To anyone Islamic, or of any other religion...

Graham Handcock "Fingerprints of the Gods", right?

nope, actually it is from an author during the mid 30's if i remember right.
his name was Churchward but i dont remember his first name, he wrote 3
books based on the idea. 2 of them are out of print i think.
The Lost Civilization of Mu
The children of Mu
and i dont remember the third right now.

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by mithras

Let me know if you still beg to differ.

Yes I do. Read the words and you will see that they refer to human body parts. The fact that you put your own translation to them to make them mean something else in the definition is neither here nor there.

The unassailable fact is that the Koran gives Allah human form. Just because the religion tried to wipe this out by giving you another way of putting them into context does not mean that they don't exist.
It's up to you to prove to me that the Koran doesn't describe the physical Allah. I'm afraid that is something you cannot do.

By the way. If you want, we can add other body parts - shin and ass are just two.

Can you tell me the cahpter and verse that Allah has been givein human attributes? I've read much but not all of it. I'm not saying that your wrong I just want to know if you have read the quran and if you know what chapter your refering too.

Originally posted by DaTruth


Can you tell me the cahpter and verse that Allah has been givein human attributes?

Hands -
"The ones who swear allegiance to you merely swear allegiance to God. God's hand rests above their hands..." S. 48:10

Eyes -
Allah said: "Granted is thy prayer, O Moses! And indeed We conferred a favour on thee another time [before]. Behold! We sent to thy mother, by inspiration, the message: 'Throw [the child] into the chest, and throw [the chest] into the river: The river will cast him up on the bank, and he will be taken up by one who is an enemy to Me and an enemy to him: But I endued thee with love from Me: And [this] in order that thou mayest be reared under Mine eye.'" S. 20:36-39

Shin -
"The Day that the shin shall be laid bare, and they shall be summoned to prostrate, but they shall not be able...." S. 68:42

Face -
"I take refuge with Your Face." S. 6:65

Waist -
"Allah created mankind and when He had finished, the womb stood up and took hold of Allah's waist." Hadith 34:

Originally posted by KSoze
The Qu�ran is the most likely explaination-How? It doesn�t expound on the complete marvels of our universe, the complete beauty of nature, it also only mentions a few crimes and their punishments. The qu�ran is very INCOMPLETE. This is its biggest problem (what it doesn't say)
Your car and textbook example are not good ones. I do not care about the smallest details on my car. My car is not claiming to speak for god. My car is temporal. Islam is claiming to speak for the eternal. Surely you see the difference. Naturally, there are things in this life that we will question more. Do you put your car on the same level as your spiritual life.

It talks alot about the universe, your research clearly didn't get very far. Did you want a detailed discussion on the formation of igneous rock, and hope the Arabs of that time wouldn't laugh at you? Not only for ruining the poetry but for making up new words.

I don't think you understood why I gave the car and textbook examples. I was simply saying you take things for granted yourself, without questioning them. Questioning the history of the Qur'an might be valid but going to various scholars/historians the best you can do, not like you can go back in time to find out for real. So my point was, if you can't accept the historian's word you will never logically accept anything, even if it stood infront of you.

�People BELIEVE what is easiest�- you are correct. BELIEF is easiest. Belief is the moment you stop questioning and it is very easy to do.

You didn't understand, read the line after I wrote that. Easiest as in "easiest for them to practice." People want to drink alchohol, steal, fornicate, and so on; it is easier to enjoy your own life that way, despite that it can hurt others. Something that forbids all this will be hated and rejected by many.

The memorization was not to backup the written. If that is the case, why during Abu bakr�s compilation were they afraid those that had memorized qu�ran were going to die. Thats why the compilation was undertaken to start with. This is from your own website.

Obviously they wanted as many sources as possible, they really believed that they had to protect the Message. Where is the problem with that?

