It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Islam the New Wine? The New Patch?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Selective reading:

People just love to hide bits from their own scriptures.

I wonder why.



Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy

I am currently reading the Quran from the Prophet Muhammad....

I've studied the words of Christ consumingly, and I know that Christ never spoke about killing. Never spoke of violence...



Not "concumingly" enough, apparently:





Jesus Christ said:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."


Source: Gospel of Saint Matthew







[edit on 6-10-2006 by mr conspiracy]




posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg
you cliamed that there was no 'Holy Book' in its original form. Hence my example. The fact that it is only 300+ years old is irrelevant

I wouldn't say its irrelevant. Its a recent publication. Other holy texts, the languages that they were written in has become extinct even. And all along their history, the scribes have added and redacted entries from them.


Simply because this is a very different time and circumstances. It is too widely circulated and is known to too many people.

Thats never stopped anyone before.


The time of the bible and the koran were different, books were not as accesible. Any changes made to a text would not be known by the common public.

Why would anyone know if a change was made to the sihk holy book?? People aren't born with that knowledge, they have to get the book, printed by someone, and read it. And even after that, someone else can come along and say that that old edition was wrong, and 'this' is the corrected one. The sikh holy book will be changed just like every other holy book.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg

Originally posted by Nygdan
I don't think that there's a single holy book in existence that can be shown to have not been edited (and most show that they indeed were edited).


The 'Guru Granth Sahib', the Holy Book of the Sikhs is in its original form


Isn't one of the original handwritten copies of the Quran in Tashkent (Uzbekistan)..

There is a a lot of talk about the Quran being copied from the Bible, anyone heard about that?.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ersatz
Isn't one of the original handwritten copies of the Quran in Tashkent (Uzbekistan)

No, its not. Where did you hear this?

There is a a lot of talk about the Quran being copied from the Bible, anyone heard about that?.

The koran, just like the christian bible, has as its basis the jewish religion and its torah. The koran doesn't copy the bible.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr conspiracy
Selective reading:

People just love to hide bits from their own scriptures.

I wonder why.



Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy

I am currently reading the Quran from the Prophet Muhammad....

I've studied the words of Christ consumingly, and I know that Christ never spoke about killing. Never spoke of violence...



Not "concumingly" enough, apparently:





Jesus Christ said:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."


Source: Gospel of Saint Matthew






On the contrary there brother, I have read that, ... as I said I've read it consumingly..
I've read the whole Nag Hammadi Library several times...



(16) Jesus said, "Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth: fire, sword, and war. For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father. And they will stand solitary."


as well as


(10) Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and see, I am guarding it until it blazes."


and I think this should be shown as well


(18) The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be."
Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not experience death."


Now I would like to clarify my points...

Jesus never directly threatened 'unbelievers' ...

his statements are broad, yet they hold true... because this is the state of affairs right now in every house-hold (compared to the 1940's-1950's)

I guess what I'm saying is, I never heard Jesus say that unbelievers are going to burn in eternal fire, and when their skin burns off a new skin will form to be burnt off... (not to mention thats kind of morbid)

I think that a lot of muslims read the Quran and thats it... instead of reading the older Torah manuscripts or even the bible or other ancient christian scriptures... for that matter every religeon should make an honest study of every other religeon...
I also think that every christian or jew should read the Quran...
Than we can each speak our minds with knowledge instead of ignorance...
Really if you think about it realistically... how can there be so many off shoots of one particular writing ?? mainly being the Torah... If these prophets and everything are all predicted and everything in the Torah why do they all seem to have their own writings that are NOT the Torah? .. .or rather.. why are people not starting with the Torah? and the older texts??? should those not be published more than... everyones interpretation of the events?

