I haven?t read all replies to this topic but here is a portion of my post from another forum which likewise discussed this issue from social perspective

---

Democracy lives in the heart of civil society where there is the presence of democratic culture. If you don?t have the presence of democratic culture, you should forget about democracy. Democratic culture implies tolerance, the willingness of the person to accept divergent political, economic, cultural and religious views. Democracy cannot flourish in a society steeped in fanaticism, bigotry, dogmatism and obscurantism. Democratic culture leads to the formation of civil society which then paves the way for various groups, clubs, unions, parties, associations to come together to provide a buffer between the State and the citizen.

The Western origin of the modern concept of democracy begins with ?the Social Contract? by Jean Jacques Rousseau 1692. According to him ?Human beings must be made citizens before they can be made men; but in order that they may be citizens, government must give liberty under law, must provide for material welfare and remove gross inequality distribution of wealth.? The social contract in essence paves the way between the individual and community so the individual can give and receive such rights in return. The community is instead governed by the General Will of its member, which enjoys the status of a sovereign and all civil laws flow from the General Will.

Salaam ADIL,

If you want to follow the doctrine of the scholars because you believe they are right then I've no qualm with your decision. The rusul adviced others to check/verify their announcements . The wisdom of the quran advices us to verify all things .

Joe

Dear TheNabi,

One can only go by the theological and historical accounts presently available to draw safe conclusions. Islam is not 10000 years old religion; it was born in clear daylights. If each person is to interpret these verses in accordance with his/her religiosity needs and presumptuous thoughts then sky is the limit. I can go on and claim that Einstein plagiarised his theory of relativity from the Quranic edicts and link certain ayah to the theory to back it up. If you give 1128-63, 1736 as your evidence, I?ll refer you to 4458 where it clearly states that these verses are written in simple language so the masses can understand it.

Quran-4458 Verily, We have made This Quran easy in the tongue, in order that they may give heed.

There is no need for Abu Lahab?s real name or lineage to the prophet to be stated in the Quraan because first, it was general knowledge and everyone knew his lineage to the prophet. Second, this sort of accounts would take pages to write and most likely such details were omitted when the Quraan was compiled and edited by the then literary figures. The only valid explanation is that he was coined and labeled as Abu Lahab because he was a huge threat to his prophecy. In my opinion we should look at the weak language of his God who only curses but cannot do anything to change Abu Lahab's mind, heart, etc.

Similarly take 3326-27 for example.

3326 And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.

3327 And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.

It talks about the justification of the massacre of the Jews of Banu Qareza who wouldn?t agree with the prophet?s newly found religion, but it doesn?t necessarily give their names or location or other accounts. It simnply say that it was ok for them to be butchered becuase that was God's order! However, we look for historical evidence and other explanations such as the accounts given by Ibn Ishaq to draw conclusions

Ibn Ishaq describes what happens as follows

Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Kab b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Kab what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off.

Peace

Not again...

He should hook up with Lotetree, unless they already are.

mmm how about i hook up with u! wink

Salaam ADIL,

The word in ayat 6813 is zaneem means base or notoriously mischievous or ignoble. Allah is here describing a particular mode of being in which we are told to not obey those who hinder good, overstep bounds, slander, defame, and are ignoble because of their wealth and sons . This is but a description of them, not needless name-calling, as is the case where people having a fit may call each other by mean names for insult, etc.

Joe

w'salaam TheNabi,

Zaneem mean base-born or someone who is born of unwed parents; illegitimate. I have read the Quraan in 3 languages and all gives similar meanings. Do you know in what context and to whom the remarks in 6813 is addressed to? This will give you an insight if you knew the whole story.

As for 1111-5, it clearly refer to Abu Lahab (Abdul Azi bin Matalib). We cannot deny this because the Islamic scholars and most Islamic sources unanimously agree on this fact. It seems as if some people want to tailor make Islam so it suits their mind frame in the 21st century! This is not how one should be seeking faith and the search for the true Almighty. These are man-made verses and associating them to God is disgrace in my opinion.

Abu Lahab is simply ?labeling? and ?name calling? someone who wouldn?t agree with the prophet?s newly found religion. His real name was Abdul Azi bin Abdul Matalib. I?m sure most of you?d know this!

