Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - mclinkin94

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 [30] 31
436
I made out an answer to question 2 (that I posted), but I would love to get question 1 answered.

For question 2, Firstly,  Remember if God had any other thoughts that we do not have, he would not tell us about it because we wouldn't understand those thoughts/logics. So God would only state the thoughts he has that we can relate to/or understand--> so that is why God only mentions human feelings/thoughts/emotions in the Quran. If he mentions other thoughts, we wouldn't understand.

Secondly: Lets assume I created something and I know that this thing will malfunction. But I gave it the choice to malfunction or not and I know its choice will be to malfunction. When it malfunctions, will I not be displeased/angry? Of course I would, because I know it has the capability not to malfunction.

Let's say:  I knew you were gonna kill someone tommorow 100%,

why Would I get mad?

If I created you and told you not to kill someone but you still did ( and I know you will do it), why would I get mad? Because I created you with a will, and I gave you instructions, but you didn't follow the instructions because I know you are capable of following the instructions. So why did I get mad?


Another Example:

Look, assume you have a child. You know that someday that child is going to lie to you. You try to teach the child to always tell the truth. You explain that telling lies have consequences that will be unpleasant. But one day you hear a crash in the kitchen and find the cookie jar smashed on the floor and you little crumb cruncher looking guilty and having a face full of cookie crumbs. He is even holding a cookie in each hand.

You ask, "Did you take a cookie when I told you not to eat one?" And your little darling, the delight of your life, looks you straight in the eye and lies to you saying, " I didn't do it."

You knew, before you child was ever born, that he would lie to you one day. Do you love your child any less? Can you allow your child to go unpunished for lying to you? If you do then how will the child ever know how to tell the truth? Being just, you must punish the lie. But it does not mean you do not love the child.

437
I always hear Atheists say:

1. If God is so merciful, why does he allow people to burn in hell forever? If God created humans this way and he created us without proof of his existence, why would he punish people who rejected him? How is this merciful? If God is all knowing/omnipotent, wouldn't he know that most of these disbelievers are in fact innocent and they disbelieve because of their experiences in life and the way their brains have been developed? Why would an all knowing being punish people?

2. If God is real, how could he get angry? Anger is an emotion that arises from displeasure when certain expectations are not met. If God is all knowing and has those expectations, why would he get angry? He already knows what is going to happen?

3. How do you know that God is one? You use the cosmological argument that the universe needed a creator that exists outside of space and time and that that creator is personal and intelligent. How do you know there aren't other personal/intelligent creators outside of space and time? How do you know that God is one?  (It would be beneficial if you do not use scripture to describe this part)


How do we respond?

438
Thank you Osama! May God reward you!

Ok, so there is this other thing that they claim. They claim that an entire chapter was missing from the Quran. And this is the Hadith they quote it with:

Sahih muslim hadith no. 2286:

Abu Harb b. Abu al-Aswad reported on the authority of his father that Abu Musa al-Ash'ari sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Qur'an and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust." And we used so recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it: "Oh people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise" (lxi 2.) and "that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection" (xvii. 13).

They make the allegation that an entire chapter the size of chapter 9 was forgotten so therefore, the Quran is not 100% the word of God.

How do we respond?

439
Thank you brother Osama for that detailed response!

I think there would be a detail I need to know that may crystallize everything:

Was the Quran revealed in chapters? or verses? Meaning when Gabriel (as) went to Mohammad (pbuh), did he give him entire chapters of the Quran, or portions of chapters?

If he gave Mohammad (pbuh) portions of chapters and THEN Mohammad and his companions ordered the chapters and VERSES the right way, then the Sana scripts deviations are explained for.

I think this is my problem. I will look around the internet and see if I could find anything.

440
Thank you Black Muslim.

Were the non-arabic loanwords used in the Quran recognized as Arabic (in the Arabic dictionary) before the Quran?

Also:

But lets assume for a second that the Sana scrolls are not from Yemen (I know it is a weird assumption) and are from Madina :

Does it vary that much from the original Qur'an? Or are these variances so small that they could just be errors or dialect problems? Meaning, does it contradict the Quran? and would it show that the Quran has not been preserved?

441
Dawkins is so deceptive. Either that or he just heard only what he wanted to hear from those girls. That stunt that he did in that show probably misguided so many people!