There seems to be quite a buzz around this Jesus The Christ guy... maybe for some reason? ..
To even argue so much over a person shows that its a 'hot' topic...
I just find it scary hearing all this talk about Jihad and extremists and crap, especially when its like. ... whoa whoa.. .hold up a minute.... did you read the Torah? did you read the stories? did you even hear the other prophets messages? .. are you actually well versed in your own religeon? Most people aren't, infact almost every priest in every perish and pastors... (especially youth pastors) know almost nothing about any of the actual history or older manuscripts.... although highly versed in the new testament and a foggy interpretation of the old testament... I'm not familiar with Muslim preachers.. and missing books (i.e. the 4th book of maccabees) although in circulation.. hard to find and not mentioned.. or the apocryapha(sp?)
I just think ... if all these religeons claim to be pulling from the Torah manuscripts that they should all make a concious effort to read the other books

[edit on 10/9/2006 by PuRe EnErGy]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
continued..

I also find it interesting how the beginning of the 'texts' atleast is a place where they let God do the 'judging' and they just lived... They didn't claim to know God... or be 'working' or 'coming' from him.... They just 'feared' him and lived 'with' him...

Not that I'm saying thats what we should all do, is 'fear' God... Respect is a much better way of describing it...
But still, .. its obvious though that all hell is going to break loose anyhow.. so I guess we should all embrace the war against extremists eh? that sounds yucky to me... killing people.. what a mess... horrible smell too ... meh.. I'll just "Become a passer-by."
Let it Be..



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Ersatz
Isn't one of the original handwritten copies of the Quran in Tashkent (Uzbekistan)

No, its not. Where did you hear this?

There is a a lot of talk about the Quran being copied from the Bible, anyone heard about that?.

The koran, just like the christian bible, has as its basis the jewish religion and its torah. The koran doesn't copy the bible.


I am aware that there is a lot of bull.. on the net but this site below seems genuine enough


"The historical credibility of the Qur'an is further established by the fact that one of the copies sent out by the Caliph Uthman is still in existence today. It lies in the Museum of the City of Tashkent in Uzbekistan, Central Asia....and an early manuscript on gazelle parchment exists in Dar al-Kutub as-Sultaniyyah in Egypt. More ancient manuscripts from all periods of Islamic history found in the Library of Congress in Washington, the Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin (Ireland) and the London Museum have been compared with those in Tashkent, Turkey and Egypt, with results confirming that there have not been any changes in the text from its original time of writing."

From www.iiie.net...

1. The Tashkent Quran (Uzbekistan)

www.islamic-awareness.org...

Original Mushaf written by Zaid bin Harith. A Photocopy of this mushaf is available at the Columbia University Library in the USA.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I would like it to me known, in regards to my posts that, it isn't Muhammad I am talking about... I am talking about his followers.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ersatz
. The Tashkent Quran (Uzbekistan)

Interesting information (the first website doesn't show up though).
However, its not an original manuscript.

www.submission.org...
Prophet Muhammad was the first to write down the Quran revealed to him and when he died , the whole Quran was completely written, although not in one book, but rather on pieces of woods, papers, palm leaves, bones…etc. It was the first Khalifa, Abu Bakr who collected the Quran into one book. The manuscript on which the Qur'an was collected, remained with Abu Bakr and then with Umar (the second Khalifa), and after him, it remained with Hafsa, 'Umar's daughter and one of the Prophet's wives

This copy of the Quran, was the only copy made after Muhammad's own copy. It is from that copy that Uthman, the third Khalifa, made other copies to distribute to different regions of the Islamic Empire. Uthman returned Hafsa's copy of the Quran to her. Her copy however was later burned by Marwan b. Hakam (d.65/684).


Its a copy of a copy collected from writtings on materials as diverse as skin, bark, and bones. And even that is only if it actually is what it is claimed to be. As far as the koran being perfect, mohammed himself claimed that some of the inspired verses weren't inspired by god through the angel Gabriel, but were infact the trick of Satan, and thus he eleminated those verses. After that, others added verses to the koran, and today there are disputes over what was added, by whom, and what their authority is. The situation I can only assume is even worse with the Hadiths, since they aren't claimed to be perfected revelations from god.

edit to add:

www.studytoanswer.net...
The Arabic Qur'ans have come to the present day through a series of what are called "transmissions". Essentially, there were in the second century AH (After Hijra, roughly the 9th century) seven men who were considered authoritative "readers" of the Qur'an, and their recitations were written down (transmitted) by other scholars, and these readings have come down to us today as the various transmissions. Properly speaking, the two main transmissions used today are the "Hafs" and "Warsh" transmissions, though two others (the Qalun and the Al-Duri) are also in print. The Hafs is the most commonly used transmission, though the Warsh is (or at least used to be until recently) the most common in North Africa.