And no, I did not get anything from answering-islam. i dont even know what it is. There are many sources in which muslims says things like this. Most of the quotes are from early muslims. The early muslims possibly accepted the qu�ran as incomplete.
Does the message feel correct? i�m going to be blunt...that is ignorant. You do not always experience reality sometimes you experience what you want to. You do not interpret what you experience correctly all the time. Millions of jews and christians feel they are correct; so why argue with them. There �feeling� is just as valid as yours given that logic. There
are satanists, pagans, polytheists that all feel they are correct. What about them.

answering-islam is an amusing website and now my general name for an anti-Islamic site. You haven't convinced me with that one "16th century Muslim," tell me where you read it from, and where you source that statement that many other Muslims believed it incomplete?

Feeling of being correct is what everyone uses. You might think the "Chance" theory of evolution feels correct so you believe that for now; but others think Chance is very unlikely (and it is) so God seems more plausible, especially because of the historical "evidence." If you chose God against "Chance," look at the religions - the whole idea of compilation history favours Islam for a start. Then, if you really understand Islam you will probably see it makes far more "sense" than other doctrines.

Think about this hard, and you might agree that any chosen belief (that goes beyond known science) is about one feeling more correct than the other, maybe through fitting in with established science better. The Qur'an seems to describe the Big Bang and the idea of formation of planets from nebulae, even if as poetry; this is fitting in science and so affects the whether you pick Islam. The only place this "feeling" doesn't apply is something like mathematics because we invented maths and so know the basic truths already.

You talk about the other religions might as well be correct. Worshipping and sacrificing animals to statues and believing there are many gods in human and animal forms somewhere in the universe or some "astral plane?" Does that feel right to you? Other that everyone has a caste, and you're destined to be a slave due to birth (still happens)? I'm guessing not, and that maybe you feel Darwin's (frankly, racist) religion is better. If you studied Islam, not looking at the compilation "errors" yet, you might see it fits in pretty well with science, and that the idea of God beats the idea of infinity, and that its way of life is better for everyone in the long run. Those other religions are running into established science, which is making a mockery of them, people still believe because it's either "fun" (satanisn) or ingrained.


[edit on 30-6-2004 by mithras]

Originally posted by Leveller
Hands -
"The ones who swear allegiance to you merely swear allegiance to God. God's hand rests above their hands..." S. 48:10

Eyes -
Allah said: "Granted is thy prayer, O Moses! And indeed We conferred a favour on thee another time [before]. Behold! We sent to thy mother, by inspiration, the message: 'Throw [the child] into the chest, and throw [the chest] into the river: The river will cast him up on the bank, and he will be taken up by one who is an enemy to Me and an enemy to him: But I endued thee with love from Me: And [this] in order that thou mayest be reared under Mine eye.'" S. 20:36-39

Shin -
"The Day that the shin shall be laid bare, and they shall be summoned to prostrate, but they shall not be able...." S. 68:42

Face -
"I take refuge with Your Face." S. 6:65

Waist -
"Allah created mankind and when He had finished, the womb stood up and took hold of Allah's waist." Hadith 34:

You've shown your lack of ability to understand English. When you're cornered you just resort to gibberish as you did before.

hand
The meaning of "hand" I've explained already, yet you still bring it up:

Here are some definitions of "hand" from dictionary.com that explain what the Arabic word means:
"Physical assistance; help"
"An aptitude or ability"
"A manner or way of performing something"

eye
Interesting how "mayest be reared under Mine eye" is also tranlated as "mightest be trained according to My will". It's clearly figurative, as with "hand," but some translators use "eye" because it sounds poetic.

Here are some more definitions:
"The faculty of seeing; vision."
"The ability to make intellectual or aesthetic judgments"

shin
You lack understanding of the verse, it's nothing to do with describing Allah nor is it even referring to Him.

face
Resorted to being "funny" again.

(edited) To let others see what 6:65 means (according to Pickthal):
Say: He is able to send punishment upon you from above you or from beneath your feet, or to bewilder you with dissension and make you taste the tyranny one of another. See how We display the revelations so that they may understand.

waist
Aww, had to resort to non-Qur'anic statements.

This is not really for your benefit (but for anyone who might believe you) since you will probably feel cornered and reply, as before, by being "funny" and interpreting it how you want.




