The problem with Islam
-
The reason they could not change Qur'aan is because The God Himself is protecting it
Thats not what Riz is talking about
so he/she decided to change all of the words.
"gathering, and markets, and support centers, and temples where the name of God is frequently mentioned..." So now we bascially went from the classical translation of " monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques," to "monastries, synagogues, assemblies" to "gathering, and markets, and support centers"He is saying you have been changing the meaning of classical Arabic.
-
Hello Albion,
He is saying you have been changing the meaning of classical Arabic.
- My comment was not directed to what you quoted.
- I never changed the meaning of any classical Arabic word.
-
tanveermd, great post. To be honest, those are pretty much the answers I give myself right now, thats why I continue being a Quran only believer. I posted all of this to see what other people think about these issues.
One thing that still troubles me however is the lack of any historical data. Its true that the winners right history and the truth can be hidden, but there is always some evidence left over. A great example is Christianity. There was a lot of corruption soon after Jesus, but the politicians and the Church were never able to cover things up. Anyone who looks into the early Church politics can see what really happened. This however is not the case with Islam. Everything seems to fit with the Sunni story of Muhammad. There is no cover up to be seen. The Quran is evidence, true, but it isn't as good of evidence if you are to take the traditional interpretation, mostly everything will still work out. Which brings me to what Albion said.
I find it troubling that after 1400+ years, people are suddenly trying to reinterpret the Quran without bringing any evidence that what they interpret is true. tanveermd, I have read that article actually. I read it a while ago. It is interesting, but that guy makes assumptions and just keeps building from there. Plus, placing Muhammad in the Palestine area would make no sense. Sure it might answer one question, but it would leave everything else unanswered. People have suggested that Muhammad wasn't from Mecca before on free-minds also because the Quran talks about Muhammad being close to the community of Lot and all that, but no one really knows where Lot or Abraham even were. Its all speculation. The Palestine geography doesn't even fit that well with Abrahams journey when looked at closely. Places have been named after Biblical locations rather than them always being there. Kamal Salibi in "The Bible came from Arabia" and "Secret of the Bible People" talks about this. Interesting stuff. If what he says is slightly true, then it certainly is possible that Abraham was indeed in Arabia for most of his life.
What I am suggesting through all of this is that there certainly is a possibility that traditional Islam isn't very far from the truth. There were probably things added, like saying Amen during prayer and such, but there is simply no evidence of a vast conspiracy. I find that very odd. As I mentioned earlier, nothing in history is every fully covered up. There are always factions that break off, outside accounts, conspiracy theories, and so on when such a big change in religion happens. No branch of Islam for the past 1400 years has suggested anything of the sort. Strange? I certainly think so.
-
Hello All,
Koran Alone proponent's rejection of hadiths as a basis for "doctrine" is to be commended because they are unreliable oral traditions that have been written long time after the actual events. Also these traditions are no longer relevant to our modern way of life and how could they be anyway? The human society and consciousness has evolved since the 6th Century Arabia. And I think any sensible person with an open and objective mind having read the hadiths will reach this conclusion.
But hadiths do provide valuable insights to historians and scholars into the early Muslim community. Religions do not pop into existence in a vacuum. They come to address the malaise affecting a group of people in a point in time. All religions have a history, to reject history, however unreliable it is, is to have the view of a "fundamentalist" mind. To say history is not important, to say life and character of the messenger is not important is not helpful. Without understanding the humanity of the messengers monotheistic religions would not have taken root in our human consciousness.
It is always very human need to admire and venerate those that had a contact with the divine or the unknown. That is why the "Sunnah" was invented to cater for that need. To suppress or deny this human yearning is not healthy. To suppress any natural human need is very damaging to the growth of that individuality. Individuals need to "grow" out of their needs on their own and on their own steam. All we can do is try to encourage individuals to think for themselves so they can outgrow their need for a ritualised religion or any form of organised religion.