So these are more stories about how the various copies were put together. The truth seems to be that no one can definitively say that there is an authoratative edition of the Koran, like all the other religious texts out there.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
I am currently reading the Quran from the Prophet Muhammad....


Yet I find the Prophet Muhammad sways back and forth between being war-minded and being 'god-minded'


I was watching a program the other day on Islam. I didn't know this before. The Koran was written at 2 different times. The first part that was written spoke of converting people to Islam through peaceful means, people didn't listen to Muhammad and that didn't work out. So Muhamad added to the Koran and the part that was added was that coverting people by the sword through war and conquest would now be the way to spread Islam.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Again, the koran explicitly forbids forced conversion.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Again, the koran explicitly forbids forced conversion.


I don't have time to look it up now but I don't agree. I've seen the verses stating otherwise.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Again, the koran explicitly and absolutely forbids forced conversions. Period. it is not allowed in islam. It happens, but then again a lot of things that aren't allowed in a lot of religions happen within them. But the fact of the matter is, the koran prohibits forced conversions.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   
From here, the character of the Qur'anic revelations began to change; from patiently inviting the Jews and Christians and pagans to Islam, to the sanction of using force against them.

www.infolink-islam.de...

Muslims like to use this verse to show that Islam does not force people into accepting Islam. It should be noted, however, that this verse is a Meccan verse, where Muhammad was at a disadvantage, having to deal with the strong pagan at Mecca. The tone of the Qur'anic verses changed shortly after he moved to Medinah.

www.infolink-islam.de...

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29 (another source: ) The unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: ) Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.

there's more
www.wvinter.net...


library.flawlesslogic.com...
The Koran includes many abrogated verses, called mansukh, and abrogating verses, nasikh; the latter cancel the former, rendering them invalid, though they nevertheless remain in the Koran and are deceptively quoted, for Western consumption, as though they still represented genuine Islamic beliefs. Nasikh and mansukh are legion: Of the Koran's 114 suras (chapters), only 43 are without abrogated or abrogating verses. That is naturally surprising, and so unexpected that few Westerners are aware that significant segments of the Koran have been theologically annulled. Mohammed's non-Muslim contemporaries were just as surprised.



It seems that you believe what you are saying, but the koran says different. You don't understand what is really going on in Islam.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Nygdan, I'm not familiar with submission.org, but considering how scholarly they seem to appear, it's kind of odd that they said Prophet Muhammad was the first to write down the Quran. It's common knowledge that Muhammad was illiterate. Muhammad recited the Quran as he heard it, and was said to memorise it instantly. Then when he recited it, those who could write wrote it down.

About the Satanically inspired verses, there is no small amount of contreversy around them. The story is from a hadith that ends on the 2nd generation after the Prophet's death. The book they are included in was compiled roundabout 300 years after his death (that is a long time even considering that most Hadith collections were compiled after Muhammad's death). Plus, the Quran has some pretty strict punishments if Muhammad had ever deviated from the message of the Quran (this not being the only place that tells that it would be impossible for Muhammad to add stuff himself):


69:44-46
And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name,
We should certainly seize him by his right hand,
And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart:
Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath).


The Quran certainly does have a system to check whether it has been corrupted. To say that it is impossible for humans to change the Quran negates free will completely. However, these errors can imeadiately be checked and identified. The Quran has existed from the begining in 2 forms, exclusive of each other: Written and oral. They've both always been checked to match each other. That is why, even though the Arabic spoken in the world today may be slightly different from that in the Prophet's time, the recitation is the same.