[edit on 30-6-2004 by mithras]

I don't think it's being "funny".

I posted the verses as they stand. the fact that you have twisted them to suit your own cause does not make the literal translation funny.

As for the first translation - it clearly states that Allah appears in a physical form. Again, twist it all you like but there is no hiding from the truth.

Originally posted by Leveller
I don't think it's being "funny".

I posted the verses as they stand. the fact that you have twisted them to suit your own cause does not make the literal translation funny.

As for the first translation - it clearly states that Allah appears in a physical form. Again, twist it all you like but there is no hiding from the truth.

1) The Quran is Literally the Word of G-d transmitted word for word by the ArchAngel Gabriel(pbuh) to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It is not inspired. However, that does not mean that this literal template that has been transcribed does not have literal and metaphorical implications

Originally posted by Leveller
I don't think it's being "funny".

I posted the verses as they stand. the fact that you have twisted them to suit your own cause does not make the literal translation funny.

As for the first translation - it clearly states that Allah appears in a physical form. Again, twist it all you like but there is no hiding from the truth.

what made you judge that the verse is literally speaking about a literal form of Allah? Was it a gut instinct of yours.....?

Well, why don't we see what the early followers of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had to say about this topic. I am sure that the words of the immediate companions of the Prophet should have more weight than what you have to say......I think they portrayed "Allah" best........


----River

Originally posted by Leveller
I don't think it's being "funny".

I posted the verses as they stand. the fact that you have twisted them to suit your own cause does not make the literal translation funny.

As for the first translation - it clearly states that Allah appears in a physical form. Again, twist it all you like but there is no hiding from the truth.

--Leveller

I urge you to read the following post. It is best to inform yourself about the Islamic concept of G-d, before you prematurely assert "characteristics of Allah"...for which you ..... clearly do not have expertise --------River


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is Allah?


When i say "Hu" in reference to God Almighty, i am speaking in the masculine pronoun because in Semitic languages there is no such thing as a gender neutral pronoun as there is in English. In English we have the pronoun "IT." However, in Semitic languages the �default� gender neutral pronoun is �Hu.�

`Ali, the cousin of Muhammad, who was the son of Muhammad's foster parents and who Muhammad raised basically from infancy - this same `Ali about whom all Muslims accept that Muhammad said "You are my brother in this world and the next" - this `Ali and his descendents told those who asked them, that if one wished to, they could think of Allah as a "Thing" since that would prevent them of anthropomorphizing Allah and attributing qualities of the creation to the Creator.
Muhammad ibn Ya�qub has narrated from `Ali ibn Ibrahim, from Muhammad ibn `Isa from �Abd al-Rahman ibn Abu Najran who said the following.

"I asked Imam Abu �Abd'ullah about the Oneness of Allah saying, �Can I think of Him (the creator) as a thing?�"

The Imam replied, "Yes, but not as something well understood and clearly defined with in limits. What may become a subject of your thoughts is different from Him. Nothing resembles Him and the thoughts and imaginations can not reach Him. He is different from what can become the subject of thoughts and is different from whatever that can be perceived in ones thoughts. You can think of Him as some thing but not well understood and clearly defined (under certain limits)."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 215, Ch. 2, h 1

Muhammad ibn �Abd'ullah has narrated from Muhammad ibn Isma�il from al-Husayn ibn al-Hassan from Bakr ibn Salih from al-Husayn ibn Sa�id who said that I asked Imam Abu Ja�far, the second the following:

"Is it permissible to say that Allah is a thing?"

