Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

reply to post by racasan

Not praising – pointing out that somebody felt the need to stick spikes up muslim bottoms – I doubt anybody would do that if the muslims in question where a bunch hippies with flowers in their hair or quire boys on a day out

I don't know why you felt the need to use that piece of history, VLAD the Impaler. It made me sick to the stomach. I wouldnt even post the disgusting things he did.
For the purpose of discussion, i seen nothing more than an empire trying to rule and subdue and a smaller kingdom refusing and fighting.

And you didn’t answer my question –
are you saying muslims don’t go in for
violence and war or empire building
as OpinionatedB says?

No, i wouldn't say that.
Do you know that the turks were not muslims and that they killed millions of arab muslims. Only later the turks accepted Islam and we then get whats know as the Ottoman Empire.
As OpinionatedB said, rulers go to war for reasons of their own, they use whatever motivates the peasants/masses as an excuse for it, religion, freedom, democracy, war on terror, liberating women are just some of them.

reply to post by logical7


Yes as OpinionatedB says religion is a useful tool to kings/warlords and such it’s a way of wielding separate peoples/tribes in to a whole that they wouldn’t willingly enter into without some meta-tribe idea – and religion fits that roll nicely

The Romans did it with christianity and mo did it later with his islam cult and no metaphysical drivel is going to hide that fact


Oh and as to Vlad - he is revered as a folk hero in Romania for his protection of the Romanian population both south and north of the Danube – imagine that some people still like this guy even after what he did – now who else does that remind me of

reply to post by dragonridr

Mohammad foreign policy was very simple. Attack them if they win great instant conversion to Islam if he lost sign a peace treaty.

very interesting but tell me why would anyone sign a peace treaty with Muhammad pbuh after they had won?

Even the
crusades people like to say it was the
Christians that started it but history
doesn't bear that out. It actually starts
with pilgrims being attacked in the
holly land. It gets so bad the night templers are formed as body guards
to protect people on pilgrimages.

I think you are getting the history wrong.
1st crusades-1095
Knight Templar-1129

After the First Crusade recaptured Jerusalem in 1099, many Christian pilgrims travelled to visit what they
referred to as the Holy Places. However, though the city of
Jerusalem was under relatively
secure control, the rest of Outremer was not. Bandits abounded, and pilgrims were
routinely slaughtered,
sometimes by the hundreds, as
they attempted to make the
journey from the coastline at Jaffa into the Holy Land.

-wikipedia

So what you think about history is not really right.

Also here is how Jerusalem was for 5 centuries.

In 638, when Jerusalem was
surrendered to the Muslims, Umar (the
first caliph), requested to be led to the
Temple Mount, an acknowledgment of
Islam’s acceptance of the Hebraic
prophetic tradition. After reaching the Temple Mount, the caliph found
himself disgusted on seeing that
Christians had heaped garbage in the
sacred enclosure to express their
contempt for the Judaic faith. Umar,
out of respect for the Jews, ordered the area to be cleansed, an act which
also prepared the sacred Jewish site
for Muslim worship. Umar fulfilled the
hopes of Jews by refusing the
church’s request to continue the ban
against Jewish residence and inviting them back into the city. In the seventh
century, as Jerusalem came into
Muslim hands, the ban on Jewish
residence was lifted. After
approximately 500 years of being
Judenrein, Jerusalem again included a Jewish community. Jews long banned
from living in Jerusalem by Christian
rulers, were permitted to return, live,
and worship in the city of Solomon
and David.

Five centuries of peaceful coexistence
elapsed before political events led to
centuries of so-called holy wars.

www1.american.edu/ted/hpages/jeruselum/muslim.htm

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by logical7

 

Yes as OpinionatedB says religion is a useful tool to kings/warlords and such it’s a way of wielding separate peoples/tribes in to a whole that they wouldn’t willingly enter into without some meta-tribe idea – and religion fits that roll nicely

The Romans did it with christianity and mo did it later with his islam cult and no metaphysical drivel is going to hide that fact


Oh and as to Vlad - he is revered as a folk hero in Romania for his protection of the Romanian population both south and north of the Danube – imagine that some people still like this guy even after what he did – now who else does that remind me of

Muhammad pbuh is the most misunderstood personality in the West.
Would you care to know the exact circumstances that lead to each battle that Muhammad pbuh fought?
Also how about a little respect and civility to maintain a healthy discussion?
Thanks in advance.

