Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Changed the rules?
As the muslim community evolved during Muhammad's mission, so did the rules on them. They initially prayed towards Jerusalem, in line with it being a continuation of Abraham's religion. Then one day DURING the prayer, they changed direction to the Ka'aba, symbolising that while they were part of Abraham's religion, they were also their own people.
This is not a contradiction. At the end we got the Quran, with the (chronologically) final verse being "...Today I have perfected/completed your religion...".

A contradiction would be when there are two opposite statements pertaining to the same situation, where one was not historically abrogated (the example of alcohol is given, where at the beginning it was disliked, but permitted only out of any spare spending you had except when you were praying, and then later it was banned totally).

edit on 28-8-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

So what your saying is you handle the contradictions by saying the religion evolved which caused changes. so its ok to have religions evolve or is this normal for all religions do you think?

reply to post by dragonridr

Originally posted by dragonridr
So what your saying is you handle the contradictions by saying the religion evolved which caused changes. so its ok to have religions evolve or is this normal for all religions do you think?

That's something of a trap question, implying that I accept that there are contradictions existing.

"Is it okay to have religions evolve" "is this normal for all relgions"?
Whether it is "okay" or "normal" is irrelevant. It happens. Compare any religion in existence today with what it was at the start. It certainly won't be anywhere near the same.
The trick is for the religion to be built up in such a way so that the message can be made applicable to each generation's or era's individual requirements and needs.

But all this is kinda irrelevant to the point at hand. You seem to be implying that the fact that DURING Muhammad's life, different decisions were made in his role as spiritual and political leader of his people, only to be finalised in 632, shows some sort of corruption. That's a bit silly, though, isn't it? It's like implying that Judaism is false because they only began celebrating the Passover AFTER the events of the Exodus, or that Christianity is false because the Disciples only began healing people AFTER Jesus showed them how.
The religion was not complete at that point.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Originally posted by dragonridr
So what your saying is you handle the contradictions by saying the religion evolved which caused changes. so its ok to have religions evolve or is this normal for all religions do you think?

That's something of a trap question, implying that I accept that there are contradictions existing.

"Is it okay to have religions evolve" "is this normal for all relgions"?
Whether it is "okay" or "normal" is irrelevant. It happens. Compare any religion in existence today with what it was at the start. It certainly won't be anywhere near the same.
The trick is for the religion to be built up in such a way so that the message can be made applicable to each generation's or era's individual requirements and needs.

But all this is kinda irrelevant to the point at hand. You seem to be implying that the fact that DURING Muhammad's life, different decisions were made in his role as spiritual and political leader of his people, only to be finalised in 632, shows some sort of corruption. That's a bit silly, though, isn't it? It's like implying that Judaism is false because they only began celebrating the Passover AFTER the events of the Exodus, or that Christianity is false because the Disciples only began healing people AFTER Jesus showed them how.
The religion was not complete at that point.

edit on 28-8-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

So if im understanding you and im not talking about corruption just the fact that every religion in the world has the same problem. And here it is there is no religion in its true form every world religion has evolved doesnt that show that man creates religion because if god did it wouldnt change at all no matter circumstances. Because the trick of being god you know what has happened and will happen. So just by the very fact that religions have changed kinda shows man created them does it not?

reply to post by dragonridr

Judging from your use of stuff like "true form" and "it wouldnt change at all no matter circumstances" I get the feeling you're not understanding me at all.

If you wrote the ultimate, the complete, the greatest book of Healthcare ever today, and gave it to someone 2000 years ago, it would be completely and utterly useless. You might write about antibiotics and bacteria and antigens and chemotherapy and all, but all that would be utterly useless. If you wanted to give the complete, the greatest, the ultimate Healthcare book to someone 2000 years ago, you'd probably tell them "Leeches don't drain disease from blood. Stop that nonsense", "Urine isn't mouthwash, stop it", "Jabbing a hole in someone's head doesn't cure mental illness", "Clean your hands before eating" and so on, and from there you MIGHT go on to slightly more complex matters.

Be under no pretensions that you'd be able to explain bacteria and antibodies and white blood cells and such to someone from 2000 years ago. That information comes along with 2000 years worth of technology, and they'd probably just think of it as some sort of magic if you tried, or at best, take that stuff they totally can't see, can't understand, can't see the effects and causes of, on faith.

