historicity of the Qur'an

[miskeen]

"And when you look at them, their bodies please you; and when they speak, you listen to their words..." (Munafiqun 4)


as salaamu alaykum

I'm not sure how old this topic is, or if it has been discussed amongst the scholars. It may have re-surfaced or it may be completely new, but in the face of modernist/mu'tazilah arguments that have tremendous effect in the West and influence in the East, the topic is ever so relevant.

I was wondering if the more learned amongst us, or even those with some knowledge of this, could spare the time to direct your brother here to some books/articles on this very topic.

alhamdulillah, I am sure you can all relate, but every time I hear of calls for re-interpretation of the sacred texts, specificially the Qur'an, I experience severe agitation.

The argument is broad, as you all know, but generally, it calls for a completly new, 'modern' understanding of the ayaat (ie jannah, narr, hisaab, taqwa, hudood, ibadah, deen, tawheed, al wala` wal bara`etc) that would eventually render the traditional understanding to nothing more than a 'religion of the old'.

One of the ways to do this is to establish that there is a historicity to the Qur'an, or that the ayaat had a specific relevance to the Arab community back then and to them only.

Now, we still have the same ayaat, but the intrepretation must be different because with fundamental changes in the global order, law, government and social structures... thousand year old tafasir have absolutley no relevance to us today.

Obviously, I believe this to be a insidious plot of munafiqeen and kuffar, clothed in elegant and persuasive arguments (hence the ayah I chose to begin this post).

That is why I wish to learn more about this issue, for the dual purpose of gaining knowledge and forming strong arguments to expose this batil.

So if anyone out there can direct me to books/articles/websites on this issue, it would be greatly appreciated. I am speficially looking for material that explains this issue, ie that the Qur'an is relevant for all times.

I pray that I and whoever is effected by the re-interpretation movements is included in the following ayah; an ayah I hope applies to me in this context:


"Those who dispute about the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh, without any authority that has come to them, it is greatly hateful and disgusting to Allâh and to those who believe. Thus does Allâh seal up the heart of every arrogant, tyrant." (Ghafir 35)


JAk for reading my post, and I'd like to see what you all have to say/offer on this issue. By the way, do not let my "number of posts" status deceive you...I have been visiting this site for over three years, alhamdulillah, and have only now decided to involve myself in the discussions that I have observed for so long.

barakAllah feekum was salaamu alaykum

[morbius]

Quran actually has a number of historical mistakes in it.
For instance, there is a verse where Pharaoh orders Jews to bake bricks, but bricks were not baked in the ancient Egypt, they were dried by Sun. Baking bricks came to Egypt with Romans.
Many names in Quran were reported wrong. For instance, Moise became Musa. Many foreign words were imported wrong. For instance “jingeel” from Greek “evangelion”.

Jews also really like to make fun of Quran’s claims that Miriam is Moses’ sister. To be honest, I haven’t noticed this while reading the Quran.

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

Quran actually has a number of historical mistakes in it.
For instance, there is a verse where Pharaoh orders Jews to bake bricks, but bricks were not baked in the ancient Egypt, they were dried by Sun. Baking bricks came to Egypt with Romans.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/burntbrick.html

Jews also really like to make fun of Quran’s claims that Miriam is Moses’ sister.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mary.html

[miskeen]

what a disappointment to what I think is an important question in light of refuting modernists.

anyways, morbius, I have read a lot of your posts in this forum and I am not interested in talking to you.

this forum is filled with knowledgeable people who talk with sound logic and provide references to reinforce their arguments. You, on the other hand, have brought three apparent mistakes in Qur'an yet you haven't referenced anything or brought any supporting arguments from factual/scholarly sources. This is tantamount to me saying to you "Morbius actually means dog shi**" and then just leaving it at that. You can see how inane such a statement is.

I think people in this board are more than willing to engage in respectful debates with you but you are just not yet on their level. Your type of dialogue, including your sweeping generalizations, lack of knowledge concerning the Islamic canon and unsound arguments belongs more on pokemon forums than it does in a serious place like this.

If you haven't noticed yet, your annoying...not necessarily because of what you say, but because of how you say it, and more so, how you come to your 'conclusions' (if they can even be called that).

