z,

you seem to be more interested in mind over matter and miracles. these things, though they may play a large role in televangelist christianity, they do not have a role in islam and are conspicuously absent from the Quran.

again, islam is a system of life that allows people to live harmoniously with each other. history is a bleak record demonstrating the destructive nature of the individual who pursues his own aims over those of society at large. religions often attempt to combat this through preaching introspectiveness and restraint. Though these are good traits indeed, it is not enough... this aspect of religion is often attacked by philosophers. what is truly needed is that plus an all-inclusive system of life that harnesses the good aspects of people and represses the bad, allowing true freedom where no person can subjugate another.

miracles, mind over matter, and infighting have absolutely nothing to do with the islamic message and should absolutely not distract one to the point of leaving islam. if you leave islam, leave because you disagree with the message, not because of the above which have nothing to do with it.

islam is a constant struggle or journey. many different belief structures have existed in islam throughout history, some have died while others have survived. as long as you believe in the Quran's truth and in God, then try to keep yourself in the fold of Islam and find your way. evolution is not against the Quran. Be careful of those claiming to be messengers, there is no point in any modern muslim making this claim no matter how intelligent or insightful. it is not against the quran to believe in 5 prayers as they exist today.. they can argue all they want about what may have been at the time of the prophet, but what is practiced today is not AGAINST the Quran.

as far as Christian's happiness, Islam does not say that non-Muslims will only have misfortune befall them. It says that there are other ways to accomplish temporary success in the world, but success in the hereafter is through Islam, which details a socio-politico-economic system in which all will enjoy true freedom and no one will subjugate another.

good luck

enquirer,

a good scientist understands the limits and domain of science. as far as the human soul goes, how do you expect "science" to explain something that apparently is not subject to its laws? the soul is something ethereal yet concrete. anyway, in addition, science tells you what... but it can never tell you WHY.

Dont get so embroiled in self-addulation at musings regarding elementary physical laws taught to children. It is a sore way for sure, to lose sight of the question of WHY. Religion functions to provide answers to questions of a different level, and Islam functions in the deepest and most serene and clear way to explain the position of the universe and our roles in it.

enquirer,

thanks for the advice to think out of the box, but you need to realize what parameters and assumptions your argument is based on.

To use a purely materialistic argument against those who do not believe in absolute materialism is not going to convince us of anything. I doubt there is anyone here who used purely materialistic means to arrive at a belief in God. Yet you set out to disprove the existence of God by using purely materialistic arguments.

As far as giving evidence for God, I don't believe it is necessarily a thing that can be proven through logical argument. But I think one of the biggest things that no materialist can ever explain is the human soul. Here is something that is composed of entirely physical components, yet it is much more than the sum of its parts. The soul is unique, unpredictable, and I think it is its existence that is one of the biggest "signs."

Show me one example of matter being destroyed with no trace,or matter coming into existence from nothing...? Show me one VERIFIABLE example of something not being subject to the laws of cause and effect?

What are you trying to prove by restating the physical law of conversation of matter/energy??? We all know this, its taught in every elementary school! I fully accept that there is a law that governs this, and I believe in a big bang theory, and I also accept physicists ideas that laws of physics break down at singularity.

I very strongly believe in the laws of cause and effect. Neither of these 2 things negate in any way the existence of God, but nor are they necessarily proofs for his existence. To prove His existence is a personal journey, done through reflection of things both within and without. And if after that, you cannot accept the existence of God, then so be it. To you your way to me mine, but don't be deluded enough to think that you have disproven the existence of God.

enquirer,

i dont seem to understand how you take the law of conservation of matter/energy and take that to mean that matter is eternal, i.e. will continue to exist even after the end of time. that is a purely speculative induction.

and to use any laws concerning physics to attempt to explain God's nature is certain folly, since it is presupposed that God is beyond the laws of physics, which is part of the basis for belief in God in the first place! A God who is subject to and limited by the physics of the universe is no God. If we were pure materialists like you are suggesting, there would be no point in believing in God in the first place.