The important point is not who he was or what title is used to describe him. In actual fact the 5 ayahs in surha 111 shows the weaknesses of Allah. When someone as closed as Abdul Azi criticizes his newly found religion, God cannot perish him instantly but sends divine revelations cursing him and his wife just like we human curse our children when they are naughty!

Name calling, labeling and cursing is not new to Quraan. See 6813 where once again God is introduced as someone who name calls those who wouldn?t agree with his Prophet!

6813 Violent (and cruel),- with all that, base-born,-

All that would make sense if it was claimed that these words came to us from a saint person who was a human being just like us. But every word in the Quraan is supposed to be coming to humanity from Allah/God! If that is the language of God, then I pray to the real God to save me from such bigotry and man-made revelations!

peace

Har che andeshi pa zerai pana ast
Wa anche dar andesha na ayad an ?Khoda? ast! (Rumi)

Mere thinking seeks sanctuary when it?s exhausted (ppl think about it and at the end defines it so it fits with their mindset)..
But the thing that doesn?t come to your comprehension is ?Khoda? (God)!

One wonders what doesn?t come to our comprehension!

Anyway, I have two questions in relation to this topic.

1. Where does the name Allah come from?
2. Can the Righteous meet this Allah when they make it to heaven?

peace

We took the seed from the Quraan
And left the skin (nutshell) to kharan (donkeys)!

(Rumi)

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

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.

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! )

Would you consider the quran to be a part of this "mediocre literature" as you call it? I'm curious since you are new and all that...

Have you heard of the Chinese whistle game?

Does Jesus's disciples / apostles / telmudim declares "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah" ?

The important point here is not whether that Jesus? disciples/ telmudim or the rest will agree that He was a messenger (leader) or not but the authenticity of the message itself. To date, no one can prove this with certainty. This is the crux of the matter. The rest is nothing but the exhaustion of our intellect by interpreting the psychic products of their (prophets) minds and we often bring it inline with our present day religiosity needs.

This is why I label the lot of them as ?Semitic dogma? because they have borrowed from one another with minor alternations. Whether the latter accepts the former and the former rejects the latter is a matter of degrees. We don?t have to see this in light of theological reasons. Simple logic would tell us that between the grandfather, father and son, one must accept the grandfather?s eyewitness account and not the son?s because the son wasn?t even born when the grandfather was around! Of course such analysis must be subject to different methodological perspectives.

002.136 Say ye "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord We make no difference between one and another of them And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

I agree with the sum of your ayah but disagree with the whole. Here is why. As its common with most Quraanic verses, one ayah supercedes another and most of these conflicting ayahs came to humanity within a matter of 23 or so years. One of the earlier version (Makkai ayah) along such lines was more or less multi-religious ?La ikra fee dein? (there is no compulsion in religion) which was favored by the faithful ones at that time. But later on that was superceded when His followers increased to thousands. In essence, Islam is supposed to be the one and only religion for humanity and the rest as null and void. If it was otherwise then there would be no problem. Any saint person could?ve claimed and be considered as an instant prophet!

I hope I have'nt derailed other's discussion.

Peace to u

Adil,

I think what was meant by not doing your reading, is that you didn't read the previous posts on this topic. If you had you'd be contributing a little differently, I believe.

Read some of the back posts about 10-20 posts back. To get a feel for what we've been talking about. It's not what you think.

Godbless,
ProGod

Perhaps you're right. I am new to this forum and I?ll try and tune myself. But savage-carrot pasted a link which took me somewhere else! Glad to see intelligent individuals gather under one umbrella

Thank you

You mean readings of the mediocre literature?

Clearly thats all thats been read before posting a lengthy diatribe about 'semetic literature' and 'Islam'...

Here is a good link for starters

http//www.free-minds.org/quran/

I beg to disagree and one shouldn?t underestimate other?s knowledge. The sources you?ve referred me to are readily available with the tip of our fingers online these days. Here is a 50 page of my analysis, in Farsi language, for persian speakers, that is drawn from the experience of Muslims who spend years analysing this literature.

http//www.geocities.com/adil_afghan1/negahijmali

So perhaps some of us have been there and done their home work to draw such conclusions and define the Semitic theology as nothing but ?mediocre literature?.