For what must be the thousandth time on this forum, here is another person telling you to at least attempt to bring factual proof to an argument and not mere myths, emotions and fallacious arguments.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Quran actually has a number of historical mistakes in it.
For instance, there is a verse where Pharaoh orders Jews to bake bricks, but bricks were not baked in the ancient Egypt, they were dried by Sun. Baking bricks came to Egypt with Romans.
Many names in Quran were reported wrong. For instance, Moise became Musa. Many foreign words were imported wrong. For instance “jingeel” from Greek “evangelion”.

Jews also really like to make fun of Quran’s claims that Miriam is Moses’ sister. To be honest, I haven’t noticed this while reading the Quran.

now read the articles posted by our brother ibn 'abd-al-jabbaar and embrace the truth instead of answering islam's rethoric

[morbius]

this forum is filled with knowledgeable people who talk with sound logic and provide references to reinforce their arguments. You, on the other hand, have brought three apparent mistakes in Qur'an yet you haven't referenced anything or brought any supporting arguments from factual/scholarly sources.
To be perfectly honest, I was expecting that you would accuse me of lying, and then I would bring forward my proofs and references.
Don’t worry, I do not put forward any statement here that I can not back up with facts. I’ve made such a mistake once and promised not to do it again. Whatever I say here, I have arguments behind it. If you call for them, I will always present them.

I think people in this board are more than willing to engage in respectful debates with you but you are just not yet on their level. Your type of dialogue, including your sweeping generalizations, lack of knowledge concerning the Islamic canon and unsound arguments belongs more on pokemon forums than it does in a serious place like this.
You are right when you say that I do not know Islamic canon or traditions that well, but I did put a reasonable effort into understanding them (even bigger than some Muslims I know, mind you). It’s not that I think that truths can’t be found in Islamic teachings, it simply that I find that more important truths can be found in other places, such as natural sciences. I dedicate my time for studying accordingly.
I was very sorry to see a person here who knew everything about Muhamed’s bathroom habits, yet showed great ignorance in the fields of history and biology.

Anyway, in arguments I only respect “sound logic” as you’ve put it. Two out of three claims I’ve made in this thread were refuted by ibn 'abd al-jabbaar by using such sound logic and cold hard evidence. I have nothing against it and only wish that more people would use such approach when arguing with me here. Unfortunately, most will simply say that something is true because Quran says that it’s true.

[Logic lover]

Quote:

''Unfortunately, most will simply say that something is true because Quran says that it’s true.''

Reply: No! this is fortunate. A Muslim is not required to find out the history of brick construction in Egypt and Rome. These are issues which are left with the experts of the religion to have knowledge of, should it become necessary. Do not look down on the Muslims if they do not want to discuss the history of brick building.

Just because the pagan Christians cannot find reason for their false religion instead of the true teachings of the prophets - does not mean Muslims will have to have the same inferiority complex.

[miskeen]

Anyway, in arguments I only respect “sound logic” as you’ve put it. Two out of three claims I’ve made in this thread were refuted by ibn 'abd al-jabbaar by using such sound logic and cold hard evidence. I have nothing against it and only wish that more people would use such approach when arguing with me here. Unfortunately, most will simply say that something is true because Quran says that it’s true.

Morbius, how many times have your charges been refuted? :) Isn't time you start considering the divine origin of every verse in the Qur'an and not just some?

In another thread, you have stated that the Prophet(pbuh), with the best intentions, added to the Qur'an and this is why you won't accept the claim that the Qur'an is totally divine.

Your allegation, however, contradicts the Qur'an itself. The Qur'an contains a handful of verses that actually admonish the Prophet if he were to add something, as you claim, that hadn't been revealed. (see surah 69)

In other places, the Qur'an lightly reprimands the Prophet (see surah 80 for example). So the question to you is, if the Prophet is a 'co-author', as you allege, what use is it for him to write verses that actually cast him in a bad light? (that is if he indeed did write them)

Also, your claim implies that he had the ability to write...it is well known that the Prophet was illiterate, this is recognized by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. (do ask if you need non-Muslim references)

The charge that the Prophet had a hand in authoring the Qur'an, which is your stance, is one that the Qur'an itself deals with thouroughly...if you haven't already, please read some more and test the logic of your claim against the Qur'an itself.