The Imam replied, "Yes, because it removes two kinds of limitations, the limitation of being forgotten altogether and that of considering Him like other things."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 216, Ch. 2, h 2

It is narrated from Imam Abu Ja�far who said when he was asked, "Is it permissible to say Allah is a thing?" "Yes, it is permissible because it excludes Him from being ignored altogether and from being analogized or considered similar to the creatures."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 221, Ch. 2, h 7

So let us be clear that when any educated Muslim speaks of Allah as "He" - or "Hu" in both Hebrew (הוא and `Arabic (هو - then we do not mean that God Most High, who is exalted far above Hu's Creation - is a man. So this is one of many reasons why, throughout many teachings, i refer to God with the Hebrew and `Arabic pronoun "Hu" to point back to the original word used. i find this preferable to mistranslating it as a masculine gendered pronoun into a language with a gender neutral pronoun. This does not mean that there was no other reason why the masculine pronoun would have been used for God. However, that is not within the context of this topic. Suffice it to say that when a gender neutral option exists in a language, then it becomes questionable at best to attribute gender to a non-gendered Being.

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn �Isa from Yunus from Abu al-Maghra in a marfu� manner from Imam Abu Ja�far who has said the following: "Allah is distinct from His creatures and His creatures are different from Him and whatever that is called a thing is a creature except Allah."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 217, Ch. 2, h 3

It is narrated from Imam Abu "Abd'ullah who said, "Allah is distinct from His creatures and the creatures are different from Him. Whatever could be called a thing is a creature except Allah Who is the Creator of all things. Holy is He for Whom there is no similarity and He is all-hearing and All-Aware."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 218, Ch. 2, h 4

So when "Hu" is said, in this text, it does not mean that Hu has sexual organs nor that Hu is anthropomorphic. For to think that really would assert that it is not Allah who is anthropomorphic, but we human beings who are "god-like" since it is God who Existed long before creation, and Exists outside of the context of time, beginning or end. So if one believes that God looks like man, has the gender of man, or the like then they are essentially saying that man is a god-like creation. They do not comprehend Allah with the Understanding due unto Hu!

When we speak of God, of Allah, we do not speak of an anthropomorphic being. As the Tanakh says:
"God (El) is not a man (ish) that He should lie; nor the 'son of man/Adam' (a Hebrew term meaning 'human being' as all humans are the sons of Adam) , that He should repent: when He has said, will He not do it? Or when He has spoken, will He not make it good?"

לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב, וּבֶן-אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָם; הַהוּא אָמַר וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה, וְדִבֶּר וְלֹא יְקִימֶנָּה.

So clearly God is not a man, nor the "son of man." God is not Something that grows weary after creation. God is not a man who reproduces or begets children, nor does God stem from any Source other than Himself, or Itself. God is the Source of ALL that exists, and of every potentiality that could ever exist within the Divine Order, or Law of the Universal Construct that is the sustained Thought Construct of the Divine Mind.

God sees, but without the physical organ of sight, and for this reason it is said within Seferim Ha'Zohar that should the Eye of God close for even a second, the Universe would be destroyed.

It is narrated from Imam Abu Ja�far who said, "Allah is distinct from His creatures and the creatures are different from Him and whatever could be called a thing is a creature except Allah Who is the Creator of all things."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 219, Ch. 2, h 5

It is narrated from Imam Abu `Abd'ullah , who said this to an atheist on being asked a question. "He (Allah) is a thing but different from all other things. I repeat my statement that speaks about Him as a thing. He is a thing in the sense of the reality of things except that He does not have a body and form. He does not have a feeling (like our sense of feeling) or touching and He does not comprehend with the five senses (as we do). Imaginations can not comprehend Him and the timeless (Dahr) times does not reduce Him and the times do not change Him."

The man asking questions then said, "Do you say that He hears and sees?"

The Imam said, "He does hear and see: He hears without a hearing organ and sees without a means. He Himself hears and He Himself sees. My saying "He hears without a hearing organ and sees without a means. He Himself hears and He Himself sees" does not mean that He is a thing and His-self is another thing but that I only meant to express my self thereby as I was questioned and explained to you as you had asked a question. Thus, I can say that He hears with the whole of His-self but not in the sense that His whole self has parts but that I intended to explain it to you and to express my self. All I meant thereby is that He does hear, see and He is all-knowing and is the expert in knowing without any multiplicity in His-self or meaning."

The man asking questions then said, "What then is He?"