All religions are indeed man-made and they can be nothing more than that, and nothing to do with the "ineffable" reality that many have called "God", "Nirvana", "Brahman", "Tao" etc. Therefore, in order to incorporate that "reality" into our lives we must, as individuals, go beyond hadiths, traditions and even scripture because "God" is beyond all these things...
Problem with Islam? I would say the Problem is with All Organised Religion! -)
Regards,
-
Salaamun alaikum Riz, all,
The way I think is that whatever happened in the past does not make any difference to me. No one bears the burden of anyone else. Whatever the previous generations did, their matter is with The God and they are accountable to Him and He will deal with them on the Day of Judgement.
The important thing is that we should focus on the present and lead our lives righteously and walk the straight path so that we can be successful in the life hereafter, which is the real life. Good news is that The God preserved Al-Qur'aan to guide us, and it contains all the relevant details, examples of the messengers, and historical lessons necessary for our guidance.
The God knows what is in the hearts and He guides whomever He wills, provided we make the right choice. Everyone should make a sincere effort to understand the word of The God and spend our lives according to its guidance. As long as we stick to its guidance and walk the straight path we have nothing to fear.
My understanding of the word of The God could have minor differences from yours, but as long as I am sincere in my efforts to find the truth and make my best effort to understand the word of The God and walk the straight path, I am confident that I will be rewarded on the Last Day.
So let us not focus on what others did, or what the people in the past did and be obsessed about finding out who did what in the past. Let us focus on the present and on ourselves for that is what really matters to each one of us.
-
Salaamun alaikum,
RizI find it troubling that after 1400+ years, people are suddenly trying to reinterpret the Quran without bringing any evidence that what they interpret is true. ...
MQ False. Shafiee , the main formulator of Sunni fiqh, acknowledges the existence of those who say the Quran was explaination of all things (16/89). The Shia categorically accuse Umar of denying hadith when he said 'enough for us is the book of Allah'.
As for 'not giving evidence', I am starting to doubt whether you have done any research. Al-Quraan has about 10 verses stating its sufficiency. It provides other verses to explain how to how interpret it and you claim there's no evidence. Very strange indeed.
What I am suggesting through all of this is that there certainly is a possibility that traditional Islam isn't very far from the truth. There were probably things added, like saying Amen during prayer and such, but there is simply no evidence of a vast conspiracy.
So when Al-Quraan gives full freedom of religion and Sunnism demands one life on the crime of apostacy, that's 'not very far off' ? I call that a 'diametrical opposite'.
LoteTreeTo say history is not important, to say life and character of the messenger is not important is not helpful. Without understanding the humanity of the messengers monotheistic religions would not have taken root in our human consciousness.
This statement is based on the assumption that the books of hadith etc are correct. We have only Al-Quraan to verify that and frankly, it does not.
-
LoteTreeTo say history is not important, to say life and character of the messenger is not important is not helpful. Without understanding the humanity of the messengers monotheistic religions would not have taken root in our human consciousness.
This statement is based on the assumption that the books of hadith etc are correct. We have only Al-Quraan to verify that and frankly, it does not.
That assumption was not made.
This is whats been written
Koran Alone proponent's rejection of hadiths as a basis for "doctrine" is to be commended because they are unreliable oral traditions that have been written long time after the actual events. Also these traditions are no longer relevant to our modern way of life and how could they be anyway? The human society and consciousness has evolved since the 6th Century Arabia. And I think any sensible person with an open and objective mind having read the hadiths will reach this conclusion.