I'm not sure what translation you have, but just in case you are looking for a different one, try this one: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

[morbius]

Reply: No! this is fortunate. A Muslim is not required to find out the history of brick construction in Egypt and Rome. These are issues which are left with the experts of the religion to have knowledge of, should it become necessary. Do not look down on the Muslims if they do not want to discuss the history of brick building.

I’m not saying that every Muslim must learn history of making brick in Egypt, but a Muslim should check claims of Quran in the fields that he is familiar in. Instead of accepting everything said in Quran blindly, effort must be made to verify it. Parts that have strong evidence behind them are relatively safe to accept as-is, while parts that can not be conclusively proven should be taken with a grain of salt. Parts that have evidence speaking against them should be seriously questioned.

Just because the pagan Christians cannot find reason for their false religion instead of the true teachings of the prophets - does not mean Muslims will have to have the same inferiority complex.
In the Middle Ages, church feared that if people were to find out that Earth is round, people are going to turn away from Christianity because they would realize that Christian teachings were flawed. But today we know that the Earth is round and yet there are more Christians than there ever were!
Do you really think that accepting truth that God made man from ape is going to be the end of Islam?

[morbius]

Morbius, how many times have your charges been refuted? :) Isn't time you start considering the divine origin of every verse in the Qur'an and not just some?
And how many times I was not refuted, but instead left without an answer? Go and check for yourself. Isn't it time you start considering the human origin of some verses in the Qur'an?

Your allegation, however, contradicts the Qur'an itself. The Qur'an contains a handful of verses that actually admonish the Prophet if he were to add something, as you claim, that hadn't been revealed. (see surah 69)
In other places, the Qur'an lightly reprimands the Prophet (see surah 80 for example). So the question to you is, if the Prophet is a 'co-author', as you allege, what use is it for him to write verses that actually cast him in a bad light? (that is if he indeed did write them)
But then again, how would we know? Muhamed could have added that part to seem more credible to the people.
Problem with Muhamed is that he offered very little evidence for his words. Other prophets and other religions usually offered more evidence.

Also, your claim implies that he had the ability to write...it is well known that the Prophet was illiterate, this is recognized by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. (do ask if you need non-Muslim references)
Do you think that it’s impossible that he had some Jewish and Christian scholars to help him write the Quran? Or even scholars of other religions, since some teachings of Buddha and Zoroaster can be found in Quran?

I'm not sure what translation you have, but just in case you are looking for a different one, try this one
10x, I wasn’t happy with the one I’ve got.

[Abu Hamza Al-Ghourghushti]

But then again, how would we know? Muhamed could have added that part to seem more credible to the people.
Problem with Muhamed is that he offered very little evidence for his words. Other prophets and other religions usually offered more evidence.


Do you think that it’s impossible that he had some Jewish and Christian scholars to help him write the Quran? Or even scholars of other religions, since some teachings of Buddha and Zoroaster can be found in Quran?
.

You say he "offered very little evidence for his words." The fact of the matter is is that they are not his words, they are the pure unadulterated words of allah. Whereas you on the other hand offer NO evidence for your words whatsoever.

And regarding him(saw) having scholars from other religions to help him "write the quran" is ludicrous, his life is very well documented from the most reliable of sources and also from a variety of reliable sources that would refute this baseless claim at every turn, however even though i am a newcomer to this site i can see from your previous posts that as usual they just follow the trend of mere conjecture and conspiracy without any evidence at all.

It all boils down to a matter of faith, men of faith who accept the oneness of allah and muhammed(saw) as his final messenger will also by default accept the quran as the word of allah and therefore every last letter as the pure truth and instead of questioning the quran, would question that which disagrees or goes against it, be that Brick-laying or anything else.

[morbius]

i am a newcomer to this site
Yes, I can see that you are new here. I’ve already discussed these things in detail with others here, so I’ll keep my answers short, since there is no need to repeat myself.