Peace!

In simpler words, somebody here didn't do his reading before ranting on this site.

You mean readings of the mediocre literature?

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. It seems that this strategy (foot in the door) perfectly worked among the Bedouin. In away it reflects human submission to the will of one without rationalising or justifying their authority.

If we look deeply, we can easily see that such submissive slogans worked and played crucial rolls in mob psychology. For instance, it?s natural that most human have a need for religiosity in most societies. (If there ever was a God, as it is introduced in the Semitic literature, which appeared from the clouds, I am sure even an extreme atheist will submit to his/her rules.) But this is just a catch 22 used by the Semitic dogma. It needs such slogans to reinforce the submissive behaviour upon the individual and it has two purposes. First, it arouses our religiosity needs in us by introducing God as the ultimate truth and power. This is quite ok as all humans have a need to submit to a higher being. But the real catch is the acceptance and adherences to of the middleman or in this case the Semitic prophets (in away a foot in the door stragety is used!).

In the case of Islam, it is quite obvious that all the other Semitic prophets are considered at the lower end of the ladder but Muhammad is the last and best and that?s why it?s absolutely necessary for any one to declare his or her kalima in the first instance to be considered a Muslim (so he or she is Islamically shaped and framed by way of social pressure).

The rest of the Semitic dogma is often followed by a mix bag of goodies, bigotry, ambiguity and common knowledge that all knew many years prior to Islam, i.e how clouds appears, or driven by the wind, or that rain drops from the sky, or that everything is found in pairs, etc..This was all known to man ever since man stood and pondered about it. Even some animals can sense when it rains and thus take shelter under trees or in caves.

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.

Peace

Greetings to all members of this forum!

In theory, love and hate are the two opposite poles of the same continuum just like lightness is to darkness. Love?s dimensions (degrees) are immeasurable just like lightness. Hate, as is the case with darkness, has none and only raises its ugly head in the absence of love.

We often mix our heightened stages of emotions, needs (physiological and motives) with love and come up with our own notion of ?love-salad?. On the surface level, we see love as the heightened stages of our emotions. That?s why someone in this forum earlier said

Love... its such an ambiguous word. We love our parents, we also love our cars. We love our house. We love our kids. We love our spouses. We love the sky. We love the angels. I love KFC. I love my honda. I love the night sky when its dark and raining. I love the stars. I love mountains. I love kittens and puppys. I also love the smell of my mom's cooking. I love the morning air. I love dance music. I love God. I love maltezers.

Love is an abused word. People stick it anyones face without thinking twice. I did it. So i know. Frankly, the meaning of Love is lost. Its just another word. Nothing special. People are stuck on the drama and movies where the hero will destroy whole armies just to get to his girl. Its a fantasy. Love is a poor man's dream and hope. Nothing more.

But what we know about love is a drop and what humanity need to explore are oceans (unconditional love). In the words of Rumi

Looking at my life
I see the only Love has been my soul?s companion.
From deep inside my soul cries out
Do not wait, surrender for the sake of love.
Are you searching for your soul?
Then come out of your prison.
Leave the stream and join the river that flows into the ocean.
Absorbed in this world you?ve made it your burden.
Rise above this world, there is another vision?

He then points us
Peaceful is the one who?s not concerned with having more or less.
Unbound by name and fame
His free from sorrow,
from the world, and mostly from himself.
You know what love is?
It is all kindness, generosity.
Disharmony prevails when you confuse lust with love
While the distance between the two is endless.

Obviously the concept of love is relatively studied and tested by social scientists and we know the psychological basis of love, i.e. passionate vs compassionate. However, very little is known abut "unconditional love". When certain Buddhists were encountered by the Muslim invaders in the East, they accepted death with smile because it was against their philosophy to even hate their enemy at the time when they were beheaded. For them this was an ultimate test of "unconditional love". So my question is, how can we, then, define such love (unconditional) which neither falls into the hedonistic/selfish nor compassionate repertoires of human nature?

Peace!