This is what is been said
"All religions have a history, to reject history, however unreliable it is, is to have the view of a "fundamentalist" mind. To say history is not important, to say life and character of the messenger is not important is not helpful. Without understanding the humanity of the messengers monotheistic religions would not have taken root in our human consciousness.
good try chap -) -) -)
Regards,
-
Riz This is the exact question that I wanted to ask when I asked how we should treat historical hadith. I fully agree that there is no evidence for quran alone Islam. There is however plenty of evidence for Sunni Islam, minus some bits that even Sunnis disagree upon. Even previous scholars or those who felt that hadith were corrupt did not stray that much from Sunnism. Why is that? Sometimes I feel that in trying to interpret the quran, we disregard the text and apply our own judgements. I also feel that many questions are not honestly addressed on this forum. For example, questions on the authenticity of the quran are rarely answered with as much thoroughness as we give the issue of ex. salat. These things cannot be skimmed on considering that these issues are the foundation of Iman. The issue that Riz raises is also fundamental to Iman. Personally, I have serious issues with Sunnism and that method of life, however, Quran alone method seems to be a shot in the dark a lot of the time, especially for those who are not as adept at arabic. I have no concrete answers to your question, but it is an issue that deserves a lot of attention, especially on this forum.
My remedial answer to the question I think that for example, when it comes to the issue of salat, we can accept that salat was a physical prayer, but not necessarily that it was aimed towards Mecca. We can accept that hajj was physical, but not necessarily that it was a pilgrimage to mecca. The reason I think that this is maybe a remedial answer is that some historical data must be used in order to prove Islam correct. For example, there is hadith that hundreds of people memorized the quran. We would not know this if we did not believe in those hadith. We also believe in the hadith that Abu Bakr collected the quran, etc. These are important hadith and they help to prove that the quran has been preserved. Of course someone will state that the quran self proclaims and proves itself, but I personally think that extrinsic evidence is needed to prove the authenticity of the quran as a preserved book. I still do not think that hadith are accruate as a whole and I shun them as a spiritual source, but I think there is a difference between using a source for historical value and using it for spiritual value. -
PEACE, ICEPHREN,
I still do not think that hadith are accruate as a whole and I shun them as a spiritual source, but I think
there is a difference between using a source for historical value and using it for spiritual value
.Well, there you have it, good deal.
-
Peace ichephren, all,
The reason I think that this is maybe a remedial answer is that some historical data must be used in order to prove Islam correct.
Do you mean to say that The Qur'aan is not "a historical data" ?
For islam lillah, the only source of guidance is The Qur'aan and it is the only AUTHENTIC source available at this time. So, logically, only The Qur'aan can be used to find out what the true islam lillah is.
I personally think that extrinsic evidence is needed to prove the authenticity of the quran as a preserved book.
The Qur'aan has enough intrinsic evidence to prove its authenticity. The only extrinsic evidence that may be needed is the oldest surviving manuscripts of The Qur'aan showing that the current Qur'aan is indeed the same Qur'aan that was revealed 1500 years ago. Even that may not be necessary, given the lack of any contradiction in The Qur'aan
482 Do they not reflect on the Quran? If it was from any other than God they would have found therein much discrepancy/contradiction.
Please go through the following two links in detail, then meditate on what is mentioned in those links, and use your God given ability of logic and reasoning to arrive at the only logical conclusion. You will, God willing, find all the intrinsic evidence that proves that it is indeed the true word of The God, thereby proving its authenticity.
http//members.aol.com/silence004/
http//think786.cjb.net/ (Click on "articles" and then on "Does God Exist ?" and then on "introduction")
The existence, in a 1500 year old book, of even one scientific fact which is discovered in the last century is very improbable. How can you explain not one but many scientific facts present in a 1500 year old book, which were completely against the knowledge existing at that time, and discovered only recently in the last century, without a single contradiction?
What about all the prophecies in Qur'aan that came true, exactly as predicted? What about its literary quality? What about the lack of a single contradiction in it ?
See the following for lack of logical contradiction in Qur'aan
http//free-minds.org/articles/gods_system/koran.htm
It is 100 % impossible that any being other than The God would have known all those scientific facts and prophesied events 1500 years ago and revealed a book without any contradiction, and of such magnificent literary quality, and that is the proof beyond doubt that it could have come only from The God. That proves the authenticity of Al-Qur'aan beyond any doubt.
Brother mquran great post.
-
Peace Priest_Bokmei,
PEACE, ICEPHREN,
I still do not think that hadith are accruate as a whole and I shun them as a spiritual source, but I think
there is a difference between using a source for historical value and using it for spiritual value
.Well, there you have it, good deal.