You say he "offered very little evidence for his words." The fact of the matter is is that they are not his words, they are the pure unadulterated words of allah. Whereas you on the other hand offer NO evidence for your words whatsoever.
Like I’ve said, I say nothing here without arguments to back it up. Simply state what did I say here that you need proof for to and I will provide it.

And regarding him(saw) having scholars from other religions to help him "write the quran" is ludicrous, his life is very well documented from the most reliable of sources
Those sources being Muslim, of course? That alone constitutes a reasonable doubt.
I can provide you with historical sources that speak poorly of the prophet, if you are interested.

It all boils down to a matter of faith, men of faith who accept the oneness of allah and muhammed(saw) as his final messenger will also by default accept the quran as the word of allah and therefore every last letter as the pure truth and instead of questioning the quran, would question that which disagrees or goes against it, be that Brick-laying or anything else.
When they asked Neitche what happens if it turn out that his theories do not fit the evidence, he replied: “Too bad for the evidence”.
You are a lot like Neitche. You stick to your “perfect” truth, regardless whether it fits the facts or not.
This “blind faith” approach never worked for me. To me, only what fits the facts can be true. This is the approach that science uses.
That’s why it is a very good idea to gather historical facts about Quran. That way they would be easier to check later.

[AbuAhmad]

Moribus, I really suggest you read this book if you are interested in this topic:

http://islamicbookstore.com/b7626.html

Check your local library.

[Abu Hamza Al-Ghourghushti]

But then again, how would we know? Muhamed could have added that part to seem more credible to the people.
Problem with Muhamed is that he offered very little evidence for his words. Other prophets and other religions usually offered more evidence.


Do you think that it’s impossible that he had some Jewish and Christian scholars to help him write the Quran? Or even scholars of other religions, since some teachings of Buddha and Zoroaster can be found in Quran?

.

which other prophets from other religions as you claim offered "usually" more evidence then muhammed(saw)? and according to these "prophets" in relation to muhammed(saw) what is your criterior of measurement for enough or not enough evidence? im intrested to know your answer.

"Muhammed could have added that part" <<< This is what they call conjecture for which you are not able to provide evidence.

Now please provide me with some SOLID evidence where muhammed(saw) had some jewish,christian,buddhist or zoroasterian scholars to help him write the quran.

[miskeen]

Morbius-

I want to make one thing clear.

There is no such thing as 'blind faith' in Islam.

As you can see by just surveying this forum, our religion and method of scriptural exegesis and commentary resembles empirical research than it does 'blind faith'.

Blind faith is actually a derogatory term in our lexicon.

So to put it clearly, we don't have blind faith in the Qur'an. If there ever was an instance where we are confused or unable to understand a verse, for example, we are actually encouraged to investigate it and never asked to 'shut up and believe'.

Again, the Qur'an contradicts your sweeping generalization of our mindset when it says;

"There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path....(Al-Baqarah 2:256)

Also:

"And say: "The truth is from your Lord." Then whosoever wills, let him believe, and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve. Verily, We have prepared for the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers, etc.), a Fire whose walls will be surrounding them (disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh). And if they ask for help (relief, water, etc.) they will be granted water like boiling oil, that will scald their faces. Terrible the drink, and an evil Murtafaqâ (dwelling, resting place, etc.)!" (Al-Kahf 18:29)

We are not asked to believe blindly. In fact, the notion of adhering to a methodology or a creed without critical investigation into the veracity of its' truthfulness/validity is reprehensible in Islamic discourse.

So your charge of 'blind faith' is invalidated by the very fundamentals of our creed!!

To put it bluntly; we are not Christians.

[morbius]

which other prophets from other religions as you claim offered "usually" more evidence then muhammed(saw)? and according to these "prophets" in relation to muhammed(saw) what is your criterior of measurement for enough or not enough evidence? im intrested to know your answer.

For instance:
Moses had his miracles, which made it clear to people that God is behind him. Parting of Red sea comes to mind.

Jesus also did some incredible things in front of large audiences, which professional magicians say are practically impossible to conjure. There are Christian miracles in the world still active today, reminding us of the words of Jesus.