salam alpha

that's a beautiful philosophy of conduct.

as far as the arabic meanings of the words, i've decided not to embroil myself in doing simple research for other people. if its a simple matter of looking it up, i think it should be simple enough for those interested enough to do so. and if they aren't interested enough to do so, the chances are that they don't really care too much in the first place. i merely wanted to bring it to people's attention that those words being translated as mercy and forgiveness ought to be checked. the other thing i pointed out was not to translate one part of the quran to contradict other parts.

thanks for the kudos guys, wow, some people who don't think i am crazy!

well, let me then also just add a somewhat general comment/hope i have for this forum.

it seems to be that almost everything that gets discussed here on the forum is a sideline or distraction from the whole purpose of the Quran as a medium of social transformation. If we look around as at the "real world," we see that the earth seems to be headed towards destruction and that power and wealth is becoming increasingly concentrated. The powers that be have found effective ways of marginalizing any kind of true democracy (through control of media and public perception), and have fooled people into thinking that the narrow play-yard that has been created for them is true freedom (while people are kept blind to the fact that their so-called governors are abusing them and the world with reckless abandon).

This is the natural consequence of the desires of individuals overcoming the needs and wants of society. At some point, one can expect some critical event such as a disaster or major uprising, following that a period of reform, and then likely a repeat cycle of abuse of power. This is reality and it pervades every essence of our daily lives and is the current direction of this world. This has happened throughout history.

The Quran was revealed as an alternative to save ourselves from this cycle of destruction, to provide a means of establishing rule in which no person has domination over another, only Allah (13). And to finally get to the point, I think that whatever our philosphies and spiritual interpretations of the Quran are, we must always come back to its primary function as a medium of social/political/economic transformation. Then perhaps we will be able to keep things in perspective and not get so worked up over things that as far as policy is concerned, may not really be of immediate concern.

This forum does a great job of breaking free of the mould that has been created by traditionalist Islam which in essence has killed that part of Islam which gives its great strength as a system of life. But we should not get wrapped up in minute details and petty arguments that by themselves are of no great consequence. What matters is arriving at a consensus about how to use the Islamic message to overcome the great evils of our time, and to use it as a uniting and liberating force.

There's simply too many varieties of Quranic interpretation to insist that there is only one correct way (even though there may be only one correct way). It's more important to come together with our different perspectives and establish a unified systematic approach to life that we all find sustainable. Traditionalist hopes that we simply need to do a few more prayers and fasts and hajj is not going to cut it. Allah will not change our condition until we REALLY change what is in ourselves, and that means coming together to implement the Quran with all our collective knowledge to combat the viscious forces at work against not just us but all of humanity. Once the Quranic message takes life, the words will actually REALLY mean something, and then the correct interpretations will make themselves known more easily.

salams

i think this thread is coming at the question from the wrong angle. the question is not what scientific knowledge can be gleaned from the Quran and how amazing it is and let's marvel at how such knowledge was revealed 1400 years ago to a scientifically primative people.

the point is that if it is from God, there will be no contradiction between science and the Quran. Those things that were not understood years before that are now understood are an example of how the levels of Quranic understanding deepen through time. However, concordance with nature is a side issue and has almost no bearing on what the function of the Quran is. It's certainly nice to see that the creator's words and creator's creation has no contradiction, but to focus on it is like focusing on a car's appearance and not its function. The function of the Quran is social transformation and revolution to a system in which no person has domination over another.

alpha,

get to learn your arabic better. look up the lexical meanings of those words and see if forgiveness or mercy are what they really mean. if that's what you come up with, fine. but thats certainly not what I come up with. to base an entire quranic philosophy on errant english translation is just a house of cards waiting to be blown down.

salams all,

well I find myself with a little time on my hands, so let me respond to some things that were said.