Priest, be careful of what you are saying. Ichephren doubts the authenticity of Al-Qur'aan and the true islam lillah according to it because he thinks there is need for extrinsic evidence other than Qur'aan to prove it.
The reason I think that this is maybe a remedial answer is that some historical data must be used in order to prove Islam correct.
I personally think that extrinsic evidence is needed to prove the authenticity of the quran as a preserved book.
Peace ichephren,
Al-Qur'aan authenticates other books, not the other way around
241 And believe in what I have sent down, authenticating what is already with you, and do not be the first to disbelieve in it!
2101 And when a messenger came to them from God, authenticating what was with them
551 And We have sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present of the Scripture and superseding it. So judge between them by what God has sent down, and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth.
1038 This Quran could not have been produced without God, but it is to authenticate what is already present, and to give detail to the Scripture in which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.Also The God issues a challenge to bring a chapter like it if you doubt it is from Him
223 And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to Our servant, then bring a chapter like this, and call upon your witnesses other than God if you are truthful.
And The God has promised to preserve it
1510 Indeed it is We who have sent down the Reminder, and indeed it is We who will preserve it.
-
Peace Riz,
Few more points
One thing that still troubles me however is the lack of any historical data.
Brother Riz, do you not consider The Qur'aan historical data? It is the most authentic and strongest data you can come across.
It is interesting, but that guy makes assumptions and just keeps building from there.
Are you not making assumptions based on corrupted, controversial, fabricated, and weak sources such as hadith that there was no major corruption in islam lillah soon after death of Muhammad, and then building from there?
Do you not have the most authentic and very strong evidence, Al-Qur'aan, which indicates otherwise, that there indeed was a MAJOR corruption soon after death of Muhammad?
Regards,
Tanveer
-
LoteTree Koran Alone proponent's rejection of hadiths as a basis for "doctrine" is to be commended because they are unreliable oral traditions that have been written long time after the actual events. Also these traditions are no longer relevant to our modern way of life and how could they be anyway? The human society and consciousness has evolved since the 6th Century Arabia. And I think any sensible person with an open and objective mind having read the hadiths will reach this conclusion.
Yes, certainly evolved. We can now kill millions of people a minute instead of the inefficient hack and slash rate going on in 6th century Arabia.
LoteTreeTo say history is not important, to say life and character of the messenger is not important is not helpful. Without understanding the humanity of the messengers monotheistic religions would not have taken root in our human consciousness.
So how do you understand the 'humanity of messengers' ? Through information, right ? How do you acquire this information?
-
Icephren summed up what I was trying to say pretty well.
Looking at history recorded by Muslim and non-Muslim it is possible to see things going sour real quick after Muhammad, but it is still hard to see where/when/how the pagan rituals were added. The following is my understanding of the situation.
For those of you who might not know the years the 4 Caliphs and Muhammad were around, here it is
-Muhammad (623-632)
-Abu Bakr (632-634)
-Umar I (634-644)
-Uthman ibn Affan (644-656)
-Ali Ben Abu Talib (656-661)Going back to the theory that Islam was corrupted soon after Muhammads death. We are talking about 28 years, because an Islamic 'cult' is well documented from non-Muslim sources after this time. This would mean that Islam took on these "pagan" attributes around the time Ali came into power, but the process must have started earlier for it to have been so well established already. If this corruption theory is true then the Kabah must have been rebuilt during or before the reign of Uthman. There wasn't very much animosity amongst Muslims until Uthman during which there was indeed a spread of corruption in the political structure. He ruled for the longest of all the 4 early Caliphs. According to the Sunni historians themselves, Ali thought that Islam was heading in the "wrong direction." What is meant by "wrong direction"? I don't know, its kind of vague as far as I know. Well either way, after Uthman, there were deep divisions amongst the Muslims. So far I have only read the politics of the situation, however most of the rebel factions had apparent religous motives as well, these are never discussed for some reason. Yazid, son of Muawiyah had Medina massacred and its citizens were enslaved because of the rebels there. Muhammad?s mosque was turned into a stable, public buildings, including schools, were destroyed. The army then marched on to Mecca to fight Abdallah ibn Al-Zubary, son of Muhammads close companion Az-Zubayr, because he claimed to be Caliph. Abdallah fled but the army continued to attack Mecca. As Muslim historian Tabari records
"they hurled stones and wood at the Sacred House (the Kaba), with ballistae and they set it on fire."