442
Here is a Christian brother who has a youtube channel dedicated to refuting the trinity: He raises some great points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aNwTXx24e8&lc=ciDTMS_b0WJKFRcOQXAkz42eFX6yTzYiK2pDHvP_ovg

May Allah guide him and bless him. I sent him a mail asking about his thoughts on Islam (he is pretty much a Muslim really) He is a believer of God and Jesus and he doesn't believe in the trinity. He is closer to Islam!

443
Thank you brother Osama and Al-hamdulilah!

But lets assume for a second that the Sana scrolls are not from Yemen (I know it is a weird assumption) and are from Madina :

Does it vary that much from the original Qur'an? Or are these variances so small that they could just be errors or dialect problems? Meaning, does it contradict the Quran? and would it show that the Quran has not been preserved?

444
Many Middle Eastern words had been Arabized.

Thank you brother Osama on that detailed post:

But I'm just a little lost in one part. If words have been Arabized and inserted in the Quran (as they claim), doesn't that mean the Quran would be corrupted? And even more detrimental statement would be, "the scientific accuracies of the Quran have been inserted".

445
As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers,

Per brother 'Black Muslim' request, I have removed the link.  This hogwash nonsense had been thoroughly refuted at:

www.islamic-awareness.org  (by far, the best Islamic website when it comes to the History of the Holy Quran's Preservation)

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac3.htm#links

Brother, the so-called manuscripts in Yemen are used out of desperation by the anti-Islamics.  These are remnants of the misspelled Qurans and the altered ones that Caliph Uthman would've burnt.  The Quran Scholars that compiled the Holy Book and wrote it with their own blessed hands is in our possessions.  Anything found in remote lands, such as Yemen, Iraq, Iran or what have you are copies, and they do contain errors.  They are not originals.  The Quran that was compiled and what we have today did not original from Yemen, dear brother.

I love the title "The end of the Quran as we know it".  Perhaps the desperate and phony anti-Islamic should consider a title of "The end of praised pornography in the Bible as we know it".  Of course I am being sarcastic, because the Bible does praise pornography.

And what about the history of the Bible's compilation??  Man, if these people are only 10% critical of the Bible as they are of the Holy Quran, then I don't see how using their own logic they would not disown the Bible!  I mean, some lousy found scrolls in Yemen that are only a copy of some of the Holy Quran is the end of our Holy Quran as we know it, simply because they contain misspellings and some missing words constitutes the end of our Holy Book, but the overwhelming amount of contradictions and fables and corruptions, and praised pornography in the Bible don't mean a thing to these people??

Also, Abdallah bin Sabaa' and other Jews who fought Islam originated from Yemen.  So these scrolls could very very well be doctored copies ON PURPOSE.

Here is the bottom line dear brother:  The Original and real Scrolls of the Holy Quran came from Madina, and we have them!  I even have a picture of them in one of the links that is in the section that I gave above.  Everything outside of this belongs to the fire.  Like I said, Caliph Uthman would've happily burnt these (possibly doctored) scrolls from Yemen.

I hope this helps, insha'Allah.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

But the sana's scrolls are dated to be older than Uthman's copies. The Christians use that to show that Uthman changed the original Quran. We need to address this part. 

I understand the hypocrisy in the answering-islam article, but showing how the bible is corrupted (as it is obvious) doesn't make the Quran un-corrupted.

Like how the article talks about for example:

"jahanam (hell)" and the other text says "al-nar (hell-fire) for the same verse.

I am just trying to understand so far.

To summarize the Christian arguments:

On Sana'a: Firstly, Sana'a has a different chronology to Uthman, showing that ayats and surahs have been changed around from their original place.
= Corruption

Secondly, a variety of ayats themselves are different - in length, language, and meaning. = Corruption

Remember that the Sana'a manuscripts are earlier than Uthman's Qu'ran


2) There are many Non-Arab words in the Qu'ran, showing its human development in terms of language rather than being divine Arabic revelation - Youtube.com/watch?v=GqlrsJhuZ2g

446
How many times do we need to tell you , DON'T put links of these sites ! Can't you copy and paste them here ? Do you want more people to be misguided by these garbage dumps ? God helps .

Just to be clear, I don't want people to be misguided. I want people to see rebuttals to most of Answering-Islam's lies.