As far as those who seemed to claim that some vague closeness or belief in God is enough for salvation, I would ask them not to take some part of the book and ignore the other. You must account for verses such as

385 If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost.

Islam is not a religion about some esoteric and vague fuzzy closeness with God. It is very practical, and at every turn we see the Quran give us directions on how to establish a successful society. A society/nation that enjoins the good, forbids the evil, and is constructed according to Allah's guidance so that in essence HE governs us rather than any individual (maaliki youm ud din). Anyway, that's just food for thought. There is no verse, including 569, that says it is okay to reject Islam.

---

Ahmed,

How can you claim that to arrive at Imaan you ask questions and investigate, but once you achieve Imaan you stop asking questions and act like a blind sheep? Imaan is a CONTINUOUS act. To have imaan, one must always be inquisitive alert and investigate, and thus achieve true inner peace (not the peace of a horse with blinders being beaten by his master to stay on the path).

2573 Those who, when they are admonished with ayaat of their Lord, fall not down at them as if they were deaf or blind;

We dont fall deaf and dumb even for the ayaat of Allah.

As far as your reference to 5101-2, you gave your interpretation of it, but I would like to offer an alternative.

Firstly, if you read the verse carefully, the verse must be relating to things that can be easily understood because it says that those things could be made plain to us. Secondly, IF it were made plain to us, it would cause us trouble. Thirdly, take the context, the preceding verse is talking about protecting ourselves from bad and doing good. Fourthly, take the fact that the following verse claims that previous nations DID ask and apparently did get troubled by it and lost their faith.

Is there a simple explanation for the above, or should we just put on the blinders and start talking fire and brimstone?? You took the fire and brimstone route already, so let me go for the simple explanation.

The Quran is a guidance for mankind, and it is a complete guidance and it is the furqaan. There is no indication in the Quran that anything else is required for it, it is independent and a noor, a guiding light. But, doesn't it strike you as odd that the Quran repeatedly asks us to give zakat but it doesn't add the simple 2.5% term that would be extremely helpful? The same goes for a myriad of other "details" or "applications." It tells us to pray, but not the details. There certainly are some details in the Quran, but it is largely mostly principles. Now, don't you think the natural thing people would ask is, why doesn't Allah provide those details and preserve them in the Quran for all time to come?

The answer is simple, that to do so would go against what the Quran is trying to accomplish (i.e. it would trouble us if it were made plain to us). Islam's great strength is its ability to adapt to the needs of the nation/society through time. If zakat needs to be increased or decreased, it can be done. If the model of government or economic model needs some adjustment it can be done. If punishments for various crimes need to be altered, it can be done. But if all of those things were detailed in the Quran, it certainly may have been good for a time, but eventually it would become problematic for society when those applications became obsolete and the needs of society required a change. No change would be possible, if it was recorded in the Quran. If someone asked, how should one ride a camel to work and then it was revealed, as time went on it would become obsolete as the society evolved. In fact, society has changed tremendously in the past thousand years, and MANY facets of society has changed so much that sometimes we look back at old laws and laugh, because they are so inapplicable today.

Well this is one possible interpretation of the ayaat... again, I would ask you to go and research the word imaan. It never hurts to ask a question, as long as you realize that there are limits to what a human can comprehend. If we followed your principle, no one would have asked why the sun and moon go round, why ships disappear over a horizon, why things always fall down, etc. Every breakthrough in understanding has been through people asking easy AND hard questions. What phoenix asked was important, and it has answers, and you are the only one missing out by not investigating it, and in fact, your imaan demands that you investigate everything.

ahmed,

i understand where you are coming from, and you feel that to ask a question that relates to how Allah has done something is disrespectful. This idea is borne out of the way that it is disrespectful to question a king for anything he has done, or question a parent for something he/she may have said/done.

But this is not the way that belief in Islam works. Allah never asks us to believe Him in this way, and in fact encourages us to investigate and ask questions. Even the word IMAAN relates to this. It's interesting that IMAAN means to believe in something after it has satisfied and made peace with all of one's senses and understanding... ie through intensive investigation.

those who believe without questioning are like sheep. there is no harm in healthy questions and investigation. One merely has to be careful about understanding the limits of the human mind. It's not like the question is hypothetical about very obscure things... his question is very real and relates to an ACTUAL occurence... previous scriptures were not at all preserved, yet they like the Quran, came from Allah.