Nygdan is correct in stating that Islam completely forbids forced conversion. Dbrandt, I really don't understand. Where did you get those quotes from? Did you read them completely? Did you see what comes in the line RIGHT AFTER THE ONES YOU POSTED? EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has something along the lines of "Fight those who fight you...." "....Cease if they cease", etc.

About abrogation, you seem to have found a very suspicious site there. Racial Nationalist Library? Anyhoo, I don't know what Racial Nationalist Library has to say about abrogation, but the Quran says itself that everything it contains is perfect, and that nothing is abrogated. It does mention that God has made some things better for muslims than in the previous scriptures (eg. no sabbath, food laws are not so strict, etc.), but it certainly does not say anything about one part of the Quran negating another (infact, it says the exact opposite).

It seems it is you who needs to understand what is really going in in Islam and the Quran.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by babloyi]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
About abrogation, you seem to have found a very suspicious site there. Racial Nationalist Library? Anyhoo, I don't know what Racial Nationalist Library has to say about abrogation, but the Quran says itself that everything it contains is perfect, and that nothing is abrogated. It does mention that God has made some things better for muslims than in the previous scriptures (eg. no sabbath, food laws are not so strict, etc.), but it certainly does not say anything about one part of the Quran negating another (infact, it says the exact opposite).
It seems it is you who needs to understand what is really going in in Islam and the Quran.
[edit on 11-10-2006 by babloyi]


Are you saying that the Quran has no inconsistencies?

Have some passages in the Quran been abrogated?

------1) No, the Quran is perfect and can never be abrogated.

6:34 There is none to alter the decisions of Allah.

6:115 Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words.

10:64 There is no changing the Words of Allah.

18:27 And recite that which hath been revealed unto thee of the Scripture of thy Lord. There is none who can change His words.

------- 2) Yes some verses have been abrogated

2:106
Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof.

16:101
And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
It's odd that you show a verse that says "nothing is abrogated" to prove that something was abrogated. What you quote is what I mentioned as "It does mention that God has made some things better for muslims than in the previous scriptures (eg. no sabbath, food laws are not so strict, etc.)".

Perhaps I should clarify the Islamic point of view on this. See, Islam has it that while the revealations as were given to Jesus are valid, and the revealations as given to Moses were valid, and the revealations as given to David were valid, they were there for that time. While this means that even today, if someone lives according to these revealations, they are doing the right thing, Islam was sent as the final, complete message for all humanity of all time and all places.

The Quranic verses you quoted (2:106 and 16:101) are in reference to this. Prophet Muhammad was accused of "forging" the Bible, and twisting it to his own needs (still being accused of this today, apparently
). Those verses were in response to that.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.

Dbrandt, I am sure that you are familiar with the many instances of people taking isolated text from the bible and trying to use it to put words into jesus's mouth, or using it to come up with a message contradictory to scripture.

What the muslims are talking about in the above is illustrated by the 'persecution is worse than slaughter'. Muslims are required to be peaceful with other religions, UP UNTIL those religions start attacking islam and muslims. So, if you are, say, a muslim of the early years, living in arabia, and raiders from iraq storm into your area and start attacking the tribal caravans, killing people, you are permited in islam to fight back. Whereas, in christianity, you are required to not fight back. So islam is more violent than christianity, yes, but only because christianity is a pacifistic religion (in theory, but clearly not in practice).
Futhermore, there are restrictions on the execution of war, and this is dependant upon what precisely the threat is. Muslims living on the border of islamic territory that are attacked by raiders from the outside have a different set of rules to follow, their violence is more restricted in warfare, than, say, violent pagans from deep within the islamic territory, or an insurrection of apostates. Its only then, when the threat is to the survival of the religion itself and from within islamdom itself that the most violent responses are permited, AND EVEN THEN they have to officially and formally give the non-beleivers a chance to see their 'error' and convert.

This is entirely different from "muslims are required to kill non-muslims and must use even the threat of death to try to get conversions".