Prophet Muhammad pbuh is the only Prophet that is historically well known. The information about his life and about his mission is well documented and many historians have written about him.
You have a choice to believe whatever you are told or really investigate with an open mind and find the truth.

I hope you will choose wisely.

Originally posted by logical7
Muhammad pbuh is the most misunderstood personality in the West.
Would you care to know the exact circumstances that lead to each battle that Muhammad pbuh fought?
Also how about a little respect and civility to maintain a healthy discussion?
Thanks in advance.

sorry but I didn’t grow up in an area where mo was even mentioned so I’m not all starry eyed about mo.

Originally posted by logical7
Prophet Muhammad pbuh is the only Prophet that is historically well known. The information about his life and about his mission is well documented and many historians have written about him.
You have a choice to believe whatever you are told or really investigate with an open mind and find the truth.

I hope you will choose wisely.

Even Islamic history says he was a warlord but muslims just ignore or pretended its all good by plastering the superstitious rubbish over his crimes – and guess what nobody but a muslim is fooled by that

Originally posted by racasan

Originally posted by logical7
Muhammad pbuh is the most misunderstood personality in the West.
Would you care to know the exact circumstances that lead to each battle that Muhammad pbuh fought?
Also how about a little respect and civility to maintain a healthy discussion?
Thanks in advance.

so I’m not all starry eyed about mo.

No but you are in love with the modern day crusade...practically salivating over your chance to participate for your kings...

reply to post by racasan

sorry but I didn’t grow up in an area where mo was even mentioned so I’m not all starry eyed about mo.

wasn't respecting other people's sentiment taught at the place where you grew up?
Anyways, it was just a request.
Prophet Muhammad pbuh was stoned for preaching his message and he prayed for them and now that whole valley is muslim.

Even Islamic history says he was a
warlord but muslims just ignore or
pretended its all good by plastering
the superstitious rubbish over his
crimes – and guess what nobody but a
muslim is fooled by that

would you like to discuss it? If i am fooled then i may become wiser by what you know or you may end up learning something more.
How about you mention any event that you find criminal/cruel and we discuss that and move ahead?

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by dragonridr

 

the famous verse of the sword
THE QURAN 9:5

9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.
.

Religion the worlds oldest WMD

how about explanation of the verse by an agnostic jew woman?
Lesley Hazelton


also this if you can't watch the video

This verse was revealed towards the
end of the revelation period and
relates to a limited context. Hostilities
were frozen for a three-month period
during which the Arabs pledged not
to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to
encourage the combatants to join the
Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave
the area that was under Muslims rule;
however, if they were to resume
hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is
inspired to note that even in this
context of war, the verse concludes by
emphasizing the divine attributes of
mercy and forgiveness. To minimize
hostilities, the Qur’an ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an
enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum
would be granted according to the
customs of chivalry; the person would
be told the message of the Qur’an but
not coerced into accepting that message. Thereafter, he or she would
be escorted to safety regardless of his
or her religion. (9:6).

theamericanmuslim.org...

reply to post by Sahabi


I was aware of the principle of abrogation (what we say now is true, the past is overwritten) and the rewriting and organizing of the quran around 1200... from a narrative by mohammed to a chopped to bits confusing text that is goood to keep the converts in the dark. so s and f. but the implication could be made a little more direct.

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Mohammad foreign policy was very simple. Attack them if they win great instant conversion to Islam if he lost sign a peace treaty.

very interesting but tell me why would anyone sign a peace treaty with Muhammad pbuh after they had won?

Even the
crusades people like to say it was the
Christians that started it but history
doesn't bear that out. It actually starts
with pilgrims being attacked in the
holly land. It gets so bad the night templers are formed as body guards
to protect people on pilgrimages.