The Imam said, "He is the Lord. He is the One Who is worshipped and He is Allah. When I say Allah, it does not mean establishing the proof for these letters (of alphabet) like Alif, Lam, Ha�, al-Ra� or al-Ba� but I intend thereby the meaning of a thing and a thing that is the Creator of all things and the Designer of all things. These letters only refer to the meaning that is called Allah, al-Rahman (the Beneficent), al-Rahim (the Merciful), al-�Aziz (the Majestic) etc., of the other such names and He is the One Who is worshipped, the Majestic, the Glorious One."

The man asking questions then said, "Given the above, whatever we can think of is but a creature."

The Imam then said, "Were it to the way you said we would not have had any responsibility to believe in the Oneness of the Creator because we will not have any responsibility towards something of whose existence we can not even think of. In fact we say that whatever is thought of in our senses is comprehended thereby by means of drawing limits around it and is analogized, thus, such a thing is a creature. (It then becomes necessary for us to find proof for the existence of the Creator of things. (We must find that is) clear of the two invalid and confusing aspects) if the meaning of negation would be nullification and nothingness or as is the case of the second aspect, the similarity and analogy which is of the attributes of the creatures that under go manifest composition and assemblage. It becomes necessary to prove the existence of the Creator. It is because of the existence of the creatures and their evident dependency on Him as His creatures and that their Creator is something other than them and that He is not similar to them because something similar to them would resemble them in manifest composition and assemblage. It would be as such also in the matters such as coming into existence from nothing and their changing from a smaller size to a full grown size, from blackness to whiteness from strength to weakness and other existing conditions that we do not need to explain their existence."

The man asking questions then said, "You have already defined and limited Him in your proving His existence."

The Imam then said, "I did not limit Him. I only proved His existence if (as you think) there is no difference between proving and disproving."

The man asking questions then said, "Can His existence be proved through a reasoning from the effect to the cause or the cause to the effect?"

The Imam said, "Yes, there is nothing whose existence can be proved without adopting either of the two above process of reasoning."

The man then asked, "Does the question how apply to Him?"

The Imam said, "No, this question does not apply to Him because it is the aspect of qualities and limitations. However, it is necessary to avoid abandoning and analogizing Him because negating Him is denying His existence and refusing to accept Him as the Lord and abandoning Him altogether. Whoever would analogize Him with other things from His creatures he has proved the qualities of the creature in Him, the creatures that do not deserve being called the Lord. It, however, is necessary to believe that the question how applies to Him only in a way that would not apply to things other than Him and things other than Him would not deserve and share Him in it. The how question can not apply to Him if it would limit Him or make Him the subject of knowing for others."

The man then asked, "Do things make Him tired?"

The Imam then said, "He is far Exalted and above experiencing such conditions. Such conditions are due to coming into physical association or dealing with the creatures. They are of the qualities of the creatures who can only associate with others through physical contact but He is the Most High and His will and demand are effective and He does whatever He wants."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 220, Ch. 2, h 6

As can clearly be seen from the words of the Imams - the A'immah of the Ahl'ul-Bayt, the family of Muhammad and his progeny - our Lord is not some anthropomorphic "god" like the polytheists imagine. Our "God" (the ONLY God and ONLY Reality), does not move from one place to another within Space-Time. Allah is the ONLY Reality that is; this is the meaning of "La ilaha ill-Allah." Nothing exists save the Divine Mind's Thought Construct, and within that Thought Construct are thoughts themselves and the individual identities of ego-selves (nufus), they come to be fomented and identified by. These are the "you" and the "i."

However, in Islam, these things are nothing save thoughts within the Mind of Allah. Thus, an atheist may demand proof of the Existence of God, but this stems from their ignorance in presuming that their own independent and separate Existence can be proven and taken for granted. So before such people wish to see proof of God, they should prove that they themselves exist, and then demonstrate how their existence is separate from that Whole, that Totality that is the very Construct of Allah's Mind. [Abu' Jamal]

Originally posted by DaTruth
Parts of the bible are true. People just choose to read the parts that they are told to read.