Buddhist monks also do some incredible things that are impossible to explain and constitute evidence in their favor. One guy levitated out in the open, in front of an audience of over 300 people, including scientists!

Acupuncture today is a well-known, proven and often used method in official medicine. It is based on very complicated manipulation of electrical currents that run through the body using needles. You probably don’t know it, but acupuncture comes from Taoism. How could primitive Chinese come up with such exact maps of acupuncture points without divine assistance?

You see what I mean when I mention evidence.
Muhamed does not provide something that clearly shows that God is behind him. We are supposed to believe him only on his word.

The only miracle in Islam that is being mentioned is the miracle of Quran. It is claimed that it’s so well-written that it constitutes evidence of its Godly origin. However, since I don’t know Arabic, I can’t verify this. I can only say that its translation doesn’t sound impressive at all, it’s mostly repetitive, often confusing and looks more to be piled-up than well-organized.

"Muhammed could have added that part" <<< This is what they call conjecture for which you are not able to provide evidence.
Yes, I have no evidence for something like that, that why I say “could have done” instead of “did”. I’m saying that it’s a possibility that should not be disregarded. Unless, of course, if you can present hard evidence that he didn’t do it.
Remember, the burden of evidence is on prosecution, not on the accused. If I say that I’m a prophet, I must present some evidence for that. Or would you fallow me just on my word?

Now please provide me with some SOLID evidence where muhammed(saw) had some jewish,christian,buddhist or zoroasterian scholars to help him write the quran.
Parts of teachings of those religions can be found in Quran (would you like references?). That indicates that Muhamed was well-aware of their teachings, which again suggests that he had religious scholars coaching him.
This of course is no SOLID evidence, but how can you prove that he didn’t have help either? Much time has passed since then, there are no witnesses of Muhamed’s life any more. Those who loved him spoke the best of him. Those who hated him, spoke the worst. In the end, can either of them be trusted to be objective?

[Muwahidah]

Morbius,

I think you have pretty much decided what you want to believe in or should i say what you do not want to believe in, when a person wants to learn about the deen they listen but i think you lack in that faculty, you just refuse to accept anything, instead its seems like you are on this hopeless mission to try to confuse Muslims. Quit while your ahead, and my nasihah to others who tend to engage in these discussions with morbius, would be that let him be when everyone starts to blank his response he will sooner or later shut up.

[islamic@rebel]

For instance:
Moses had his miracles, which made it clear to people that God is behind him. Parting of Red sea comes to mind.

Jesus also did some incredible things in front of large audiences, which professional magicians say are practically impossible to conjure. There are Christian miracles in the world still active today, reminding us of the words of Jesus.

Buddhist monks also do some incredible things that are impossible to explain and constitute evidence in their favor. One guy levitated out in the open, in front of an audience of over 300 people, including scientists!

Acupuncture today is a well-known, proven and often used method in official medicine. It is based on very complicated manipulation of electrical currents that run through the body using needles. You probably don’t know it, but acupuncture comes from Taoism. How could primitive Chinese come up with such exact maps of acupuncture points without divine assistance?

You see what I mean when I mention evidence.
Muhamed does not provide something that clearly shows that God is behind him. We are supposed to believe him only on his word.

The only miracle in Islam that is being mentioned is the miracle of Quran. It is claimed that it’s so well-written that it constitutes evidence of its Godly origin. However, since I don’t know Arabic, I can’t verify this. I can only say that its translation doesn’t sound impressive at all, it’s mostly repetitive, often confusing and looks more to be piled-up than well-organized.

May Allah guide you to Islam.

moses split the red sea, the prophet (s) split the moon.

jesus gave life to the dead, the prophet made water spill out from his hands, peace be upon him.

but all with Allah's help.

Yes, I have no evidence for something like that, that why I say “could have done” instead of “did”. I’m saying that it’s a possibility that should not be disregarded. Unless, of course, if you can present hard evidence that he didn’t do it.

proving negatives? great. shows us what kind of intelect you have, or don't have.