I think you are getting the history wrong.
1st crusades-1095
Knight Templar-1129

After the First Crusade recaptured Jerusalem in 1099, many Christian pilgrims travelled to visit what they
referred to as the Holy Places. However, though the city of
Jerusalem was under relatively
secure control, the rest of Outremer was not. Bandits abounded, and pilgrims were
routinely slaughtered,
sometimes by the hundreds, as
they attempted to make the
journey from the coastline at Jaffa into the Holy Land.

-wikipedia

So what you think about history is not really right.

Also here is how Jerusalem was for 5 centuries.

In 638, when Jerusalem was
surrendered to the Muslims, Umar (the
first caliph), requested to be led to the
Temple Mount, an acknowledgment of
Islam’s acceptance of the Hebraic
prophetic tradition. After reaching the Temple Mount, the caliph found
himself disgusted on seeing that
Christians had heaped garbage in the
sacred enclosure to express their
contempt for the Judaic faith. Umar,
out of respect for the Jews, ordered the area to be cleansed, an act which
also prepared the sacred Jewish site
for Muslim worship. Umar fulfilled the
hopes of Jews by refusing the
church’s request to continue the ban
against Jewish residence and inviting them back into the city. In the seventh
century, as Jerusalem came into
Muslim hands, the ban on Jewish
residence was lifted. After
approximately 500 years of being
Judenrein, Jerusalem again included a Jewish community. Jews long banned
from living in Jerusalem by Christian
rulers, were permitted to return, live,
and worship in the city of Solomon
and David.

Five centuries of peaceful coexistence
elapsed before political events led to
centuries of so-called holy wars.

www1.american.edu/ted/hpages/jeruselum/muslim.htm

edit on 23-8-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)

Im not sure on that one either we would have to ask the Quraysh. They all most kill the prophet forced his armies to hide behind a ditch. there only mistake there is they didnt learn from the Romans you kill off or poison the water and wait but they didnt know that.

By the way i am rarely wrong in history and what i said was 100 percent correct who was in charge of Jerusalem had nothing to do with the pilgrims or the reason the night Templars were formed. As you stated pilgrims were being killed by the hundreds this was not acceptable to rome or should i say the Vatican . Now if your refering to the first battles they were caused by the invasion of islam into spain and other countries but that wasnt what i consider the crusades where nights went to the holly land prior to that was just a war.

reply to post by dragonridr

They all most kill the prophet forced his armies to hide behind a ditch. there only mistake there is they didnt learn from the Romans you kill off or poison the water and wait but they didnt know that.

You are talking about the battle of trenches. It was muslims who dug it to stop the Makkan army and denied to get annhilated. Now is that a crime?
Who do you think is the aggressor in the battle?

You think muslims would let Makkans have access to water wells to poison them
Too bad you were not their advisor.
Btw why would you want the muslims and the Prophet to be killed?

By the way i am rarely wrong in
history and what i said was 100
percent correct who was in charge of
Jerusalem had nothing to do with the
pilgrims or the reason the night
Templars were formed. As you stated pilgrims were being killed by the
hundreds this was not acceptable to
rome or should i say the Vatican .

It does take a certain something to have the confidence to say what you said after i had posted historical dates and facts.

Knights Templar was officially formed to protect pilgrims from bandits in 1129 after Jerusalem was already captured(1099) and held by crusaders.
So the crusades was not launched because the pilgrims were being attacked as you had said here..

Even the
crusades people like to say it was the
Christians that started it but history
doesn't bear that out. It actually starts
with pilgrims being attacked in the
holly land. It gets so bad the night templers are formed as body guards
to protect people on pilgrimages.

reply to post by darkstar57


The concept of abrogation seems to be a difficult topic for most to understand, although I am unclear as to why this is difficult.

The greatest criticisms of abrogation comes from those who themselves believe in abrogation where concerns their own books, the Bible. Christians are followers of Christ, a Jew who taught in synagogue and practiced Judaism. Granted, he attempted to show there can be a balance between law and spirituality, but he believed in law also according to His own words.

Regardless of whether or not Christians would agree with my point of view as to who did the abrogating, the entire law of Judaism was abrogated in the eyes of every Christian on the planet.

Which means that Christians believe laws can be for certain time periods and then abrogated, and not that God changed his mind concerning anything....