I think it's a little bit more complicated than that.
Parts of the bible are understood.
Instead of making the bible look bad, those that don't understand parts of it should try to find out what's really going on.

Originally posted by Leveller
I don't think it's being "funny".

I posted the verses as they stand. the fact that you have twisted them to suit your own cause does not make the literal translation funny.

As for the first translation - it clearly states that Allah appears in a physical form. Again, twist it all you like but there is no hiding from the truth.

This is an English translation. You have to remember that there are a lot of words and meanings in Arabic that don�t come across the same way in English. Those quotes don't support anything plus if you post more than one line you will see that they are not talking about physical body parts as mirtha said.

Your making the same mistake Christian made when they read the bible. They thought that the earth was the center of the universe and that everything revolved around it. What was their reason? Genesis said so and if the earth was spinning in space if you threw a rock in the air it would end up miles away. Well it wasn't the bible that was wrong it was the interpretation of the verse and lack of understanding about a magnetic attraction called gravity. This is just like you are misinterpreting the verses in the Quran. Stop being such a zealot and relax.

Originally posted by Jakko

Originally posted by DaTruth
Parts of the bible are true. People just choose to read the parts that they are told to read.

I think it's a little bit more complicated than that.
Parts of the bible are understood.
Instead of making the bible look bad, those that don't understand parts of it should try to find out what's really going on.

I agree some parts are understood but by who? The skull and bones men make claim to a verse in Genesis, 4:16 I think. They claim to be gods among men. The ones that do understand seem to allways keep the "common" people in the dark. Much eaiser to control them and make money that way.

[edit on 30-6-2004 by DaTruth]

Originally posted by KSoze
I am not biased towards the bible. The bible is just as corrupt as the Qu�ran.


[edit on 29-6-2004 by KSoze]

-KSoze

I am not sure why you are not addressing me ( any longer).

However, I do not see any solid support for your statement here. As far as corruption of Scripture go....the Zoroastrian Avesta in its modern form is far from complete...the reason being is that they were unwittingly destroyed during the Arab invasion of Iran. This was uncalled for ...and the Caliph Ali was extremely angered and upset the turn of events.

Secondly the Holy Taurah ( Primordial Torah ) was destroyed when Jerusalem itself was .... and the Prophet Ezra ( Uzair) tried his best t to revive the Holy Taurah. Here is a composition map of the Ezra ' Torah.

www.essene.com...&Essenes/ezra.htm

As far as the OT....its composition is interweaved by a series of 3 texts called " Yahvisht, Elohist and Sacerdotal. These three texts are from different time periods, thus you may see multiple versions or narrations of the the Genesis story found in the Bible.

The NT canon formation was mentioned in depth here

www.infidels.org...


As for the Hindu religion. It is a very archaic relgion that is not centralized. It has over a dozen Scriptures including Bhagavat Gita , Puraanas, and the Vedas....and it has been compiled and updated throughout the centuries. The religion is viewed by some as a Polytheistic conglomeration of creeds....Others view it as a religion that is essentially Monotheistic...with millions of its G-ds representing only symbols of reality as opposed to deities.


I am not sure why you are getting so worked up about the Holy Qur'an. Did not the Qur'an say that it is a Scripture that "confirms all other Scriptures". Thus , finding traces of Zoroastrianism should not undermine the Qur'an's worth. In fact the Qur'an already knows this. It already has a prophet "Dhul-Qurnain" who is from the Zoroastrian creed. He was a powerful prophet of G-d that submitted to his Will and G-d granted him an empire. Secondly how is the Qur'an corrupted. I know that there are 7 dialects of the Qur'an.....which Christian missionaries like to call "7 Versions" ..These however were permitted from the conception of the Qur'an. They are not "7 versions" really....they are 7 permissible ways for pronouncing the Holy Qur'an. However , this is no surprise.....as the very word " Qur'an " is derived from " Iqra" ...which translates to recitation. Thus, these diacritical marks, silence traits, and subtle nasalisations do not change the meaning for practicionars of Islam. They merely allow a guide for the way ...or ...method ....one chooses to pronounce the Holy Qur'an.