You don't understand what is really going on in Islam.

I understand what is happening, its yet another example of a religion who's followers can't and won't listen to the message of their own prophet or god. Muslims today are like the Crusaders of the past. Jesus told the crusaders, 'don't kill, and if someone strikes you in the face, don't fight, and even offer up your other cheek for them to fight'. They did precisely the oppositte. Similarly, it is demanded that muslims work with other religions and not force conversions, today, they don't, in the past they did. Thats why there are still relic ancient pagan religions in the middle east, precisely because the muslims of those eras understood that they were compelled to work peaceably with peaceful religions.


babloyi
it's kind of odd that they said Prophet Muhammad was the first to write down the Quran

I don't know how authoratative they are. They seem to have a very bizzare idea that everything in the koran is secretly coded as multiples of 19 (ie, there are 19 X (some number) mentions of "god" in the koran, or at least would be, if you 'eliminate' the two 'spuriously added' verses, or some such). They state that mohammed wrote down the verses on a variety of materials, apparently whatever was handy at the time, from palm leaves to bark to animal bones. Perhaps they meant to say that whatever literate followers of mohammed happened to be around wrote things down as they could.

And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name,
We should certainly seize him by his right hand,

I have to say that I fail to find it at all convincing that a prophet didn't edit and redact a holy book, or that others haven't done so, merely because the books says it couldn't happen.

The Quran has existed from the begining in 2 forms, exclusive of each other: Written and oral. They've both always been checked to match each other. That is why, even though the Arabic spoken in the world today may be slightly different from that in the Prophet's time, the recitation is the same.

The sad fact is that oral tradition allways results in corruption of the story being told. Its up to a persons personal beleifs to decide when to change the text in favour of the oral tradition, and vice versa. There is no way to objectively know what the 'correct and permanent' koran is (presuming it ever even existed in the first place, as opposed to being merely the theology of some guy).

It does mention that God has made some things better for muslims than in the previous scriptures

Indeed, this is the basic idea in christianity too. There was the original religion of Adam, then god severed direct communication to his descendants, and man went into error. So god corrected it, by making Abraham a prophet, and ultimately dictating the text of the 5 Books to Moses (or some such). Then Jesus came along and said that the old ways had served there purpose, prophecy is fufiled, and here is the new way of doing things. Mohammed came along and said, everyone's falln into error, and now god is making one historically final revelation of the perfected way of worship.
And, not surprsingly, it requires that muslims try to convert others to the 'one true faith', but also recognizes that those other people, they're in error, but that doesn't mean that they deserve to be punished in this world or should go to hell forever in the next one (at least, that is, the people who followed moses, but ended up in error, and the people who followed 'isa', but ended up worshiping him and his cross in error).


Those verses were in response to that.

So by this:

Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof

by 'our revelation' you are saying it means the previous revelations, like those to moses and abraham and jesus? And that the 'one better' is the Quran?



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
It's odd that you show a verse that says "nothing is abrogated" to prove that something was abrogated. What you quote is what I mentioned as "It does mention that God has made some things better for muslims than in the previous scriptures (eg. no sabbath, food laws are not so strict, etc.)".

Perhaps I should clarify the Islamic point of view on this. See, Islam has it that while the revealations as were given to Jesus are valid, and the revealations as given to Moses were valid, and the revealations as given to David were valid, they were there for that time. While this means that even today, if someone lives according to these revealations, they are doing the right thing, Islam was sent as the final, complete message for all humanity of all time and all places.

The Quranic verses you quoted (2:106 and 16:101) are in reference to this. Prophet Muhammad was accused of "forging" the Bible, and twisting it to his own needs (still being accused of this today, apparently
). Those verses were in response to that.


I was merely pointing out that there are many inconsistencies in the Quran..

You are saying that Allah is the " Author " of the Quran and that scribes wrote down the words He dictated to the Prophet?



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
It really doesn't matter if the koran has inconsistencies or if parts of it are little more than jibberish, most religious books are like that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join