" They were causing fires to be lit around the Kabah. There was a spark, which the wind blew; it set fire to the veil of the Kabah and burned the wood of the Sacred House?."
So as you can see, the ruling Muslims were anything but pious. Its sad considering this was only the first generation after Muhammad. So much fighting and bloodshed amongst them. Either way, the Kabah was there this whole time and even after it was destroyed during the fighting, it was rebuilt.
Even all this can't explain the corruption that would have led to the reconsturction after Muhammads death. The problem is that under the command of Abu Bakr and Umar, the Islamic empire had grown fairly large. Additions and change to Islam such as the pagan hajj and reconstruction of the Kabbah must have started from the Mecca region itself. So assuming that the Meccans incorporated these rituals and beliefs around the time of Uthman poses a problem, that being that the Muslims of the further regions that were conquered under Abu Bakr and Umar would still have been practicing the Islam that was brought to them by these two rulers, this isn't what we find though. The outer regions of the Islamic empire were always practicing what the inner regions were practicing. This problem has one possible solution, the Kabah was rebuilt immediatly after Muhammads death and that not even his closest companions were truely Muslim. Thats going a bit far though. If you are going to doubt even the earliest and closest companions, then why even hold on to the Quran as it was compiled by these folks? This theory would give more credence to those who say parts of the Quran were lost and which point you have to admit that the Quran has not been preserverd.
So you see, the further back you go, the deeper you go, the more problems there are and the more extreme theory you need to resolve these issues. All of these problems can be solved pretty easily though, accept the traditional translation, understanding, and explanations of the Quran. This being that the Kabah was indeed built by Abraham and later used by pagans, Bekkah = Mecca, Kabah is not worshipped but only used as a direction, Sunnis follow Muhammads way of praying, Muhammad purified the pagan rituals such as Hajj and rededicated them to God alone, so on. All the pieces fit in. Going by the Quran alone, you won't find this ofcourse. The Quran was a revelation and guide, not a history book like the Bible. It has references to certain events that took place during Muhammads life, but it assumes the reader knows what these events are.
So, is it possible then that we shouldn't be so extreme in disregarding 1400 years of history, tradition, and practice? If you have a better solution to all the problems caused by reinventing Muhammads life, please explain.
-
Salaam Riz and all,
Looking at history recorded by Muslim and non-Muslim it is possible to see things going sour real quick after Muhammad, but it is still hard to see where/when/how the pagan rituals were added...
Going back to the theory that Islam was corrupted soon after Muhammads death. We are talking about 28 years, because an Islamic 'cult' is well documented from non-Muslim sources after this time. This would mean that Islam took on these "pagan" attributes around the time Ali came into power, but the process must have started earlier for it to have been so well established already...
For some reason I was thinking about this question last night, even though I didn't follow the thread that much. Before I continue... with the above clip in mind, it is assumed that all this information is fact. ?? Anyway, I never was a big fan of 'history', even though I wouldn't categorize this as such, so, let's quickly move on. Also, notice, the scarcity of quran verses for back up of any of these claims from Riz and ichephren's posts, as opposed to almost every other post on this thread. My previous post only consisted of verses, yet, was totally ignored. I feel that some people have become "immune" to these verses, maybe from seeing them too often or something. I may be mistaken. But I do not tire from reading or posting them.
God has sent down the best hadeeth, a Scripture that is similar with two paths. The skins of those who reverence their Lord shiver from it, then their skins and their hearts soften up to the remembrance of God. Such is God's guidance; He guides with it whoever He wills. And for whomever God misguides, then none can guide him.