There are explanations for phoenix's questions, more than one, and in fact the explanation itself can have great ramifications for one's understanding of Islam. This particular question of his is rather important in understanding the whole concept of nasikh mansookh. If you don't ask questions, your understanding will be shallow, and hence your belief will also be superficial and flimsy.

If one believe's something blindly, that is not imaan.

well that was certainly interesting. i take it you agree that every person should be treated with a basic level of respect. And since you are so against "condemning" one another, I take it that you will further refrain from calling Islam a pagan idol worshipping religion and using terms like bleeding scrotum, since most Muslims would consider that a condemnation or slander. And since you are obviously so very much against condemning one another, that will work out just splendidly with the rest of us.

as far as your obvious disdain for the exoteric facets of Islam, I can't say I blame you for that. Muslims have taken the ritual aspect of Islam and forgotten its function and purpose...its only natural for people to eventually stop and ask what the function of those rituals are, and if they serve no functional purpose then to rid ourselves of them. One reaction has been to completely "esoterize" Islam to rid ourselves of this exoteric baggage, which on free-minds is often done through creative linguistic interpretations. You apparently see through this, and rightly so.

I'm sorry that you have no venue for further intelligent study of the matter and would rather just toss out the baby with the bathwater. But best of luck to you.

phoenix,

i mean this with all due respect, but i only provided a putative explanation.. whoever is interested can research further. this does not mean that the Quran can change because Allah has expressly said He will protect it and the deen is complete now. I'll leave it to the sociologists to figure out the answer to your question, I just dont have the time. I've just provided a model of explanation for the facts at hand. (Of course, your question is loaded since this also greatly depends on how you interpret a verse of the Quran. Certainly, since on this forum there is a tendency to translate things in a metaphysical/philosophical sense that can impact the answer to your question).

Mankind was obviously not born into a sophisticated society. It started at a very primative stage, as far as we can tell they followed simple rules and had very simple lives, e.g. hunter gatherers. Eventually as the science of agriculture became more widespread and villages began to be formed with stable families and tribes, society became more sophisticated. Eventually these small villages would go on to form cities and nations and then eventually these nations would meet and clash with each other. Each of these steps in society had their own unique challenges and circumstances, and each nation had its messenger sent from Allah with guidance/scripture. These guidances helped to move mankind in the proper direction for the development of society and mankind at large. Think of it as a sculptor who chips away at the marble, slowly shaping it with each strike.

So for a great period of time, these guidances were basically circumstancial and temporary, not meant to be permanent. They were for a specific society for a specific time, and the reason it was done this way was to slowly guide mankind towards the point where society reached enough sophistication and understanding to receive the full and final message. Once that stage was achieved, that message was to be preserved for all people for all time. That message (i.e. Quran) also encompassed many previous teachings but also has teachings beyond the previous ones.

The above should provide a basic framework to understand the real idea behind abrogation. I'll leave it to whoever is interested to research the matter further.

danish,

this has nothing to do with my being any better than you, rather it is a demand that you observe some basic respect. It is not personal bickering to ask you to treat Islam and Muslims with a basic level of respect that ANYONE deserves.

You would have more of a leg to stand on if your comment wasn't so outrageously ridiculous and inflammatory.

As far as my "brethren" who are concerned about damning/blaming other Muslims, if I see that happen I would speak out against that as well... don't take Muslim on Muslim bashing as a free-pass for you to bash Islam as a whole. There is a fine line between disagreement and bigotry/discrimination, and you have crossed that line.

salams all,

Danish, your remarks quite frankly are a good example of bigotry. There is a fine line between disagreement and discrimination, and it would appear to me that you have crossed that line.

I would request the moderators to, at the very least, view this as a strike 1 for Danish. His comments are bordering along the lines of our other recently banned member apple pie, who finally attempted to "prove" that Muslims worship the devil. Saying Islam is an "idol-worshipping religion" is in my mind, going along that same path. It's a completely ridiculous and very insulting statement. I don't know if you follow a religion or not, but a basic teaching in any religion and any etiquette is control of the tongue.