The Quran alternatively, was revealed over a period of twenty-three years! Circumstances changed so it is not difficult at all to imagine the certain laws were abrogated, ie: only for a bridge until the people themselves can grow in maturity.....

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by darkstar57

 

The concept of abrogation seems to be a difficult topic for most to understand, although I am unclear as to why this is difficult.

The greatest criticisms of abrogation comes from those who themselves believe in abrogation where concerns their own books, the Bible. Christians are followers of Christ, a Jew who taught in synagogue and practiced Judaism. Granted, he attempted to show there can be a balance between law and spirituality, but he believed in law also according to His own words.

Regardless of whether or not Christians would agree with my point of view as to who did the abrogating, the entire law of Judaism was abrogated in the eyes of every Christian on the planet.

Which means that Christians believe laws can be for certain time periods and then abrogated, and not that God changed his mind concerning anything....

The Quran alternatively, was revealed over a period of twenty-three years! Circumstances changed so it is not difficult at all to imagine the certain laws were abrogated, ie: only for a bridge until the people themselves can grow in maturity.....

There is no abrogation in the Bible. God made a covenant with Abraham, another with the Jews brought out of Egypt, and another with the world as a whole through Christ when he was crucified.

As for abrogation in the Quran, it was created to ease the minds of those who question the constant contradictions in the Quran.

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by dragonridr

 

They all most kill the prophet forced his armies to hide behind a ditch. there only mistake there is they didnt learn from the Romans you kill off or poison the water and wait but they didnt know that.

You are talking about the battle of trenches. It was muslims who dug it to stop the Makkan army and denied to get annhilated. Now is that a crime?
Who do you think is the aggressor in the battle?

You think muslims would let Makkans have access to water wells to poison them

Too bad you were not their advisor.
Btw why would you want the muslims and the Prophet to be killed?

By the way i am rarely wrong in
history and what i said was 100
percent correct who was in charge of
Jerusalem had nothing to do with the
pilgrims or the reason the night
Templars were formed. As you stated pilgrims were being killed by the
hundreds this was not acceptable to
rome or should i say the Vatican .

It does take a certain something to have the confidence to say what you said after i had posted historical dates and facts.

Knights Templar was officially formed to protect pilgrims from bandits in 1129 after Jerusalem was already captured(1099) and held by crusaders.
So the crusades was not launched because the pilgrims were being attacked as you had said here..

Even the
crusades people like to say it was the
Christians that started it but history
doesn't bear that out. It actually starts
with pilgrims being attacked in the
holly land. It gets so bad the night templers are formed as body guards
to protect people on pilgrimages.

edit on 23-8-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)

First you apparently have a problem understanding i never said i wanted anybody dead pay more attention to context. And you need to learn about roman battles no one else gave them access to there water supplies either they would either dig or poison local rivers. The romans knew where ground water comes from and were very good at finding underground rivers.

The crusaders were created to protect the pilgrims visiting the holly land this really isnt the thread for this but ill give brief synopsis of the night Templar. It was started by a French nobleman Hugues de Payens he approached King Baldwin II of Jerusalem with 8 other knights. They asked him permission to set up camp on the temple mount and wanted to protect Christians visiting Jerusalem this occurred about 1119.In truth i dont believe they chose that location to protect anybody but search for artifacts but i digress. so roughly for 9 years they sit on the temple mount and really are not heard from then in 1129 they become officially sanctioned by the church at the Council of Troyes. At this point there fame grows dramatically and start receiving funds from nobles thorough out Europe. Nobles give them lands there sons join the order all in the name of protecting christians visiting the holly land. This sets up the entire points that everyone uses to accuse Christians of being the aggressors during the crusades. Because now there in the holly land in force. The first crusade was well a joke byzantine empire (the greeks aka former roman empire) became weak do to leadership and well they stopped spending on the military.

This left an opening for there rivals Seljuk Turks (aka Persians ) to take the holly land from them. In 1095 the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus goes to the pope for help he has been beaten and needs help this is known as the council of clearmont. the pope agrees to help the Greek emperor troops are sent a war is fought.That is why i said this is not what most people refer to when they consider the crusades. this was not started because of religion but land. The second crusades is started because of religion and that is why i mentioned it any more questions?

