiz memorized the entire chapter of the story of Joseph and passed it to the next person without any change. Memory tests have shown in controlled studies that memory elapses with time. You can do this test in the comfort of your own home by revealing a short story to one person and then that story is told to the next and so forth. At the end the last person would repeat it to everyone else. You will be surprised how much change in the transmission of information occurs within a short span of time. Speaking of the Quranic revelations, one can only accept the notion that a change in transmission of information didn?t occur due to some sort of miracle! Other than that the historical evidence and common senses tell us that the probability of these revelations coming to humanity as intact as it was revealed by Gabriel is insignificant.

Do you reject any and all forms of history? You better, lest you want to sound like a raging hypocrite.

Human memory elapses with time and it would be impossible to conclude that certain hafiz memorized the entire chapter of the story of Joseph and passed it to the next person without any change.

Are you in the business of covering male cow feces? Seriously, I'm asking. Plenty of people can memorise portions of the Qu'ran explicitely - it isn't that difficult. Hell, my dad memorises many section of the Qu'ran. Seriously, you ought to think about what you type before you hit "submit" else I'm gonna have to request an igrorance threshold on the place. Please do read the link savage_carrot provided before parroting off answers from atheist.org because it's insulting to the works of Dr. Muir. Also, your knowledge of historical data gathering is extremely limited, hence you're pulling your chinese "whistle" (lol) excuse.

Savage carrot, I know this topic belongs to a different thread but I briefly skipped through the article. Overall some good points are discussed. One of the points brought by the author is that of the Orientalists claims that asserts the prophet was suffering from some sort of epilepsy. But the author fails go give a reference as to who specifically makes such claims and in what context. His very quick to give Munir?s long quote to back his points but fails to use a short direct quote of other orientalists that makes such claims. The Author then concludes without any citation of scientific evidence that ?Scientific investigation therefore reveals that the case of Muhammad was not one of epilepsy?.

My question is (1) where is the orientalists claim that asserts that he was suffering from epilepsy and (2) where is the so called ?scientific investigation that reveals? this claim to be otherwise?

I am wondering if the author knows anything about the symptoms of schizophrenia or perhaps his confusing schizophrenia with epilepsy! 1 in 10 people suffer from the former. The two disorders are not the same. There is a good article that relatively covers this subject. It is also related to this topic in the following link
http//koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/irin/wahiusa.html

In any case, the author must refer the reader for the verification and citation of the scientific literature and must not act as the judge, the jury and the executioner.

Perhaps next time you should read the entire article and try to understand what the point of the article is?