---

Ignoring that outburst, to answer the original question of why it could be that Allah would allow his previous revelations to be corrupted, I'll let whoever is interested research it further but I will paraphrase a basic explanation.

Mankind was obviously not born into a sophisticated society. It started at a very primative stage, as far as we can tell they followed simple rules and had very simple lives, e.g. hunter gatherers. Eventually as the science of agriculture became more widespread and villages began to be formed with stable families and tribes, society became more sophisticated. Eventually these small villages would go on to form cities and nations and then eventually these nations would meet and clash with each other. Each of these steps in society had their own unique challenges and circumstances, and each nation had its messenger sent from Allah with guidance/scripture. These guidances helped to move mankind in the proper direction for the development of society and mankind at large. Think of it as a sculptor who chips away at the marble, slowly shaping it with each strike.

So for a great period of time, these guidances were basically circumstancial and temporary, not meant to be permanent. They were for a specific society for a specific time, and the reason it was done this way was to slowly guide mankind towards the point where society reached enough sophistication and understanding to receive the full and final message. Once that stage was achieved, that message was to be preserved for all people for all time. That message (i.e. Quran) also encompassed many previous teachings but also has teachings beyond the previous ones.

The above should provide a basic framework to understand the real idea behind abrogation. I'll leave it to whoever is interested to research the matter further.

salams all,

wow things sure have changed here... i'm not sure i like this new color scheme. very little contrast, it's all blue.

anyway, it may be of interest to actually look at the word that is being translated as forgiveness, ghafara/maghfirah. it doesn't actually mean forgiveness, and so that may have quite an impact on the collection of verses above and our understanding of them. there's plenty of internet resources now to research that if you want. to greatly paraphrase, it means to protect.. and allah has certainly prescribed what needs to be done in order to gain this protection (it's not automatic and not based on wishful thinking or lip service). also, whatever your understanding of forgiveness is, it must be reconciled with 997-8. you cannot translate one part of the quran to contradict the other part.

oh incidentally, (i know this is way off the topic), I thought it was interesting that some scientists recently discovered some sort of lunar calendar in some ancient caves (i'm not sure if its lascaux). It seems that in that particular one, the full moon was used to indicate the beginning of the month! (I immediately thought of you of course) i think this is the only instance I have seen, most of the other societies including mesopotamia, egypt etc used the new moon as the beginning.

i also thought this lecture was very interesting
http//www.zaytuna.org/audio/ramadan/Moon%20Sighting.mp3

I used to be of the mind that we should just use calculations to set the dates, but I was very intrigued by the ideas mentioned in the lecture above!

salam br ayman,

good to see you too! it's been quite a while, i dont post often but I try to stop in and read.

You know I agree with your ideology, but I think that in this day and age, considering that the views of the members on this forum differ so greatly from the mainstream, it just makes sense to pick our battles. It'd be (IMHO) a lot more fruitful and less abrasive to teach people that them about true din and the living force that it implies, rather than force people to let go of the pronouns and names that all the terminology has become.

I think there has to be a well thought out strategy on how best to implement and introduce the ideological change that needs to occur in Islam. If we pick petty things, the message will get lost.

salams all,

interesting blurb i learned, that in classical Islamic theological terminology, Quran refers to the oral aspect of the book, whereas if one is referring specifically to the book it is usually referred to as MusHaf.

As far as al-Quran being a proper noun, though this may not specifically be sanctioned by "the book" it certainly has become used in that way and there is nothing to say we cannot call the book al-Quran. I understand the complaint that if it's a proper noun people forget the attribute of having to read it.

But "Muslim" is not a proper noun, and it too has become one in the way it is used. Quran may not be a proper noun, but it has become one through the way its used. The only way to turn this back, is to instill in people's heart the living force of din, THEN they will see that Muslim and Quran indicate activity. You won't change anything by starting a crusade against proper nouns.