PS the reason i said im very rarely wrong when it comes to history is i taught history for 12 years when i make a mistake it is usually because i forgot something i wasnt bragging.

reply to post by babloyi


Peace be with you babloyi. Thank you for your patience in my response

The "Bayt al-mal" of the mosques I have frequented has always simply been a box with a slit to slip in money

Yes, but someone must collect, record, store, and allocate the funds.

I meant officially

Officially, I have no Islamic academic titles or degrees.

I take it you are/were not a hafiz?

No. Only memorized 20-something surahs and various ayah.

what was the situation that lead to you hand-copying Kabbani's book?

Pearls Corals (Al-Lu'lu'wal-Marjan) is a compilation all of individual hadith that are shared in both Sahih al-Bukhari and also Sahih Muslim. If an individual hadith is sourced in both Bukhari and Muslim, then it is included in Pearls and Corals.

I was lead to hand-copy this book, because as a Sunni Muslim, this is a book of "super sahih" hadith, and I was highly passionate about internalizing the most authentic sources

So you came across them after you abandoned the faith?

No. I did not only research/study Salafi literature.

I mean no offence to any Shia believers.....

That is no problem if you do not want to accept Shi'a sources. When I was still a Muslim, I read Shia literature to learn about the religion, but I did not follow it. Oh well, my Shi'a sources are rare anyway. Reject what you like

If it wasn't meant to be collected like that, you don't think he would've stopped them? Or not encouraged them? Zaid was hardly noting it down for his own keepsake.

If it was meant to be scribed, then surely Muhammad would have ordered entire compilations created. And if Zaid had scribed so much of the Qur'an, he would not have had to scour Arabia gathering verses for Abu Bakr's Qur'an.

If Zaid was privy to so much compiled writings, then surely it makes no sense that Zaid only found certain verses with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari, as mentioned in this post of the op.

What has vocalisation got to do with anything? I'd think that arab speakers would know how to read their own words (and any deviations in the qiraat would still come under the several allowed)- the diacritic marks were added to the arabic for the non-arabs.

The diacritic marks were not added for or in consideration of non-Arab speakers. They were added because at the time of Muhammad, the Arabic writing script was still maturing, and it did not fully represent the language. The diacritical marks were developed as the Arabic script developed out of a "defective script" into a proper script.

The Qur'an and Islam gave Arabs a reason to want to learn to read and write, and come out of the culture of illiteracy. As more people became Muslim, more people wanted to learn to read. As more people learned to read, the "defective Arabic script" was improved upon and modified, by Arabs, for Arabs.

The examples of Kufic represented in the oldest Qur'ans is blatantly illustrative of the 8th century styles. A plethora of Islamic and non-Islamic scholars/researchers have dated these manuscripts to the 8th Century, not me.

The Samarkand codex you talked about is certainly not progressive Kufic, it features no diacritic marks.

Diacritical marks is not the determining factor of a scripts age. Modern, standard Arabic is sometimes written without diacritic marks. The paleographic scholars involved with the Samarkand Qur'an date it to the end of the 8th century.

And previous criticism of it again was based off the idea that "Kufic script came later, so it can't have been before the 8th Century", but I (in my previous response to you) showed otherwise, and there are some scholars, who specifically investigated the Kufic script who say it actually PREDATES the Quran by a century.

This is not what I said, and this is not what I meant. I hope I can clarify:

1. Kufic Script is from Kufa, Iraq

2. Hijazi Script is from Mecca and Medina.

3. Kufic script did not become popular with Islamic officials until the 8th Century, although it did exist earlier in Iraq.

4. Muslims claim several manuscripts to be the original "Qur'an of Uthman," listed in this post of the op, however, these "ancient Qur'ans of Uthman" are written in 8th century-style Kufic.

5. Qurans written by the companions would have been in the 7th-century style Hijazi script, because Islam began in the Hejaz region.