I support mquran when he aptly said...
So the Quran itself isn't evidence, brother? Isn't it unfair that you are ready to accept human sources but where Allah's book is concerned, you relegate it to being a historical phenomena?
Isn't it enough? Isn't GOD enough? We still need more?Now, again, I may be wrong, but I notice that the main part of the problem, as per Riz's quote above, is time-line. I'll explain in just a bit. I remember when I first tried to talk to my brother about Islam. After the laughter (on his part) and later on the fights... he was slowly accepting and seeing truth, all praise be to the God. Ofcourse for a while, he found it hard to swallow that the rituals (2x4x4x3x4, cube-circumventing, etc.) could have been invented over a few decades after the prophet's death. How could this be so? Impossible! He would totally refuse! Then I'd have to go into repeated explanations and debates, and he'd understand and partially accept. Next day, back again... "but how could it be?... atleast the prayer, that could not be a fabrication!" roll Funny enough, he's quite the activist right now, when it comes to warning others about the shirk involved in the robotic-cube-facing so-called prayers. yes Again, the God guides, so it is on those who follow the guidance to listen or not. It's not "this movement" who will answer for anyone on the day of reckoning.
Back to the timeline... here's something for the skeptics to ponder on. I'm talking to those who believe that quran is the word of God. Instead of spoon feeding, I'm going to have you do a little leg work and search for this particular story mentioned in quran more than once. smug
The story sorta goes like this... Moses led his people out of suffering under pharaoh's tyranny. I don't need to go into the amount of suffering the children of Israel underwent. So they escape, with God's guidance. Pharaoh and his minions drowned. Children of Israel witnessed all the signs you can imagine from God. Now here's the clincher... so take a deep breath, think about it, and you don't really have to reply to this...
HOW LONG DID IT TAKE FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL TO WORSHIP A CALF?
Now, keep that answer in mind, and compare it to the purported 28-30 years after the prophet's death. Yes, it's very easy to point to others and think that "muslims" have escaped this very same trap that all generations have fallen into. Like Riz so nicelely put it...
Thats what the Christians seem to do and I don't want to make the same mistake.
Yes, not just christians, not just the jews. Open your mind. Look deep inside yourself. Are you really willing to do that? Are you willing to let God guide you out of the depths of darkness into the light? Or will you continue being in denial?Peace be with you.
And if you ask them ?Who created the heavens and the Earth?", they will Say ?God.? Say ?Do you see what you call on besides God, If God wanted any harm for me, can they alleviate His harm? Or if He wanted a mercy for me, can they hold back his mercy?? Say ?God is sufficient for me; in Him those who trust shall put their trust.?
-
Peace Riz,
If you are going to doubt even the earliest and closest companions, then why even hold on to the Quran as it was compiled by these folks? This theory would give more credence to those who say parts of the Quran were lost and which point you have to admit that the Quran has not been preserverd.
Please get your facts straight. The ayaat were written down by Muhammad himself and his scribes as soon as they were revealed and then they were all compiled by him under direct instructions from The God. The God then preserved The Qur'aan Himself......there is not even an iota of doubt about that. Please go through the following link for details on how Qur'aanic text was written and preserved
http//free-minds.org/books/wadud_05.htm
Nay but it (the Quran) is indeed a message of instruction. Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance that it is in papers held in great honour, exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy, (written) by the hands of scribes, honourable, pious and just." (8011-16)
"It is for us to assemble it and to promulgate it. And when we have promulgated it, follow thou its recital (as promulgated). Nay more, it is for us to explain it." (7517-19)
"We have without doubt, sent down the message and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption.)" (159)
Brother Zenje, that was a brilliant example about the timeline. May The God guide us all.
-
Yes, what you said is very true Zenje. People can go astray very quickly and I don't doubt that.
From all these posts you might think I am a Sunni or something, but don't get me wrong, I am still a Quran only believer, but these questions have always troubled me and made me consider the Sunni interpretation of the Quran.