The most IDEAL book would be one that incorporates BOTH sets of information in layers...people who don't get stuff about bacteria and antibodies and stuff can just ignore it, or they won't notice it, and people who know about it CAN.

reply to post by babloyi


That whole argument makes no sense we are no different now then we were 2000 years ago. They had people who would be able to understand antibodies if someone were to teach them. So you do realize basically you just said when the Koran was created they were to stupid to truly understand it. But yet Mohammad is the one who tells you how to interpret the Koran so thats a big logic fail. And as near as i can tell you believe that contradictions in a religion is evolution because they are to stupid to understand well that makes no sense what so ever. If i went back in time 2000 years and taught someone modern medicine it would be no difference then me going to Africa and doing the same thing they call it the peace corp.

reply to post by dragonridr

I'm sorry if it made no sense to you. It took US over a thousand year head-start to learn what antibodies are. It requires a whole host of prerequisite knowledge to know what they are, and technology that allows us to be able to see it, investigate it, isolate it, find its causes and effects, etc. How exactly would you explain it to someone from 2000 years ago?
"Antibodies are the thing that are inside the little things that are inside your body that can recognise and fight demon curses that kill you"? That explanation is useless, and EVEN if you were able to explain it all in a way they would understand (i.e. nothing like you'd explain it to someone today), they would have no backing knowledge for any of it, so for all intents and purposes, it'd simply be "magic", and thus, the resulting knowledge would be completely counter to what you were trying to do (stop ignorance).

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I'm sorry if it made no sense to you. It took US over a thousand year head-start to learn what antibodies are. It requires a whole host of prerequisite knowledge to know what they are, and technology that allows us to be able to see it, investigate it, isolate it, find its causes and effects, etc. How exactly would you explain it to someone from 2000 years ago?
"Antibodies are the thing that are inside the little things that are inside your body that can recognise and fight demon curses that kill you"? That explanation is useless, and EVEN if you were able to explain it all in a way they would understand (i.e. nothing like you'd explain it to someone today), they would have no backing knowledge for any of it, so for all intents and purposes, it'd simply be "magic", and thus, the resulting knowledge would be completely counter to what you were trying to do (stop ignorance).

Even the Romans understood blood helped fight infections this led to the wrong ides in the middle ages it was called blood letting. But Roman medicine was to complicated without being taught and the dark ages there was exactly that problem no one around to teach because science was outlawed. But even then they understood the body could develop immunity its called Mithridatism. So the only difference between now and then is what we can teach not the ability to learn.

reply to post by logical7

I think the thread is dead. The op is not interested to debate his claim anymore or has just given up as there was enough counter-points shown that refute the claim.

That is not true. Many have bombarded this thread with negativity such as slander, libel, untrue/irrelevant character attacks, insult, presumptuous prejudice, hostility, and aggression. Many, including yourself, have been simply arguing based on emotion, rather than reading the entire op or acknowledging my replies that I have won counter-arguments to. Who can have a mature conversation this way? I would rather utilize my time elsewhere than to debate amongst such rudeness and immaturity.

This thread was taken off of the front page of ATS, and ignored by the trends all because you and a few others could not debate or discuss in a proper manner.

reply to post by logical7


Regarding Zaid ibn Thabit

I know Zaid was Muhammad's personal scribe. I mentioned so in the op.

It appears that you are having a hard time understanding why I put more emphasis on Ubay ibn Ka'b and Abdullah ibn Mas'ud rather than Zaid ibn Thabit. This is why:


** Muhammad named 4 people specifically to learn the Qur'an recitation from:
1. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud
2. Salim
3. Mu'adh
4. Ubay ibn Ka'b


** Umar ibn al_Khattab said:
1. None more qualified to write and teach the Qur'an than Abdullah ibn Mas'ud
2. Ubay was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an)
3. Whoever wishes to ask about The Qur’an then let him approach Ubay bin Ka’b




1. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud taught a different recitation than the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an. (1) and (2)

2. Ubay ibn Ka'b taught a different recitation than the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an(1)

reply to post by logical7

the hadiths that you have mentioned do not support your op unless you also string a narrative around it by only including selective half truths.

The Sahih (Authentic) ahadith in the op CLEARLY state that:

1. Umar ibn al-Khattab said that the verses of stoning were left out of the Qur'an.

2. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud taught a different recitation of the Qur'an than the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an.

3. Ubay ibn Ka'b taught a different recitation of the Qur'an than the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an.

4. Muhammad approved of 7 ahruf (variations) of the Qur'an, however, the 7 Qira'at (recitators) of today are a different concept than the 7 ahruf (approved variations).

5. Many verses were left out of the Zaid/Uthman Qur'an.



Those authentic sources say what they say without me adding narrative.

reply to post by logical7

it states them by name and they are 34, excluding the unknown and the 70 who died in the battle.

If you say there were only 22, how did 70 die when the battle took place just after the Prophet's death?

At the exact moment of Muhammad's death, there were twenty-something people who memorized the ENTIRE Qur'an.

The list you provided includes people who only had parts of the Qur'an memorized, and also people who completed the memorization AFTER Muhammad's death. It says so in the link.

After Muhammad's death, several sahaba/companions/disciples created institutions to teach the Qur'an. That is how/why more and more people began to memorize the Qur'an in its entirety.

More Muslims learned the complete memorization from disciples/companions/sahaba, than the number of Muslims who had memorized the entire Qur'an directly from Muhammad.

Originally posted by Sahabi
At the exact moment of Muhammad's death, there were twenty-something people who memorized the ENTIRE Qur'an.

Let's say for the sake of argument that there were people who managed to correctly memorize the entire Qu'ran. (I highly doubt 20 people in that area at that time all had photographic memories .. but let's just say for a moment that it's true). WHAT did they memorize? Was it really direct communications from God or was it just man made and bits and pieces of other religions poorly plagiarized?? Answer ... it was made by men and poorly plagiarized from other religions. So it really doesn't even matter if it was correctly memorized from the original because the original wasn't from God anyways. The scientific and historical errors in the Qu'ran and the irrefutable proof that the Quran is poorly transcribed stories from other religions (the jews, the christians, the pagans and the zoroastrians) mean it didn't come down from heaven.

reply to post by babloyi


Assalaamu alaikum there. Hope all has been well your way. Let us continue our conversation

However, my point was that you used sources that disagree with each other. In some cases, one disagrees with one point you made on a different topic, and the source you have for that topic disagrees with a point you made on a third topic (or the first). It isn't so much about sectarian disagreement or refusal of sources, but that picking and mixing really isn't a plausible strategy.

I am being objective.

Rhetorically,... What is the definitive source? What is the definitive hadith? What is the definitive anything about Islam?

There is no definitive anything, because there are varying and multiple sources regarding all concepts of Islam. Nothing was stamped and put into authorized writing, or catalogued, or video taped, or recorded. All we have are varying historic sources. And we all have heard that history is really his story.

You can not pick up one biography of Muhammad and know his life. You can not pick up one book of Hadith and know how to practice Islam. To know Islam is a constant struggle to weed out the most genuine and authentic concepts, found within different sources.

If this is not true, please tell me the one single biography of Muhammad, and the one single hadith book that will allow everyone to 100% know Islam.




And if you say that the Qur'an is the only definitive source, I challenge you this:

* Teach me how to perform an entire prayer, with all actions involved, and all sayings involved, based solely on the Qur'an.

This challenge is impossible, because we only know the complete mechanisms of prayer from researching the hadith.

And once again, we can go full-circle. Which traditions do we follow about prayer? Do we follow any tradition 100%, or do we nit-pick? What is the definitive guide? As we know, many schools of thought pray slightly differently.

Nothing is definitive, because we only know Islam through history and it is all his story.

reply to post by babloyi

And you are applying the same techniques as those medieval scholars did when they where throwing the word "Abrogation!" left and right. I'm sorry, that isn't how it works.

As mentioned in the op, there are several categories of accepted abrogation, according to Islamic scholars:

1. Naskh al-hukm duna al-tilawa (Words Stay, Ruling Abandoned): The original verse remains intact, but a newer verse supersedes its ruling.

2. Naskh al-hukm wa'l-tilawa (Words Removed, Ruling Abandoned): The verse and ruling are removed and annihilated from the Qur’an and Islam altogether.

3. Naskh al-tilawa duna al-hukm (Words Removed, Ruling Stay): The verse is removed from the Qur’an, but it’s ruling is still followed.



In the op, I illustrated that some verses have been left out of the Qur'an.

Additionally, when we take the chronologic order of revelation and compare it to the historic events of Muhammad's life,... we clearly see that some edicts are later canceled/superseded by later verses.

Abrogation is an actuality, it is not my invention.

reply to post by Sahabi

Again, I'm not sure you're understanding my point exactly. Although there are many groups that only accept the Quran and nothing else, I'm not advocating any single (non-quranic) text. By all means, use several texts. What I'm saying that selectively using texts that inherently oppose each other to build your own sort of narrative is a bit misleading.

For example, it'd be as if I went through Nazi historical texts and selectively chose texts to show how Nazis were great guys, skipping all the texts that talked about their heinous actions, and then went through Allied texts, selectively choosing the ones that praised them (for example Rommel was well respected by both sides), and ignoring the rest, and then used my finding to show that Nazis were great guys.

And I didn't say abrogation was your invention, what I specifically said, if you read it in my posts, was that you're following a methodology from medieval times (neither close to the "original" "pure" Salafi times of the first few generations, nor closer to today, with the improved scholarship- which is why I was surprised at your use of that source) of throwing the word "Abrogation" left and right at whatever one feels like in the Quran. Claiming that there is a universal list of abrogated verses is totally false. At the height of those medieval times, I believe many of the "scholars" claimed some 500+ verses to be abrogated. Many of the scholars today put that number at less than 20. Some (like the guy in the link you quoted to support one of your points in the OP) say it doesn't exist at all.

If there is clear evidence of the abrogation (for example, as there is with the ruling on alcohol or changing in the direction of prayer), I'll happily accept it. If your evidence instead is that a medieval scholar could not reconcile a couple of passages after a cursory look, then sorry, THAT text certainly isn't part of my scripture.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Errrr....It seems you don't know at all about Islam or the Quran, but memorising the Quran is relatively easy due to the rhythmic nature of the text. It isn't the Bible. There are millions of muslims alive today who have memorised the Quran, they don't have photographic memory.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Hello FlyersFan.

Islam teaches some wonderful things. It teaches some beautiful concepts. Islam helped uplift a people and forever change mankind. However, this beauty is mixed in with concepts that are counter to love, compassion, equality, and freedom.

For example, what do you think is more of a crime?
1. Drinking some fine cognac and getting drunk.
2. Enslaving another human being.


According to Islam, outlawing alcohol was more important than utterly forbidding slavery. Alcohol became a sin, slaves simply got rights to better treatment.



Simple things like this illustrate to me that Love, Compassion, Freedom, and Equality are not a priority in Islam. But my understanding says that Love, Compassion, Freedom, and Equality are the most important concepts for mankind!

Originally posted by babloyi
.It seems you don't know at all about Islam or the Quran,

I know it's not from God .. but from men. (like the bible)
I know a large chunk is poorly 'borrowed' from the jews, christians, pagans and Zoroastrians.
I know there are tons of historical errors and scientific errors, as well as contradictions.
I know the Qu'ran is full of misogyny. It celebrates slavery.

I know enough.

Like I said .. even if you could find 20 people who memorized 'the original' ... so what?
It's still not from God. What they memorized is just a man made mess.

reply to post by Sahabi

This thread was taken off of the front page of ATS, and ignored by the trends all because you and a few others could not debate or discuss in a proper manner.

really?
Then why don't we continue where we stopped when you refused and stopped replying to basic questions on your claim that all 7 ahruf are lost and your conspiracy theory of an Uthmani takeover of Qur'an that somehow skipped the attention of all companions and muslims, even his bloody enemies!!

reply to post by Sahabi

After Muhammad's death, several sahaba/companions/disciples created institutions to teach the Qur'an. That is how/why more and more people began to memorize the Qur'an in its entirety.

So you say that the ENTIRE Quran was being taught and memorized without the help of any written copy. Right?
Did all these memorizers had to alter their memories after Uthman r.a. Changed the Qur'an as you claim?
These memorizers had spread all over the muslim empire, how did Uthman managed to hoodwink them all to alter their memories too?
Why did nobody rebel about it?
Why not even after the death of Uthman r.a?

These are really basic, simple questions that any ATSer can understand. Care to answer them? Or you just want to spew religious mumbo-jumbo that only muslims see through while an average ATSer is just awed and assumes it true.

Lets get to a platform where everyone understands and i hope you answer the above common sense questions 1st. Thanks

Originally posted by Sahabi
For example, what do you think is more of a crime?
1. Drinking some fine cognac and getting drunk.
2. Enslaving another human being.
According to Islam, outlawing alcohol was more important than utterly forbidding slavery. Alcohol became a sin, slaves simply got rights to better treatment.
Simple things like this illustrate to me that Love, Compassion, Freedom, and Equality are not a priority in Islam. But my understanding says that Love, Compassion, Freedom, and Equality are the most important concepts for mankind!

Hello
every muslim who believes in the principles of Islam by logic and evidences may encounter such questions.
could Jesus and Moses eradicate slavery ? no they could not. slavery was a manner for centuries. they would enslave their enemies. humanity should be grown enough in order to handle some truths. Indeed Islam insists on Releasing slaves.
if some one breaks fasting intentionally he should release 60 slave. releasing slaves is mostly the first choice for forgiveness of sins in Koran.
look at your surrounding. have not you heard human smuggling. have not you heard those who are enslaved from poor countries for work or sexual slavery in the forwarded countries !?
less than 200 years west has gotten rid of slavery. however not perfectly. racism is a source of slavery.
what do these verses mean :

O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted. -Koran 49:13

(righteousness is) the freeing of a slave, the giving of food upon the day of hunger ,to an orphaned relative ,or to a needy person in distress; -Koran 90:14

any how being an atheist is far more better than those who claim they are muslims and they are beheading and eating people ! and their supporters fund USA to get involve in a war in favor of Israel for colonialist purposes.
never say that you were a muslim. you were not. you were not aware of truth and you were in doubt.
apostasy has a great punishment in monotheistic religions. because those who claim they have become a believer while they know the truth and deny it and tries to ruin the beliefs of other people by advertising. they are betrayers.