(Continued when time permits)

Sincerely, assalaamu alaikum

reply to post by babloyi


After this reply, I believe I have gotten fully up-to-date with our conversation. Thanks for telling me about the "Posts In Thread" button, it sure helped out

But none of those verses you mentioned were lost at all. I have no idea how authentic they were, but you quoted some hadith with the text of the ayat al-rajm earlier, and both these hadith you just mentioned also were with the text included, with them they were "cancelled" or "replaced", and it was done in the time of Muhammad. And I find it quite telling that the verse on stoning was known to be in the Quran, was known in wording, and then was known to be removed. It might be all very funny to quote a hadith (again, I can make no comment as to its authenticity) about a goat eating a piece of parchment, but the ayat was not forgotten, if it existed, it was abandoned.

The ahadith I provided about the missing verses were rated as sahih (authentic). Sahih al-Bukhari 8.817

If you read the entire hadith, Umar's mention of the missing stoning verse was a desperate act to clear his conscious. By his words, it is apparent that this missing verse really bothered him a lot.



If you are ok with the concept of abrogation (cancel / replace), how do you feel about Muhammad abrogating "no compulsion in religion" and "peace" teachings with the Verses of the Sword (Qur'an, Chapter 9)? As mentioned in this post of the op, which is a declaration to fully separate all non-believers from Islam for open hostilities.

Originally posted by EloquentThinker
Sahabi,

I am also a Muslim that has doubts about his religion, but not because of the foundations of Islam, but rather the Quranic verses themselves. I've read the Quran dozens of times, but there are many verses that I have come to disagree with and I cannot shake those feelings away no matter how much research I do. I suspect that Sonny, Opinionated and a couple of others (Whose posts I started skipping after the second page in this thread) are just your typical apologists who haven't really studied their religion in any significant way to understand the scope of what you have talked about in your OP, nor the discrepancies and possible errors in our religion.

I will be going to verify all the information you have included in your OP before I accept everything as fact though, but I'd like to thank you for creating this thread.

Assalaamu alaikum my brother.

Disagreeing with some of the Qur'an was my initial point of backing away also. For example, Allah has the title of Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, and Loving. Then why didn't he abolish slavery? Not say it is nice to free slaves, not say to treat slaves nicely,.... but to utterly and unquestionably reject the concept of slavery. Allah took his time through slow abrogation to forbid alcohol, but he didn't forbid slavery. Allah only improved the treatment of slaves. That right there is not Compassionate, Merciful, or Loving.

Remember, I am saying that the Qur'an is corrupt, and by association, a lot of religion. But that feeling you get inside, that warmth you get when you pray,... that is real. Call that feeling God, or Allah, or Jesus, or Self, or universe, or whatever,.... we all share that same relationship with God and with each other.

I don't think I'm ready to dismiss the notion of God just yet either.

I didn't dismiss God. My concepts of God became even more grand than I can imagine. God is beyond my mind, and that is the way it should be. He is not some being on or above a throne, commanding to spread his religion. God is you, me, the air, atoms, subatomic particles, water, the universe. It's all an interconnected One. The inner is like the outer.

It's beautiful to kgnow the divine within all. True compassion and love grows. It is like the saying of Jesus, "Do unto others as you would do unto yourselves" multiplied by infinity. Love and treat others as your self, because they are your Self.

But on another level, all of us individual humans have a different experience and understanding of this same reality.

Peace.

reply to post by Sahabi



Since you apparently reject and ignore the ahadith sciences and think that ahadith are sahih, while you believe the quran is not, lets go with logic and compare this hadith objectively against other ahadith since you wish to continue using daif ahadith to prove your point...

To compare your ahadith to this one....

Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, vol 9, p212:
[Between Traditions 9.281 and 9.282]

(21) CHAPTER. If a judge has to witness in favor of a litigant when he is a judge or he had it before he became a judge (can he pass a judgment in his favor accordingly or should he refer the case to another judge before whom he would bear witness?). And the judge Shuraih said to a person who sought his witness, "Go to the ruler so that I may bear witness(before him) for you." And `Ikrima said, "Umar said to `Abdur-Rahman bin `Auf, `If I saw a man committing illegal sexual intercourse or theft, and you were the ruler (what would you do)?. `Abdur-Rahman said, `I would regard your witness as equal to the witness of any other man among the Muslims. `Umar said, `You have said the truth.` `Umar added: If I were not afraid of the fact that people may say that `Umar has added to the Quran extra (verses), I would have written the Verse al-Rajm (stoning to death of married adulterers) with my own hands. and Ma`iz confessed before the Prophet that he had committed illegal intercourse, whereupon the prophet ordered him to be stoned to death. It is not mentioned that the prophet sought witness of those who were present there. Hammad said, "If an adulterer confesses before a ruler once only, he should be stoned to death." But al-Hakam said, "He must confess four times.