Parts of teachings of those religions can be found in Quran (would you like references?). That indicates that Muhamed was well-aware of their teachings, which again suggests that he had religious scholars coaching him.
This of course is no SOLID evidence, but how can you prove that he didn’t have help either? Much time has passed since then, there are no witnesses of Muhamed’s life any more. Those who loved him spoke the best of him. Those who hated him, spoke the worst. In the end, can either of them be trusted to be objective?

actually, one of his enemies, abu sufyan (r), spoke the best of him.

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

Parts of teachings of those religions can be found in Quran (would you like references?). That indicates that Muhamed was well-aware of their teachings, which again suggests that he had religious scholars coaching him.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/

regardless, that is a post-hoc logical fallacy.

this, in part, illustrates the problematic approach you have adopted here. you've done a little reading here and there from less-than-impartial websites, and then you believe yourself to be in a position where you can confidently declare this or that. personal intuition and intellectual honesty dictates that you go to the websites that respond to the tired christian polemic that you have been regurgitating and take time to investigate sincerely.

evidently, you haven't done this as of yet, because you persist in presenting worn out and oft-refuted arguments. you must thus exuse most of us if we do not feel your comments merit response.

[Aburafay]

Peace Morbius!

One of the Articles of Faith for a Muslim is belief in the Books (Psalms, Torah, Injeel, and Qur'an) as revealed by Allah/God. Any person who rejects a part of the revelation is out of the fold of Islam. Thus, every Muslims will accept everything from the Qur'an without any hesitation. As everything in the Qur'an is the Truth, and is the Word of Allah/God, there is no difficulty in proving it with reference to science, logic, history, etc. This can oly be done by scholars who specialise in various fields of knowledge, and have absolute command over the Qur'an and Sunnah. Hence, you should not expect everyone to give you a comprehensive answer. He/she will reply according to the best of his/her ability. Understandably the normal response will be what you have mentioned. I do not condone this response, but I do not reject it either, as that is an inherent response from a complete belief in every word of the Qur'an.

There is a very interesting book I have read, entitled "Even Angels Ask" by a Jeffrey Lang. Jeffrey was a professor of mathematics in the US. He met Islam and Muslims, and reverted. This book basically raises questions and answers them. I would recommend yopu read it.

Peace out

[stranger1395]

Whomsoever Allah guides NONE can guide and whomsoever Allah causes to err NONE can guide

Moribus has been given da'wah how many times?
And has he shifted to the truth in ANY way?

And this despite admitting being corrected on a number of issues

Understand one thing very clearly Moribus:

We believe that Allah is the Lord of all things (including you) and that His every Word is true. So no matter how much nonsense your ilk dig up, you will never ever convince us otherwise. Its a question of belief. We believe this is THE truth! I dont know how much simpler the issue can be explained to you.

How come you dont investigate the many verses in the Qur'an that spoke of miraculous incidents whihc modern is only beginning to explain today?
How do you explain the Qur'an on these issues? cloud formations for rain, embryo development, formation of mountains...just some of the many facts that maybe you can "scientifically" explain.

"Verily the right path has become distinct from the wrong path" (2:256)

[morbius]

Blind faith is actually a derogatory term in our lexicon.

So to put it clearly, we don't have blind faith in the Qur'an. If there ever was an instance where we are confused or unable to understand a verse, for example, we are actually encouraged to investigate it and never asked to 'shut up and believe'.

Then it must be a duty of Muslims to check validity of Quran? This is very fortunate.
I have nothing against faith, I’m only against blind faith. There is nothing wrong with faith based on reality.

There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path....(Al-Baqarah 2:256)
If the right path is so clear, why so many divisions and sects in Islam?

To put it bluntly; we are not Christians.
Hey, I was never the one to think that this world would be better if we were all Christians.
We simply perceive religion in a different way. To be a Christian, you are not really required to believe all those fairy tales that Church serves you with. Most of us don’t believe them anyway. You are only required to truly believe in the message of Jesus. Practically every man who hears it will confirm that it is a good message, that’s why Christianity was always so popular and remains popular today. Christianity is changing together with the world, but the message of Jesus stays the same.

[morbius]

but all with Allah's help.

But what do we do with evidence of non-theistic religions?

proving negatives? great. shows us what kind of intelect you have, or don't have.
If I would say that God speaks to me, what would need evidence?
Would I need to prove that God speaks to me, or would you need to prove that He doesn’t?