A verse from the Quran that is possibly hinting at the early corruption is 2530.
"And the messenger said ?My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran.? 2530. This is what Muhammad will say on the day of Judgement. Now the tradition interpretation would be that nowadays people don't read the Quran, but could 'my people' could infact mean the people he was with? Literally his people. Again its speculation but it makes a lot of sense.As of now, I haven't been able to find any historical data, archaelogical or reports from non-muslims, that would infact prove that the current Islamic practices existed even during Muhammads time. All we have is the Quran which seems to paint a very different picture than what we are told by tradition and Muslim history. So let me ask you guys, could you draw up a possible scenerio of what happened after Muhammad and how it happened and how it has been covered up so well? Try to address the following if possible
-Reconstruction of the kaba
-Bringing back the stone (assuming Muhammad would have detroyed/discarded it)
-Why did the Muslims become so divided and fight so bitterly when the Quran says that God was happy with them and that their hearts were united. I read an article denying that these civil wars happened, but these are recorded even by non-muslims.
-Traditional way of prayer. Main issues being 5 times a day and bowing to Kaba. Why would the unbelievers impose 2 extra prayers on themselves?
-Why was there such little resistance?
-Not even Muhammads own family remained to the Quran. Why/how what possible motive?
-
Salaamun alaikum,
Riz, don't forget that we're not talking about a hundred year gap between Muhammad ibn Abdullah and us. We're talking about millenium AND a half.
How do I know that when the Mongols invaded in 1258, they didn't completely destroy the Arabic civilisation and recreated everything from new?
All I know is, the book I told in my hand is authentic because as 41/53 says
Soon We will show them OUR SIGNS in the HORIZONS and in THEMSELVES until it is clear to them that THIS IS AL-HAQQ...No matter where I go, no matter what I do, I am in His grip. I cannot possibly escape his perpetual prophecy contained in His Book and neither can any human being. He didn't choose to include anyone's name (with the possible exception of Zaid) in the book for what reason? Did His publisher tell him to shorten it? No. Everything was done on purpose. Think about it, brother.
-
Yes, certainly evolved. We can now kill millions of people a minute instead of the inefficient hack and slash rate going on in 6th century Arabia.
But we ARE NOT KILLING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE A MINUTE right now ARE WE!? -)
Though we have POWER TO WIPE OUT ALL LIFE ON EARTH, we have remarkably been quite reponsible with this POWER by our own standards! -)
So how do you understand the 'humanity of messengers' ? Through information, right ? How do you acquire this information?
Read all the available SOURCES of information - it is easy as that...
But you don't need anything else do you? For you Quran is entire history! You can even use Quran to prove that Elephants can fly -)Just kiddin -)
All I am saying man, read all the available information and then make your own mind up on these things. To reject history is to have a "fundamentalist" mind because fundamentalist are "anti-historical".
But end of the day Scripture is a Spiritual Guide and nothing more...
Regards,
-
LoteTreeThough we have POWER TO WIPE OUT ALL LIFE ON EARTH, we have remarkably been quite reponsible with this POWER by our own standards
Yes, very responsible. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be the first to agree with you if they weren't burnt to a crisp.
Read all the available SOURCES of information - it is easy as that...
But you don't need anything else do you? For you Quran is entire history! You can even use Quran to prove that Elephants can flyFor me the Quran is history ? No, it's MY story (21/10) not HIS story.
All I am saying man, read all the available information and then make your own mind up on these things. To reject history is to have a "fundamentalist" mind because fundamentalist are "anti-historical".
Where are you getting your definitions from? Since when do 'fundamentalists' reject history? If you ask these 'muslim fundamentalists', to prove thier points, they will tell you things FROM HISTORY
But end of the day Scripture is a Spiritual Guide and nothing more...
spiritual guide ? You mean like we do 'aum's on it and we can fly or something ? Have you actually read the Quran or do you enjoy speaking without any basis whatsoever?