My questions here are:

1)- Do you agree that Umar stated clearly that the verse famous as Rajm was in Quran originally (or was revealed originally)?

2)- To discuss the second part, I have given it more closely;

"If I were not afraid of the fact that people may say that `Umar has added to the Quran extra (verses), I would have written the Verse Ar-Rajm (stoning to death of married adulterers) with my own hands."

2.a)- Was Umar afraid of people talking behind him so and so?
2.b)- Was he afraid of God MORE at the same time he was saying? (Was he MORE fearful of God, or afraid of people MORE than God?)
2.c)- Is anybody allowed to be afraid of people when revealing the truth about Quran is more important?

3)-
3.1)- If Umar were NOT afraid of people, would he have been writing the verse inside of Quran by his hand or not?

3.2)- If you were Umar, with the same knowledge and courage, would you have been adding this verse to Quran by your hand or not?

4)-
4.1)- Was Umar aware of abrogation or not?
4.2)- Was he aware of abrogation more than present scholars or not?

5)- Did he know that he should have been adding the verse inside of Quran if it is abrogated or not? Some Sunnis say that it can be abrogated practically, and remained OUTSIDE of Quran.

In other words, if he knew the rule, why he insisted on adding it, If he did not know that, is the above rule an invention of some of Sunni people who wanted to justify 'missing' this particular verse?

reply to post by EloquentThinker


Find a good teacher and ask your questions, the biggest problem is when people do not follow a tradition.

It is the same with any academic study, like science where we follow a tradition that goes back a long way and our professors build on that tradition with their knowledge experience otherwise I could open a book on Chemistry and make wild assumptions because I read something too literally or I did not apply the correct method of learn (patterns) meaning I excluded certain sources that I should have included to quantify what I was reading and put the subject matter into the right context.

reply to post by Sahabi


Jazakallah Khayr for the response, I am an old cynical man so you can imagine as I reach the end of my physical life I will hold certain views.

I think I can see what has happened here, you entered a fold of Islam that is one branch, the Salafist (not true Salafi's but the modern day literalists) and you found something wrong, you quite rightly took a step back decided it wasn't for you.

I would advise you still not to be so critical then, or too focused on one issue, like I said, for a book with errors and a religion that is flawed as a result of those errors (one cannot be without the other) it has done remarkably well for 1400 hundred odd years and continues to reveal some amazing people.

Sufism is not something new, if you look at the life of the prophet (pbuh) you realise he was/is the original Sufi who went to the cave to reflect on the troubled world in front of him and to reach a nearness to the creator of the created world. People who have this trait tend to be soft, not harsh in words or hard hearted and very accommodating.

I value the opinion of my Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Sikh, Shiah and Hindu friends and I never make them feel like they are not wanted, the way I try to be on ATS as well and I believe many will agree that I have never forced my opinion on anyone...only guilty of being a grump old man.

Religion, any and all religion cannot be literal, it is a platform with which to express our spiritual nature and find divinity, a method and means like any other.

If I am going to construct software, I won't do it randomly and a chaotic manner (unless you're a C or Perl programmer), I will follow tried and tested Patterns & Practices, principles that have been developed over time to ensure the software I build adheres to a particular standard and meets the requirements set out.

Religion when viewed in the same context is no different, it's meant to give us humans a means with which to express our spirituality and connect with the created universe and eventually the creator - god is not biased or prejudicial in his mercy.

Look into some of the current Sufi academics, there are some great minds out there which resonate with many of the "Spirit Walkers" on this forum, scholars whose souls reflect the light of the divine.

Peace be upon you.