[morbius]

Peace Morbius!

Peace, Aburafay!

Thus, every Muslims will accept everything from the Qur'an without any hesitation.
Most of Muslims in the world are more-less secular and do not accept all parts of Quran to be absolute truth, or do not believe that all should be followed.
As everything in the Qur'an is the Truth, and is the Word of Allah/God, there is no difficulty in proving it with reference to science, logic, history, etc.
It’s actually quite difficult to prove. Try proving to me that the story of Noah is true and you’ll see what I mean.
This can oly be done by scholars who specialise in various fields of knowledge, and have absolute command over the Qur'an and Sunnah. Hence, you should not expect everyone to give you a comprehensive answer.
There are people here who claim to have knowledge of these maters. Let’s put them to the test.

[miskeen]

Morbius-

when I said we are not Christians, I was implying that we don't have 'blind faith' in the validty of our scripture and the veracity of our creed (aqidah) like so many Christians are forced to have.

You say 'most Christians...' but I am going to stop you right there because I don't think you can make a generalization for millions of Christians, all with varying creeds.

Western Christians differ than thier Eastern counterparts in significant fundamentals of thier religion and vice versa.

Please don't compare Islam with other religions because Islam is unique in several facets, thus proving comparision methods as futile. For example, in the context of the three 'Abrahamic religions', the (believing) Muslims are the only ones who are absolutly united on the authenticity and origin of thier holy scripture.

Additionally, the role of the Prophet is clear; he is nothing more than a human being on the highest code of ethics, morality and character; there are no fundamental disputes within Muslim circles as to whether he was divine or not, or whether he is the son of God, etc. This differs greatly from Christians, some of which (especially in the East) still believe that Christ was not a son of God, which is contrary to the dominant belief of most Christians (thanks to thier Western Roman Empire scholars, like Augustine, Gregory, etc).

So among the believing Muslims, our religion is very clear and succint; we can't say the same of other religions.

[Aburafay]

Peace morbius!

Most of Muslims in the world are more-less secular and do not accept all parts of Quran to be absolute truth, or do not believe that all should be followed.

I am amazed at your categorical statement. I said that every Muslim has to believe in four books including the Qur'an as an Article of Faith, and you turn round and say that most Muslims do not believe in parts of the Qur'an. Will you accept a challenge to prove it, or would you rather apologise for this absurd and baseless statement.

Choice is yours.

It’s actually quite difficult to prove. Try proving to me that the story of Noah is true and you’ll see what I mean.

My comment on the ease with which the Truth can be proved, had a caveat which you either did not understand, or prefered to ignore. I said, and I repeat for your convenience "This can oly be done by scholars who specialise in various fields of knowledge, and have absolute command over the Qur'an and Sunnah." You have tripped here too.

There are people here who claim to have knowledge of these maters. Let’s put them to the test.

Ever thought that you are the one beig tested here? You are being given knowledge, which you are not absorbing. Come Day of Judgement, and you will be at a loss.

Peace out

[morbius]

We believe that Allah is the Lord of all things (including you)
But I wouldn't even dream of convincing you otherwise, for this is what I believe also. There really is God.

However, I have problems with this part:
Its a question of belief. We believe this is THE truth!

My objections come down to 2 most important questions:
1. Should you believe it if there are evidence against it?
2. Should you still follow it to the letter if circumstances have changed dramatically?

How come you dont investigate the many verses in the Qur'an that spoke of miraculous incidents whihc modern is only beginning to explain today?
How do you explain the Qur'an on these issues? cloud formations for rain, embryo development, formation of mountains...just some of the many facts that maybe you can "scientifically" explain.
Please come to the topic where we speak about scientific knowledge in Quran. I would be very happy to discuss these things with you. Make sure you read everything we have posted there previously.
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=696&highlight=scientific

[morbius]

when I said we are not Christians, I was implying that we don't have 'blind faith' in the validty of our scripture and the veracity of our creed (aqidah) like so many Christians are forced to have.

