Ask about Islam round 3!

[chrisse]

Вы

Is the Russian pronoun for what would be the English “you all”. It is also used for more formal uses of singular “you”.
My knowledge of Arabic is slight but I would assume something simmilar is going on.

The same term is used by your God in Genesis in English translations btw.

I am not aware that we have any claim that YHWH dictated the literal words of the Bible, nep.
That is the claim of Islam. The qur’an as they have it is as it is with allah.

Good try, though.

 

[chrisse]

Hmmm. The best example for Allah’s use of “we” I have heard is that it is a reverential form, to be used when discussing such high topics as words of God, a monarch, etc. I do not know enough Arabic to know if this stands up, linguistically-speaking, with regard to the Qur’an, but I would have no trouble accepting that explanation if it is in fact a form used in classical Arabic literature or speech. It is good enough for the “Queen’s English”, after all…! (“We are not amused” )

Where things get weird for me is thinking about the chain of transmission: from the angel Gabriel to one of Muhammad’s scribes (keeping in mind that Muhammad is supposedly illiterate)…it would make sense for the SCRIBE to use a reverential plural in refering to God and God’s speech, but then it becomes something other than a straight dictation of the word of God, and you introduce the possibility of corruption into something that is supposedly not corruptable. If, in the old days, your boss were to call you in to his office so that you dictate a letter, you will write down exactly what he says, not change the pronouns so as to show your reverence for the person who is dictating the letter to you!

So I would want to know more about how this plural (if it is a distinct form in classical Arabic, or even modern Arabic…?) is used before I could say anything more about Allah’s use of “We”. As it stands, I do not think this is a valid reason to discard the Muslim viewpoint. Let a native Arabic-speaker explain it first.

dzheremi : I know that the qur’an was in fact written by men as they heard it from mohammet. And yes, this allows for corruption. However, that is not the traditional Islamic claim. They claim it is the same qur’an as allah has with him. Therefore, no. There is no room for language styles.

 

[sedonaman]

About other issues like if Zakat can be given to non-Muslims —it’s not the most important matter for hereafter . So , let’s the scholars have debate over it & let us keep worshipping one true God without taking other diety with Him.

Where in the Qur’an, the “perfect” word of Allah, does it say some matters are more important than others?

 

[Muslim_Woman]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Salaam/peace

Where in the Qur’an, the “perfect” word of Allah, does it say some matters are more important than others?

Our ultimate goal is to please God & achieve Salvation , right ?

Shirk is the most major sin according to holy Quran & other major holy books. For not giving Zakat to non-Muslims , I won’t be thrown in to fire forever but to take deity besides God , only punishment is eternal fire. So , it’s easy to understand that worshipping one true God is the most important work for us

Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allah in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin.

( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #48)

And on the Day when We shall gather them all together, We shall say to those who joined partners in worship (with Us): “Where are your partners (false deities) whom you used to assert (as partners in worship with Allah)?”

( سورة الأنعام , Al-Anaam, Chapter #6, Verse #22)

 

[sedonaman]

Our ultimate goal is to please God & achieve Salvation , right ?

Shirk is the most major sin according to holy Quran & other major holy books. For not giving Zakat to non-Muslims , I won’t be thrown in to fire forever but to take deity besides God , only punishment is eternal fire. So , it’s easy to understand that worshipping one true God is the most important work for us

Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allah in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin.

( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #48)

And on the Day when We shall gather them all together, We shall say to those who joined partners in worship (with Us): “Where are your partners (false deities) whom you used to assert (as partners in worship with Allah)?”

( سورة الأنعام , Al-Anaam, Chapter #6, Verse #22)

You have just interpreted something you said was not subject to human interpretation.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Salaam/peace

Islam & Freedom of Belief

Q. Non-Muslims often comment about Islam saying that most Muslims are Muslims because of the death penalty for apostasy

Ahmad Kutty , Canada:…Let us assume for a moment that most Muslims today (mind you there are over 1.5 billion Muslims out there) are simply holding on to their faith and failing to renounce it for fear of the death penalty. It looks absurd for anyone to hold such a view; it begs an answer for the following reasons:

1. Why did people embrace Islam in the early days when the faithful were subjected to all sorts of trials, tribulations, and persecutions? They were even forced to flee their homes and possessions in order to secure freedom of conscience to practice their religion of choice.
2. How do we explain the historical fact that in virtually all of the conquered territories such as Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Egypt, an enormous number of people entered Islam quite willingly even though they were allowed to remain as they were: Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and so on?
3. The Spanish Inquisition instituted against the Muslims and the Jews is a historical fact. Why did many preferred to opt for expulsion or death instead of conversion to Christianity?

islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Islamonline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503548996

 

[planten]

dzheremi : I know that the qur’an was in fact written by men as they heard it from mohammet. And yes, this allows for corruption. However, that is not the traditional Islamic claim. They claim it is the same qur’an as allah has with him. Therefore, no. There is no room for language styles.