Lastly yes ....there exists some hadiths amongst the "Ahadees" that state the Qur'an was larger. However, one must realize what hadiths are. Hadiths are a wealth of information collected and transmitted by over 100,000 persons. They are in no way divine...and there is a huge field called "Science of Hadiths" ....that show the reliability and validity of th sources and strength of the narration. I really doubt that those hadiths that hint of the Qur'an as having dubious origins are authentic narrations. What if those hadiths were hearsay transmitted to undermine the opposing Shia or Sunni factions of the Prophets time....to place blame and responsibility for political reasons... To be quite honest , I try to look at things from a scientific perspective....and use the evidence that exists. I know for a fact that numerous Bibles of all sorts exist today...( i.e Apocrhrypha and Nag Hammadi).... As far as Qur'ans ....the oldest Qur'an in existence today is identical to newest arabic Qur'an ( ...and also putting into considerations the diacritical marks that were introduded mostly for correct pronounciation). Thus, for one to say that the Qur'an is equal to the corruption found in the Bible........that I can not agree.



---------River

Originally posted by River Euphrates


what made you judge that the verse is literally speaking about a literal form of Allah? Was it a gut instinct of yours.....?

Why shouldn't I judge? Were any of the scriptures written so that I couldn't interpret them for myself? The question should be: "Who said I couldn't judge?" I see what I read and read what I see. The fact that others may disagree means nothing. All they are doing 99% of the time is just following the official doctrine. An official doctrine, that incidentally, has changed time and time again to the whims of men - not God.

Heh. And there lays the whole problem with religion. It is put forward in some areas by it's literal meanings and then in others by it's symbolic meanings. There is no definition that hasn't been taken and turned around at some point to support a specific agenda.
If Islam were of the general mindest that Allah had appeared in human form, you can bet your life those passages would be taken to prove that he was!!!

Islam is the same as Judaism, the same as Christianity, the same as Hinduism, the same as every other religion out there. They have pagan origins that nobody who follows them will ever admit to.

Let's take a look at Sura 53 again shall we?

"By the star when it falls, your comrade errs not, nor is he deluded! Nor speaks he out of lust! It is but an inspiration inspired! One mighty in power taught him, endowed with sound understanding, and appeared majestic, he being in the highest horizon.

Then drew he near and hovered over until he was two bows length off or closer still! Then he inspired his servant what he inspired him; the heart belies not what he saw! What, will ye dispute with him on what he saw?

And hesaw him another time, by the lotus tree none may pass; near which is the garden of the Abode! When there covered the lotus tree what did cover it! The sight swerved not nor wandered. He saw then the greatest of the signs of his Lord.

Wether you like it or not. Whatever twist you put on it. The fact is that Allah is not invisible in this passage.



[edit on 30-6-2004 by Leveller]

Originally posted by KSoze


The Qu�ran is the most likely explaination-How? It doesn�t expound on the complete marvels of our universe, the complete beauty of nature, it also only mentions a few crimes and their punishments.


[edit on 29-6-2004 by KSoze]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.....The Qur'an DOES expound upon the marvels of our universe and the complete beauty of nature . I have been studying the Qur'an in depth for about a dozen years....and I will say that it is an extremely beautiful Scripture. There are over 900 verses in the Holy Qur'an that describes natural phenomena.