447
Here is the link to the article. It talks about the ancient sana manuscripts in yemen:

Edit: There are pictures in the above link but here it is:

“The Quran is a record of the exact words revealed by God through the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad. It was memorized by Muhammad and then dictated to his Companions, and written down by scribes, who cross-checked it during his lifetime. Not one word of its 114 chapters, Suras, has been changed over the centuries, so that the Quran is in every detail the unique and miraculous text which was revealed to Muhammad fourteen centuries ago.” (www.islamicity.com, search for ‘What is the Qur`an?’; accessed 19 May 2011)

The fundamental Islamic belief that no word of the Quran has changed is put in question by a rather unique ancient manuscript, a palimpsest, known as ‘DAM 0 1-27.1.’1 It was discovered by Muslims in 1972 at the ancient Great Mosque of Sana'a in Yemen. According to the latest academic studies, aided by the use of ultraviolet photography, this palimpsest contains many differences when compared with today’s Arabic Quran. They range from different and missing words and dissimilar spelling to a changed order of Surahs and words within verses. The find is part of a bundle of parchments thought to be the oldest surviving copies of the Quran.

A palimpsest is a manuscript from which a text has been scraped or washed to make room for another one in order to re-use the expensive parchment. Such a process would normally only be done after several centuries. However, in the case of ‘DAM 0 1-27.1’ it took place within the first century of the ‘Hijrah’ (7th and early 8th century AD), shortly after the Uthmanic recension. This is confirmed by the fact that the primary writings that reappeared and the secondary ones that followed, including the corrections of both, were found to be made in the ‘Hijazi’ style of the first Islamic century. The characteristic, irregular lines of that particular style exist in all the four above mentioned developmental stages of the text.

1. The Evidence

The palimpsest known as ‘DAM 0 1-27.1’ contains at least 38 Quran leaves. They were each written on parchment with an approximate size of 36.5 x 28.5 cm. Since on the majority of the leaves a primary text is visible and both texts contain parts of over 70 % of today’s Quran, the palimpsest must be a remnant of two, previously complete, yet different Qurans. ‘Folio 16r’2 below contains Surah 9:70-80 in the less visible primary writing and Surah 30:26-40 in the better visible secondary writing. The numbers on the right side of the image written in cursive type refer to the lines of the earlier, primary text. The normal ones identify the lines in the later, secondary text.

In the following examples, changed words from the primary writing are compared with the Standard text (StT). These changes represent only a very small part of a much bigger, in-depth analysis conducted by Dr E. Puin.3



2. Examples

A. Several words are missing within a paragraph leading to a different meaning:4



Sahih International translation: ‘… (if) they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And there will not be for them on earth (any protector or helper.)



Sana'a manuscript, ‘DAM 0 1-27.1’, translation: ‘… (if) they turn away, Allah will punish them in this world. And there will not be for them on earth (any protector or helper.)

The finishing letter, ‘Alif’, in ‘yatawallaw’, ‘they turn away’, found in today’s standard text of the Quran is missing in the early manuscript under discussion, as indicated by the empty box with a black frame above. Moreover, in the the verb ‘yu’addibhum’, ‘he (Allah) will punish them’, found on ‘Fol. 16r, Z.13’, is not explained with ‘adaban aliman’, ‘with a painful punishment’, as in the Standard Text (StT). There one finds ‘fi‘l-dunya wa-‘l-ahirati’, ‘in this world and in the Hereafter.’ The Sana'a manuscript contains only ‘in this world’ and therefore fits better with the end of the verse in both versions: ‘And there will not be for them on earth any protector or helper.’

B. Words are different from today’s Quran:5



The shaded area above indicates uncertainty. Instead of the word ‘gahannnamu,’ ‘hell’, found in the Standard Text, the old manuscript version contains the synonym ‘l-naru’, ‘the fire’, found in the box with the interrupted frame. It is almost identical with a parallel text found in today’s Surah 24:57:



The word ‘yaqsimuna’ in the old manuscript, found in the box with the interrupted frame above, has been replaced by the different, yet synonymous, ‘yahlifuna’, ‘they swear,’ in today’s Quran. The words that follow, crossed with horizontal lines, have been reconstructed with certainty. Behind the ‘Kaf’ of ‘kalimat’, ‘(the) word’, a part of the manuscript is missing. The grey, shaded area indicates uncertainty about the original word. The room left on the parchment allows only for ‘(ka)limata ‘l kufri’, ‘(the) word (of) the disbelief’. The next line in the manuscript starts with ‘wahammu bima lam yanalu’. Therefore, the phrase ‘wakafaru baʿda is'lāmihim’, ‘and disbelieved after their (pretense of) Islam’,6 is only found in the today’s Standard Text. The three words missing in the text form used by the old manuscript are again indicated by the white box with the black frame.