**chrisse, there is no problem. Muhammad heard the message from the angel and repeated and memorised it. He told his followers and they also memorised it. Then Muhammad spoke to the scribes (more than one scribe) to right down the message. The scribes wrote it. Muhammad can ask the scribe what he had written. If it was not correct then the scribe could be told to correct the matter.

There is no problem at all. The revealed verses were recited openly during daily prayers. Every one heard what was being said. If there ws anything wrong, any one could speak out about it.

The Quran was revealed in small portions over a period of 23 years. The believers used to recite the Quran in five daily prayers. The prophet used to be there in some prayers and he heard everything. He used to lead the prayers and he himself recited the Quran during the congregation. There was no chance of any mistake.**

 

[dzheremi]

chrisse, there is no problem. Muhammad heard the message from the angel and repeated and memorised it. He told his followers and they also memorised it. Then Muhammad spoke to the scribes (more than one scribe) to right down the message. The scribes wrote it. Muhammad can ask the scribe what he had written. If it was not correct then the scribe could be told to correct the matter.

Ah, okay. So it was Muhammad, not the angel or the scribe, who did not understand how pronouns work? This is not any better answer. It still makes the Qur’an look very suspect as a direct message from God.

The prophet used to be there in some prayers and he heard everything. He used to lead the prayers and he himself recited the Quran during the congregation. There was no chance of any mistake.

I think if Muhammad did not understand the basic grammar of his own language (which does not seem possible, but you have laid the responsibility for correction at his feet in the previously quoted portion), then there probably were lots of chances for mistakes, even if everyone was trying their best not to make them.

 

[sedonaman]

Q. Non-Muslims often comment about Islam saying that most Muslims are Muslims because of the death penalty for apostasy

Let us assume for a moment that most Muslims today (mind you there are over 1.5 billion Muslims out there) are simply holding on to their faith and failing to renounce it for fear of the death penalty. It looks absurd for anyone to hold such a view; it begs an answer for the following reasons:

1. Why did people embrace Islam in the early days when the faithful were subjected to all sorts of trials, tribulations, and persecutions? They were even forced to flee their homes and possessions in order to secure freedom of conscience to practice their religion of choice.

People “embraced” Islam in the early days to avoid being killed by Muslim conquerors, and/or to avoid paying the confiscatory jizya and enduring being treated worse than a Muslim would treat an animal [dhimmitude]. This was not at the same time that Muslims were allegedly being “forced to flee their homes and possessions in order to secure freedom of conscience to practice their religion of choice.” And when was that? By definition, the conquerors are in charge after their conquest.

1. How do we explain the historical fact that in virtually all of the conquered territories such as Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Egypt, an enormous number of people entered Islam quite willingly even though they were allowed to remain as they were: Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and so on?

As I said above, to avoid paying the confiscatory jizya and enduring being treated worse than a Muslim would treat an animal [dhimmitude].

1. The Spanish Inquisition instituted against the Muslims and the Jews is a historical fact. Why did many preferred to opt for expulsion or death instead of conversion to Christianity?

That claim is false. Muslims were never persecuted by the Inquisition because they were in the process of being thrown out of Spain militarily in 1492 before the Inquisition got into full gear. Its main purpose was to prevent Spain from falling to Protestantism in the 16th century.

Besides, how can you equate reasons long ago with reasons today? Where are Muslims being persecuted today?

P.S. I’m glad to see you admit that Islam “conquered” territories.

 

[cathopologist]

Let it be known that before Islam conquered Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Egypt “peacefully”, these lands had huge number of Christian inhabitants in them. There were also pagans amongst them. All that changed when Islam invaded the territories.

Nobody likes an invading force - because everyone knows with invasion, change is inevitable. Whether forced or not. What you will have left is only memories of the past.

 

[chrisse]

**chrisse, there is no problem. Muhammad heard the message from the angel and repeated and memorised it. He told his followers and they also memorised it. Then Muhammad spoke to the scribes (more than one scribe) to right down the message. The scribes wrote it. Muhammad can ask the scribe what he had written. If it was not correct then the scribe could be told to correct the matter.

There is no problem at all. The revealed verses were recited openly during daily prayers. Every one heard what was being said. If there ws anything wrong, any one could speak out about it.

The Quran was revealed in small portions over a period of 23 years. The believers used to recite the Quran in five daily prayers. The prophet used to be there in some prayers and he heard everything. He used to lead the prayers and he himself recited the Quran during the congregation. There was no chance of any mistake.**

Good, planten, we agree on something. Why does allah refer to himself as “We”?

 

[inJESUS]

Linguistically, there is no royal we in Arabic.

As to the Quran, let Muslims check what Uthman did to their book, to the other revealed Qurans ( yes he destroyed REVEALED Qurans) and what he did to Ibn Masud (Muhammad’s scribe) who refused Uthman’s version, which made Uthman take him out of the mosque and beat the heck out of him until he broke his bones . And maybe we must ask as well why was Hafsa’s Quran burned after her death if it matched that of Uthman’s and hers was Abu Bakr’s copy of the first collection . The collection of the Quran was a disastrous chaos with people almost killing each others because of differering books so when Muslims bring us the Qurans burned by Uthman in addition to pre-Uthman Quran, then they can talk about “no one letter was changed” because obviously Uthman made a joke out of Allah when he not only changed, but burned the revealed Qurans as per Muhammad.

 

[jakasaki]

Linguistically, there is no royal we in Arabic.

As to the Quran, let Muslims check what Uthman did to their book, to the other revealed Qurans ( yes he destroyed REVEALED Qurans) and what he did to Ibn Masud (Muhammad’s scribe) who refused Uthman’s version, which made Uthman take him out of the mosque and beat the heck out of him until he broke his bones . And maybe we must ask as well why was Hafsa’s Quran burned after her death if it matched that of Uthman’s and hers was Abu Bakr’s copy of the first collection . The collection of the Quran was a disastrous chaos with people almost killing each others because of differering books so when Muslims bring us the Qurans burned by Uthman in addition to pre-Uthman Quran, then they can talk about “no one letter was changed” because obviously Uthman made a joke out of Allah when he not only changed, but burned the revealed Qurans as per Muhammad.

I know I posted this before in another thread about Uthman and the burning of the koran so here is it for new reading.

But my question is, what is the view point of our muslim members regarding this historical fact about the koran, since they claim it has NOT been changed at all.

``Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and Iraq were waging war to conquer the Armenia and Azerbaidjan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an.

So he said to Uthman: “O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an), as Jews and Christians did before.” So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying: “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.”

Hafsa sent it to Uthman.

Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Said bin Al-As, and Abdurrahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men: “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an then write it in the dialect of Quraish as the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.”

They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the Qur’anic materials whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih Bukhari 6.510)

After these copies were sent out, Zaid b. Thabit recalled a verse which was missing from it:

“A verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima-bin-Thabit al Ansari.” (Sahih Bukhari 6.510).

That verse is the famous Sura al-Ahzab 33:23.

The event may mean that verse was not in the collection of Hafsa, contradicting Muslim claims that the Uthmanic recension merely made public the Qur’an written down during Abu Bakr’s time, or that Zaid overlooked the verse while copying.

Supposedly Zaid would be making the many copies from the original collection of Hafsa as this was supposed to be the word of God. Strangely, however, every copy seem not to have that missing verse, for otherwise, there is no need to search for it again since some of the copies would have them, or Zaid and company could have asked for Hafsa’s collection to countercheck.

Yet, this was not done, but a new search was made to see if anyone held them. Thus, the probability that it was not in Hafsa’s collection cannot be discounted. If this is the case, then the Muslim claim that Uthman merely made public the Qur’an written down during Abu Bakr’s time is suspect.

Morever, this omission was not detected by those present who knew the Qur’an well when the completed Qur’an was supposed to be recited before them. Thus, either (a) there was no one at the time of Uthman who memorize the whole Qur’an or (b) by human error, all of them overlooked that verse.

 

[inJESUS]

But my question is, what is the view point of our muslim members regarding this historical fact about the koran, since they claim it has NOT been changed at all.

well since Muhammad said the Quran was revealed in 7 ahruf, then burning 6 of them is pure corruption not to add that Uthman’s copy was not accepted by many and caused fitna among Muslims and he broke the bones of one of Muhammad’s best scribes because of it. So Allah says he sends in 7 ahruf, and Allah says he preserves his words, and uthman made a joke out of Muhammad and Allah because he turned Allah into a liar who does not preserve what he reveals.

Regarding your quote, i have a few comments as well:

So he said to Uthman: “O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an), as Jews and Christians did before.” So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying: “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.”

Hafsa’s copy was that of Abu Bakr’s compilation (first compilation of Quran) which missed many ayas, including 2 verses from At-Tawba that were included 13 years later, during Uthman’s caliphate. In other words, either Hafsa’s or Uthman’s were correct and the ayas added to Uthman’s copy had one narrator only, so no mutawarir which makes us wonder why didn’t Abu bakr’s compilation include these verses added in Uthman’s copy. Add to it that Hafsa’s Quran was BURNT after her death, why, if hers matched that of Uthman? what was wrong in Hafsa’s copy to merit being burnt right after her death?

Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Said bin Al-As, and Abdurrahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men: “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an then write it in the dialect of Quraish as the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.”

the Quran says it was revealed in Arabic, the quran does not say " in Quraichite Arabic" .Add to it that Muhammad talked of 7 ahruf so who gave Uthman the right to decide in which language to write the Quran? and what will they “disagree” on if 7 ahruf are revealed by Allah and are the words of Allah?

After these copies were sent out, Zaid b. Thabit recalled a verse which was missing from it:

“A verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima-bin-Thabit al Ansari.” (Sahih Bukhari 6.510).

indeed, absolutely no one had this verse for 13 years, except one man. Who says the man remembered it correctly for 13 years when it was recited by no one?

The event may mean that verse was not in the collection of Hafsa, contradicting Muslim claims that the Uthmanic recension merely made public the Qur’an written down during Abu Bakr’s time, or that Zaid overlooked the verse while copying.

indeed.

or Zaid and company could have asked for Hafsa’s collection to countercheck.

actually her copy was burnt after her death.

Yet, this was not done, but a new search was made to see if anyone held them. Thus, the probability that it was not in Hafsa’s collection cannot be discounted. If this is the case, then the Muslim claim that Uthman merely made public the Qur’an written down during Abu Bakr’s time is suspect.

indeed, he almost killed Muhammad’s best scribe and was hated by many for what he did…and one has to see who killed Uthman and why, since on the reasons was his messing with the Quran. No wonder the Shia hate him and accuse him of lying and deceit.

Morever, this omission was not detected by those present who knew the Qur’an well when the completed Qur’an was supposed to be recited before them. Thus, either (a) there was no one at the time of Uthman who memorize the whole Qur’an or (b) by human error, all of them overlooked that verse.

indeed and we are talking about a 13 years difference .

Missing verses, missing chapters, haphasard compilations based on length, abrogations and forgotten verses, missing 7 ahruf, revelations burnt, yet the Quran is the preserved masterpiece.

 

[jakasaki]

InJesus - what is ahruf? Is like a version of some sort?

 

[inJESUS]

InJesus - what is ahruf? Is like a version of some sort?

sorry. i think it is translated as “seven variants of reading”. Ahruf literally means letters.

 

[jakasaki]

sorry. i think it is translated as “seven variants of reading”. Ahruf literally means letters.

Great thanks…

I will still like to know this – which I’ve boxed in a quoete.

**But my question is, what is the view point of our muslim members **regarding this historical fact about the koran, since they claim it has NOT been changed at all.

 

[inJESUS]

I might add, do not break your head over what these variants were as Uthman destroyed all evidences, but what we are sure of is that they were so different that they caused a trauma in the umma until uthman decided to “settle” what Allah messed up with. After all, Uthman knew the Umma’s benefit more than Allah.

All in all, this idea of different variants gives so much elasticity for Muslims that they would use it to justify 7 entirely different Qurans if they were to exist. Talk about “preservation of the Quran” .

 

[inJESUS]

Great thanks…

and you will remain confused as Muslim scholars have wrestled with the concept of the seven ahruf for centuries, often concluding that no one knows exactly what they are except Allah which is rather comical.

I will still like to know this – which I’ve boxed in a quoete

 

[jakasaki]

I might add, do not break your head over what these variants were as Uthman destroyed all evidences, but what we are sure of is that they were so different that they caused a trauma in the umma until uthman decided to “settle” what Allah messed up with. After all, Uthman knew the Umma’s benefit more than Allah.

All in all, this idea of different variants gives so much elasticity for Muslims that they would use it to justify 7 entirely different Qurans if they were to exist. Talk about “preservation of the Quran” .

No worries InJesus - you are not breaking my head over anything my dear…

I would just like the muslims to address the inquiry that’s all.

I’m a member of other forums Christian and islamic ones. And oh boy, do I see my fair share of sunny vs shia bashing on those islamic forums. It’s a muslim on muslim war in so many places…