Days of rigid Christianity are fortunately over. Even Catholicism is abandoning their strict dogmas, and the process has become even faster since the new pope took over. I must admit that I like the guy, despite my better judgment.

Western Christians differ than thier Eastern counterparts in significant fundamentals of thier religion and vice versa.
Yes, but it doesn’t really matter that much. You see, to be a Christian you simply have to believe in Jesus’ message of love for your fellow man. It’s like they say – deep down everyone is a Christian.
We can discuss these things more if you want, but it’s better to open a new thread for that.

So among the believing Muslims, our religion is very clear and succint; we can't say the same of other religions.
Muhamed made sure that the created a very practical and succinct religion for a 7th century Arabia, there is no doubt about that. But is that religion in its original state practical for 21st century non-Arabians?
If you answer this question with “yes” better be ready to defend that view, for there will be many questions to follow.

[morbius]

I am amazed at your categorical statement. I said that every Muslim has to believe in four books including the Qur'an as an Article of Faith, and you turn round and say that most Muslims do not believe in parts of the Qur'an. Will you accept a challenge to prove it, or would you rather apologise for this absurd and baseless statement.

I’ve been around. Sadly, I’ve never been to Arabia, the cradle of Islam (and I’d love to go some day), but I’ve seen Turks, Egyptians, Moroccans. They go around it modern clothes, with trimmed beards or shaven faces. Their women do not wear veils, although some do wear hijabs, most are dressed like us. They rule themselves by secular laws and do not desire sharia.
This site is called “Islamic Awakening”, is it not? You are trying to awake such Muslims?

Sadly, you do not see that they are already awake and see the world around them. It’s you who are still sleeping, dreaming of the empires long dead. No offense.

My comment on the ease with which the Truth can be proved, had a caveat which you either did not understand, or prefered to ignore. I said, and I repeat for your convenience "This can oly be done by scholars who specialise in various fields of knowledge, and have absolute command over the Qur'an and Sunnah." You have tripped here too.
Surely one such scholar can be found here? I’m not even expert on this question, but I’m ready to face him. It’s really not hard when all the evidence is talking in your favor.
I’ve argued about flood with Christian apologists, and I already know all the weak “evidence” that is brought up to support the flood story.

Ever thought that you are the one beig tested here? You are being given knowledge, which you are not absorbing. Come Day of Judgement, and you will be at a loss.
Don’t worry, I’ve asked myself long time ago whether I’m able to bare Hell if I happen to be wrong. I do not take these things likely.

[Aburafay]

I’ve been around. Sadly, I’ve never been to Arabia, the cradle of Islam (and I’d love to go some day), but I’ve seen Turks, Egyptians, Moroccans. They go around it modern clothes, with trimmed beards or shaven faces. Their women do not wear veils, although some do wear hijabs, most are dressed like us. They rule themselves by secular laws and do not desire sharia.
This site is called “Islamic Awakening”, is it not? You are trying to awake such Muslims?

Sadly, you do not see that they are already awake and see the world around them. It’s you who are still sleeping, dreaming of the empires long dead. No offense.


It is the Muslim world, and not Arabia that you can see, to know what the world is in reality. The few people ypou know are not representative of a Muslim. They are from the tiny minority who have become westernised, and have lost their identity. They have left light and gone into the darkness. MAy they be guided. Ameen.

Islamic Awakening is meant to awaken those who are in the darkness of misconceptions and disbelief. It has nothing to do with empires, it has to do with saving lost souls.

Surely one such scholar can be found here? I’m not even expert on this question, but I’m ready to face him. It’s really not hard when all the evidence is talking in your favor.
I’ve argued about flood with Christian apologists, and I already know all the weak “evidence” that is brought up to support the flood story.


I speak in generality. I do not know whether the scholar has the required knowledge of sciences, but from what I have gathered from my limited exposure to his writings, he is a good Muslim scholar.

Don’t worry, I’ve asked myself long time ago whether I’m able to bare Hell if I happen to be wrong. I do not take these things likely.

You mean lightly, I presume. Well if you have considered and then taken the decision to stay on your current beliefs, I can only marvel at your bravery for taking such a great risk without hedging it. Or, should I call it something else? :)