Whereas the secondary text of the examined palimpsest comes close to the content of today’s Quran, it is still not 100% identical. None of the numerous changes under discussion are mentioned in the Qirâ'ât literature that is concerned mostly with methods of pronunciation used in the recitations of the Qur'an. The changes are also different from those found in the collections of the Quran by Ibn Mas’ud, known primarily for the absence of Surah 1, 113 and 114, and Ubay bin Ka’b who listed two additional Surahs.7

3. Questions of Muslims answered

A. Why should we listen to Western Orientalist scholars who are known to be against Islam?

Sadly there are not many other scholars who dare to approach the sensitive subject of early Quranic manuscripts in an objective manner. A notable exception was Dr Nasr Abu Zaid, formerly a lecturer in Koranic Studies at Cairo University.8 He argued that the Quran is a literary text which needs to be examined through a literary approach. The highest court in Egypt ruled in 1995 that he was an apostate and therefore his marriage was annulled.

Salim Abdullah, director of the German Islamic Archives, affiliated to the powerful pan-Islamic Muslim World League, is open to critical research too, saying: “I am longing for this kind of discussion on this topic.”9

Since, for the above mentioned reasons, currently no other scholars have done as detailed a research as Dr E. Puin, Saarbrücken, Germany, on the palimpsest ‘DAM 0 1-27.1’, there was no other option available then the one chosen. However, other eminent scholars have examined different manuscripts and reached the same conclusion that the Quran has a history of textual development.10

B. Was it just a bad copy used by those whom the Uthmanic text had not yet reached?

There are several problems with such an assumption:

1.     The palimpsest ‘DAM 0 1-27.1’ has been proven to actually contain four different Qurans: A complete primary and secondary text, and both showing later corrections. Therefore we are not just dealing with one but four ‘bad copies’ within the first Islamic century. If the Uthmanic text had not yet reached the mosque, upon what basis were the corrections of the two different texts made?

2.     The Great Mosque of Sana’a where the manuscripts were found was built in the 6th year of the Hijrah by one of Muhammad’s companions.11 It was a centre of Islamic learning and as such must have been supplied with Uthman’s text immediately and urgently, since the Qurans found in any mosques have naturally been in use among the Muslims.

3.     Since even the secondary text with the corrections does not resemble the Uthmanic text 100%, the question arises as to why it was not corrected when the ‘Authorized Version’ arrived? To keep a different Quran in an Islamic centre of learning is a recipe for passing on false teachings.

4. Where do we go from here?

It has become clear that the Quran is not a record of the exact words revealed by God. Instead, the palimpsest, known as ‘DAM 0 1-27.1,’ demonstrates clearly that the holy book of Muslims has gone through stages of historical developments. There are at least three ways people can respond to these facts:

A. Anger

There is a right kind of anger, when people are treated unjustly or God’s will is misrepresented and neglected. While the world could definitely do with more of that kind of righteous anger expressed in productive ways, uncontrolled rage fueled by self-interest is sadly much more common. It is fully understandable that people resent a change of thought about what in many ways lies at the very heart of their faith and society. However, if painstaking examination of evidence has proven certain dearly held beliefs to be false then it would be foolishness to stubbornly hold on to them, just because one has always done so. Change never comes easy but it is better to bring a painful end to lies than to keep on living in the pain of deception without end.

B. Ignorance

Some people decide to turn a blind eye on the facts discussed so far. They try to live in denial and carry on as usual. After all, it has been rather comfortable so far, so they think. Such individuals and communities act a bit like someone who has lived in a small room for a long time. They will be happy with it until they realize that other people live in a spacious house. The truth that the Quran has been changed, not just in transmission but in the actual text as well, has far reaching, potentially life-changing implications.

C. Jesus

Lastly, the third way people can respond to the findings of this academic research is Jesus. He says about himself literally, “I am the way and the truth and the life.”12 He is the answer to the prayer Muslims are to perform five times every day, saying: ‘Show us the straight way, the way of those on whom you have bestowed your Grace…’ Jesus did not say, ‘I am showing you the way into Christianity.’ He simply says, ‘I am the way.’ Eternal life in paradise comes from following him alone. It happens by grace, by an undeserved favour. Jesus wants us to turn around from our old ways and put our faith in him and what he has done for us on the cross. He does not ask people to abandon the good aspects of their culture or to embrace the sinful parts of a Western lifestyle. God will give us the power to be like Jesus in whatever situation we find ourselves in.