The Qur'an also saves me a quite a bit of time in terms of my " intellectual and Spiritual journey". The Bible says that the world was created in 7 days. Now, depending on the type of Christian you are ( i.e christian scientists, catholic etc) you may choose to define this literally or metaphorically. However as a Muslim ....I know the exact arabic word that the Qur'an used there for " day"" as " ayaam". The word " Ayaam" also means " indefinite periods of time". Thus the Qur'an says that the heavens and the earths were created in 6 indefinite periods of time. Can you imagine how many years or months of intellectual pondering I would have If the Qur'an was not so clear on that? I would have been somewhat confused ....as the Christians are about the formation of the Universe...... The Qur'an also clarifies that Noah's flood is a regional flood affecting only " communities of Noah". Thus, the claim that the Qur'an is dependent on the Bible is false. For the Qur'an actually corrects the Bible ...from an archaeological perspective here. As far as Evolution goes...the Qur'an says that there were humanoid inhabitants on Earth preceding Adam ( i.e And the angels were confused that G-d was sending another....for war and mischief?).......Thus, I have no problems with evolution. I do not believe compeletely in the Darwinian brand...but in general I do not see my beliefs as anything that conflicts with the natural world. The Qur'an has saved me a great deal of energy ...and answered many many questions that may have taken years or decades more so.....If I was an adherent of another path.



-------------River

[edit on 30-6-2004 by River Euphrates]

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by River Euphrates


what made you judge that the verse is literally speaking about a literal form of Allah? Was it a gut instinct of yours.....?

Why shouldn't I judge? Were any of the scriptures written so that I couldn't interpret them for myself? The question should be: "Who said I couldn't judge?" I see what I read and read what I see.

[edit on 30-6-2004 by Leveller]

Do you choose to read what you see ...deemed fit? Did you read the article " What is Allah"...which describes what the Prophets early companions and disciples felt and understood.......Do you have understanding of arabic and how certain words and pronouns are personified when translated to English?

If not ...please read " Approaching the Quran: The Early Revelations" by Michael Sells. It carefully breaks down how non-gender terms are inevitably translated to English and personified within the process. He is a very controversial author. His book was taught to 3,000 freshman in N. Carolina by a Jewish teacher ( who was sued by Christian evangelists). I highly recommend it .

---------River

[edit on 30-6-2004 by River Euphrates]

[edit on 30-6-2004 by River Euphrates]

Originally posted by River Euphrates
Thus, the claim that the Qur'an is dependent on the Bible is false.

Get real. The whole bloody book uses the Bible as it's basis.
There is no proof that the majority of the figures in the OT even existed. Yet we find those same characters within the Koran.

Islam was yet another tribal religion. It got lucky and survived only because the Jews had done all the groundwork in the OT.

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by River Euphrates
Thus, the claim that the Qur'an is dependent on the Bible is false.

Get real. The whole bloody book uses the Bible as it's basis.
There is no proof that the majority of the figures in the OT even existed. Yet we find those same characters within the Koran.

Islam was yet another tribal religion. It got lucky and survived only because the Jews had done all the groundwork in the OT.

Please read my posts before prematurely judging what I say. The Qur'an is based on the Bible ...but it is not dependent on the Bible.


-----River

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by River Euphrates


what made you judge that the verse is literally speaking about a literal form of Allah? Was it a gut instinct of yours.....?

And hesaw him another time, by the lotus tree none may pass; near which is the garden of the Abode! When there covered the lotus tree what did cover it! The sight swerved not nor wandered. He saw then the greatest of the signs of his Lord.



[edit on 30-6-2004 by Leveller]

You learn in the fields of medical Neuroanatomy, Neuroscience and Neuro-Psychology......that

Eyesight is not a product of the eye organ. Sensory modalities are not confined by the respective organs that they are affiliated with.

Ever heard of the scientific phenomena of " Synaesthesia"...It involves the blurring of sensory modalities?


----River

Originally posted by River Euphrates

Please read my posts before prematurely judging what I say. The Qur'an is based on the Bible ...but it is not dependent on the Bible.

Would it be accurate if I were to rephrase this as: "While the origins of the Qur'an are derived from the Bible, had the Bible not existed the Qur'an would still exist in its current form" ?

.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by River Euphrates

Please read my posts before prematurely judging what I say. The Qur'an is based on the Bible ...but it is not dependent on the Bible.

Would it be accurate if I were to rephrase this as: "While the origins of the Qur'an are derived from the Bible, had the Bible not existed the Qur'an would still exist in its current form" ?

.

Yes, thats exactly what I meant.