Jesus is not only the way but he is also the living word of God. The Quran calls him uniquely, ‘Kalimatullah’ – ‘The Word of God’ (Surah 4:171; cf. Revelation 19:13 & John 1); it is identical with God. The Bible is about Jesus. Many articles have been written to show that it is still trustworthy.13 However, the standard and definition by which the Holy Scriptures of the people of the Book has been revealed and preserved is different from the one given hundreds of years later by Muslims. Whoever examines the Bible on its own terms, praying earnestly and with an open heart for guidance will be blessed. I invite you to do so through a simple e-mail correspondence course. Please contact me to get the first of six lessons.

448
Shamoun seems to be extremely sensitive when it comes to the prophet-hood of Mohammad (Pbuh). He knows there is a high enough evidence to declare that Mohammd (pbuh) is the last prophet as prophesied in the bible. This leads to his insecurity about it. Couple that insecurity with pride and insincerity and you got yourself a Shamoun!

If anyone would like to see it in video form most of the evidences, watch this (it is extremely close to answering-Christianity's facts):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UuspoxI3T4&list=SP809E3E8B55FFE2AA&index=6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWA8AgxdYW8&list=SP809E3E8B55FFE2AA&index=7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt1a-daAB7Q&list=SP809E3E8B55FFE2AA&index=8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WanMZcM69lY&list=SP809E3E8B55FFE2AA&index=9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UscliplvMAg&list=SP809E3E8B55FFE2AA&index=10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYf1j5Duhns&list=SP809E3E8B55FFE2AA&index=11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdWotHP-fXw&list=SP809E3E8B55FFE2AA&index=12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uoHpOSUA6E&list=SP809E3E8B55FFE2AA&index=13





449
There ARE scientific miracles in the Quran. For Muslims to say otherwise is extremely false and deceptive. How in the world is saying the Earth was created in 2 days and the universe was created in 6 days metaphorical. 2/6 is 1/3. That means the earth should be 1/3 the age of the universe. And it is. The universe is 13.7 billion years old and the Earth is 4.57 billion years old. 4.57/13.7 = 1/3. How can you say this is metaphorical? There cannot be any Muslim who can say with a straight face that the Quran is not scientifically miraculous. Sure some verses may not be (like the honey's antibacterial effects-it was well known before the Quran), but some are.

There are verses in this divine book that make my heart tremble in accuracy.

450
Hello everyone, I am a new convert to Islam (its been 6 months, my faith is still not 100%) and I love the miraculous Quran and believe it 100%. I also believe in what the prophet said 100%, but I do not believe Hadiths in general are authentic. It is human nature to exaggerate certain things and put your own interpretations into a book. And the Hadiths are not preserved like the Quran, so is it necessary to fully trust Hadiths.

I know everything the prophet said is perfect, but I am sure they were exaggerated in the Hadiths.

I hate it when non-muslims use the Hadith to make criticisms. I feel like the hadiths are so elementary and the writters of the hadiths used some of their own knowledge to interpret what the prophet says and the hadiths honestly feel not-divine inspired (I know they aren't divine, but you can see that in the Hadiths).

I'm on a quest to increase my faith, I pray everyday that I find some more proof. Before I was a Muslim, I used to always go to answering-islam/answering-muslims because I really really wanted to prove Islam wrong and I wanted to read things that go against Islam. I was a really strong atheist and I was a Catholic Christian before that. I thank God every day that he has guided me, but I need more of a push-and its up to me to discover my faith. So I constantly browse the web (including Answering-Christianity). I don't know if I am entirely Muslim just yet, but I really want to believe. I feel like of all religions, Islam makes the most sense.  But I do have uncertainty in my heart and I pray that God would guide me. This uncertainty I am sure arises from Answering-Islam and people like David Wood. I am happy (thank God) that I found Answering-Christianity and I am grateful for brother Osama's work. 

But my current question is, should we really trust Hadiths? I trust in what the prophet said, but not the Hadiths. I know humans exaggerate and add information they think is right. The authors may also unintentionally put some of their false perceptions in the Hadiths (like their own interpretations, exaggerations, what they falsely know about science etc.).

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 [30] 31

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube