Welcome to Gaia! ::

It's never been modified. Meaning the Arabic grammar/words have never been modified. But, people modify the translation.

And the oral stories were not collected from all over the place. There were only two places that they were collected from and that was Mecca and Medina. It should also be noted that very close companions of the Prophet (saw) were always present and he repeated the verses that had been revealed to him. So in a way because everything was recorded it was like the Qur'an and been revealed to multiple people and not just one. These multiple people who knew the whole Qur'an by heart retold the revelations when it was time to write them down. To check the accuracy more then one person was asked to restate the Qur'an all over again and again. That is why the Qur'an is perfect. It did not just merely rely on one person for a part but checked that people had quoted correctly over and over again. The people who completely memorize the Qur'an all called Hafiz or protectors of the Qur'an.

You are confused because in history no one has memorized the full Bible or any other religious scripture. The Qur'an has been memorized many many many many many many many times. Also the writing of the Qur'an in older times had been seen as a very great blessing so much so that it is related that during the Mughal empire the King (who wan not really Muslim as most of his beliefs were of Hindu origin) was influenced by Islam and wrote seven complete Qur'an's in his lifetime. Today even many people memorize the Qur'an. Unlike Christians/Jews Muslims have actually opened up schools to help people who want to memorize the Qur'an memorize it. That is how it can be certain that the Quranic verses have not been abrogated. Especially when collecting oral stories from all over the place and comparing them.



The concept of jinn did not exist before pre-Islamic times.
And Arab beliefs were not "modified" to fit Islam. Meaning Islam was NEVER changed. Yes, there are Bedouin things that have found place in the Qur'an but that is because the Arab beliefs were purified and then added. Also, you should note that the Arabs claimed to be the descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abraham. We beleive in all past Prophets, you cannot claim a religion is abrogated just because of that. And for your information in arabic Allah means the one God. So as arabic was the language of the people God was called Allah. this point does not prove anything. Another thing to point out is that a big portion of the Qur'an was revealed in Medina which was a Jewish city. So if the Muslims for a while lived in a Jewish city why would they change things to fit the Arab custom....it should have been changed to fit the Jewish customs. Also, it should also be noted that when Islam was created then it destroyed most of the Arab customs and beliefs of the time, and thus Muslims in Mecca were SEVERELY persecuted and had to move to Medina. And also Islam claims to be a religion for the whole of mankind not just Arabs so it defeats the purpose if things in Islam had been changed just because of Arab customs.

If you have any real evidence as to how Islam changed to fit the people please provide it.



Confused as to what you mean. I don't want to go on a rant and then ind out I got the meaning of what you said wrong. Please clarify. Thank you.


Posted by an Ahmadhi Muslim. heart

First off Muslims believe that Muhammad (saw) was perfect. If you examine his life through proper sources you will note that he was perfect.

Now I have already addressed this argument of yours. But, if you are not happy with that I am going to post something from a book which is called The Holy Qur'an with English Translation and Commentary bu Hadhrat Mirza Bushirudin Ahmad (ra).

Book:
Section: The Compilation of the Qur'an (about 9 pages to read)

Posted by an Ahmadhi Muslim. heart

No person is said to be perfect except he Prophet (saw). If all the followers were perfect then so many sects would not have been created.

ÉN verekszik részére Isten , országom és családom

...kit ugye verekszik részére?

Thank you for providing the inconsistencies.......it makes my job much easier.....



The verse's actually read:

(Note: All verses are quoted one down because the Holy Qur'an I am using has an introductory verse that Muhammad(saw) used to read)

(Also Note that everything I write in red is the meaning)

[29:47] And argue not with the people of the Book except with what is best as an argument, but argue not at all with such of them as are unjust. And say, 'We believe in that which has been revealed to us and that which has been revealed to you; and our God and your God is One, and to Him we submit.'

This verse is speaking of debating. It is saying that you should not push yourself to debate with those who are unjust (meaning the spit on your religion/beliefs, the swear at you, etc.)

[42:14] He has prescribed for you the religion which He enjoined on Noah, and which We have now revealed to thee, and which We enjoined on Abraham and Moses and Jesus, viz., 'Establish obedience to Allah in the earth, and be not divided therein. Hard upon the idolaters is that to which thou callest them. Allah chooses for Himself whom He pleases, and guides to Himself him who turns to Him.'
[42:16] To this religion, then, do thou invite mankind. And be thou steadfast in it as thou art commanded, and follow not their evil inclinations, but say, 'I believe in whatever book Allah has sent down, and I am commanded to judge justly between you; Allah is our Lord and your Lord. For us is the reward of our works, and for you the reward of your works. There is no quarrel between us and you. Allah will gather us together, and to Him is the return.'

These verses actually mean that the religion of all the previous Prophets was the same so there is no reason that religion should be a means to carry out wars. The God of all previous Prophets was the same. This verse is hinting at the fact that for Muslims there is no need to fight or force people into the religion of Islam because all righteous people of the Book (meaning the Bible (Jews/Christians)) will notice that the prophecies in their Bible concerning the Great Prophet of the future and some events have come true through the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and the religion of Islam. So all righteous people will come to Islam readily.

[2:257] There is no compulsion in religion. Surely, the right way has become distinct from error; so whosoever refuses to be led by those who transgress, and believes in Allah, has surely grasped a strong handle which knows no breaking. And Allah is All-Hearing. All-Knowing.

Meaning the people who want to convert from Islam to another religion should not be forced to remain Muslim. There is no compulsion in religion. It further goes to say that "the right way has become distinct from error" meaning the religion of Islam is the right way and contains no error.



I can't believe someone and you actually tried comparing the next couple of verses with the top couple of verses. It's ridiculous! they are obviously talking about two very separate things. And they are obviously speaking about two very different atmosphere's. The first couple of verses were stated in an atmosphere of peace, meaning it was not directed in guiding Muslims during an atmosphere of war. Those verses stated (when summarized) that if no war is being carried out against Muslims they should not be the first to start a war (or argument). Obviously, since you are one of those people who just copy and paste from contradictory and stupid sources you wouldn't understand the HUGE rules in the Qur'an about war. For example there are many verses in the Qur'an which lay down the limits of war (Do not kill children, elderly, women (unless they try to kill you first, and still you must be gentle with them...it is better if you take them as prisoners then); do not destroy buildings, crops, places of worship, preachers, etc.; if the opposing side inclines towards peace so should you; anyone who wishes to stop fighting it is not right if you try to pursue them and kill them

And again the verses actually read:

[47:5] And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, by causing great slaughter among them, bind fast the fetters - then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom - until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance. And if Allah had so pleased, He could have punished them Himself, but He has willed that He may try some of you by others. And those who are killed in the way of Allah - He will never render their works vain.

This is obviously not at the time when a war is being carried out. You should note here that Muslims are not allowed to start a war. They can only participate in a war to defend their people. In the Qur'an it is stated that "It is better to go to war then to be persecuted". Now during battle this is what has been ordered: "And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, by causing great slaughter among them, bind fast the fetters". This part means that during a war do not just stand there and allow the people who are trying to kill and persecute you to persecute you. The women and children you have left behind in the city are dependent on you so act. It should be noted here that a verse of the Qur'an points to the fact that most Muslims, even during times of war found it repulsive to kill others. It has been stated in the Qur'an by Allah about war that "A thing can be good for them but they know not." So smite their necks. During war (if you actually study hand-to-hand combat) smiting someone's neck is the quickest way to make them die. That is why many people in history when committing suicide have hung themselves. So when in the Qur'an Allah commands them to "smite their necks" he is telling Muslims to do this so that the opposing side will not suffer too much even when dying and will die quickly. This is much different from what the opposing side did to the Muslims to kill them. The opposing side were barbarians and savages. They liked watching Muslims die a slow painful death. They enjoyed dismembering Muslim bodies while they were alive (meaning cutting them to bits). On the other hand Muslims were commanded to be merciful even when killing people by making their death short. Next part of statement: "and, when you have overcome them, by causing great slaughter among them, bind fast the fetters". This means that when you are the side that is obviously the winner you should not continue slaughtering the rest but should bind them with fetters and make them prisoners of war. Next part: " then after ward's either release them as a favor or by taking ransom - until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance. And if Allah had so pleased, He could have punished them Himself, but He has willed that He may try some of you by others. And those who are killed in the way of Allah - He will never render their works vain." Meaning if the prisoners of war pay a ransom then you are obliged to release them. It should be noted that Muslims are ordered to even treat prisoners of war as they treat themselves (meaning to clothe them, and to feed them well). And through hadith and verses of the Qur'an it has been stated that during that time period Muslims were obliged to release prisoners if the prisoner payed a fee (or ransom); the prisoner's family come to Medina and begged for the return of that person (even without paying a fee); the prisoner if he/she could read/write had to teach a set number of Muslims how to read/write; and sometimes they even allowed prisoner's to leave if the prisoner just asked if he could leave. God further states that the Muslims who die in the cause of Allah surely did not waste their lives.

[8:66] O Prophet, urge the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty who are steadfast, they shall overcome two hundred; And if there be a hundred of you, they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.

I don't even understand how this verse is supposed to show intolerance. In this verse it is stated that the Prophet should urge the Muslim people to take up arms so as to defend themselves. The reason the Prophet had to urge them was because 1) some did not like killing other people and 2) the Muslims were small in number at the time and so many had doubts that they could actually win the war. But, through this verse Allah promised the Muslims that even though hey were small in number they would definitely win. And this is exactly what history say. Few against hundreds and yet Muslims still one.

[2:7] Those who have disbelieved - it being alike to them whether thou warn them or warn them not - they will not believe.
[2:8] Allah has set a seal on their hearts and their ears, and over their eyes is a covering; and for them is a grievous chastisement.

Again I don't see what this even has to do with intolerance. If I were you (meaning a person who had limited knowledge of the quotes in the Qur'an and history of Islam) then even I could probably find MUCH better quotes from the Qur'an to support both sides. I don't think there is a need to explain this verse (?)

Conclusion: You fail. First of all you showed to me that you are not willing to do adequate research on your own about Islam, but rely on sites that are highly contradictory and not even accurate. If you had done the research before posting these quotes then you would have realized that these quotes support nothing.
Secondly you failed to show me how one side is tolerant and the other isn't.
Definition of tolerance (according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary):
1: capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance , fortitude , stamina
2 a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b: the act of allowing something : toleration
3: the allowable deviation from a standard ; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece



I'm going to ignore the reference you made to that random guy...I don't need the reference I need the quote only. I don't recognize him as a religious authority on the matter.

Again the proper quotes are:

[2:224] Your wives are a sort of tilth for you; so approach your tilth when and as you like and send ahead some good for yourselves; and fear Allah and know that you shall meet Him; and bear good tidings to those who believe.

This verse is actually very beautiful. What is better for a man then what he works hard on and treats with care and consideration so that it will bear him fruit or crops. How a man would treat his field if he had one. A woman is compared to a tilth. A man is told that like in a field you also sow your seed into a woman and eventually the woman will bear fruit (meaning children). So you should take care of your tilth (woman) with effort, care, and consideration. If a man neglects or abuses his field then the crop will die. Similarly, if a man abuses or neglects his wife his marriage will die. Send ahead some good for yourselves means bear children that will be righteous servants of Allah as you are. Regarding the statement "so approach your tilth when and as you like" is answered by my commentary stating that a man should treat his woman like he would treat his field to make it a successful field. It does not mean you have the right to abuse your woman when and as you like. Allah says in the next statement that "and fear Allah and know that you shall meet Him; and bear good tidings to those who believe." Meaning that if you act wrongly to your wife or wives then know that Allah will be your judge so you should fear and thus act in a good manner.

[2:229] And the divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the Last Day; and their husbands have the greater right to take them back during that period, provided they desire reconciliation. And they (the women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in equity; but men have a degree of advantage above them. And Allah is Mighty and Wise.

This verse is about divorced women and what Islam sets as rules for divorce. Where ever you quoted this apparently failed to mention that part.
But I guess the person ignored the first part completely and decided just to answer to the last part. So I shall somewhat do that too. "...but men have a degree of advantage above them". Which is so true. In conservative societies, if a women is divorced she is labeled as "used" etc. So men who are still virgins do not want to marry someone that is used. Also, men who have also been divorced do not want to marry divorced women. The whole rumor thing starts up and the women are usually blamed to be the cause of the divorce because apparently the are "awful wives". Even in today's societies most people who view marriage as means of making children and not just love want to usually get married with a virgin (or un-divorced person). Men on the other hand are not blamed as much as women are even it was their fault the marriage broke apart. And men in Islam have been commanded to be the ones who HAVE to go and work and make money for the family. Women can work but the money is only hers and she can use it how she pleases. Meaning the man has no say over the woman's money. So usually women who want to have kids look for men who can support them financially. So that is what is meant by men have an advantage above them.




The Prophet (saw) followed all the rules that were laid out in the Qur'an. In the Qur'an or hadith it is said a man can marry up to four women at a time if the man can treat them all equally mentally and financially. The Prophet (saw) followed that rule. If he is listed as having more then four wives it is not because he married them all together, but because some of his wives died so he married new women. But, he treated them all equally.



Where I get my quotes from.....and where you should check the quotes you use..........before you post them.....

It will save A LOT of time.

http://www3.alislam.org/index.jsp

Phoenixia, thank you for that link and your corrections. I mean that in the most honest way possible. I really appreciate this kind of stuff. I like my ignorance being counteracted like this. I learned alot from your replies. So thank you.

I should add, though, in the beginning of your first reply, you did talk about the confusing matter in which your prophet spoke (if i misinterpreted, please correct me).


Do you think that would influence the way fundamentalist Muslims have acted in the Middle East?

And I forgot that the treatment of women often reflects tribal values and not religious values and have made the gross mistake of generalizing ordinary Muslims with those who do interpret the Qu'ran for their own means. For that, i sincerely apologize. And I apologize if I sounded...aloof...like a know-it-all.

I recently had a bad experience with a Muslim man and I'm letting some of my personal feelings boil over and made a poor attempt to mix it with fact.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT. On your answer about the jinns. It is most definitely a pre-Islamic concept.
I will first quote from the Britannica Online Encyclopedia, a very neutral and well-informed source.

Britannica Online Encyclopedia

jinniArabian mythology plural Jinn, also called Genie, Arabic Jinnī,
Main

in Arabic mythology, a supernatural spirit below the level of angels and devils. Ghūl (treacherous spirits of changing shape), ʿifrīt (diabolic, evil spirits), and siʿlā (treacherous spirits of invariable form) constitute classes of jinn. Jinn are beings of flame or air who are capable of assuming human or animal form and are said to dwell in all conceivable inanimate objects—stones, trees, ruins—underneath the earth, in the air, and in fire. They possess the bodily needs of human beings and can even be killed, but they are free from all physical restraints. Jinn delight in punishing humans for any harm done them, intentionally or unintentionally, and are said to be responsible for many diseases and all kinds of accidents; however, those human beings knowing the proper magical procedure can exploit the jinn to their advantage.

Belief in jinn was common in early Arabia, where they were thought to inspire poets and soothsayers. Even Muḥammad originally feared that his revelations might be the work of jinn. Their existence was further acknowledged in official Islām, which indicated that they, like human beings, would have to face eventual salvation or damnation. Jinn, especially through their association with magic, have always been favourite figures in North African, Egyptian, Syrian, Persian, and Turkish folklore and are the centre of an immense popular literature, appearing notably in The Thousand and One Nights. In India and Indonesia they have entered local Muslim imaginations by way of the Qurʾānic descriptions and Arabic literature.

Here is the link to Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Now I will go onto another source. This one definitely has a more anti-Muslim tone, but it still states the same thing: the concept of Jinn is not unique to Islam and existed before Islam. Muhammad merely modified it, or in as you stated, "purified" it.

In The Name of Allah

The Bedouins also believed that the desert was full of living creatures/spirits called Jinn whose purpose was to blight their lives with mischief and difficulties. Since nomadic people bury their dead on the move and hence have no special resting-places such as graveyards, they subsequently had no special reverence for their dead nor any concept of an afterlife, of resurrection, a day of judgment or heaven and hell; these came with 'Islam'.

There's a lot more, especially on the name of Allah (i have more on this in my other posts with Xero about the pagan roots of Islam). Even if this soure would not be considered as "reputable" as Britannica Online Encyclopedia, it still says similar stuff. That you cannot deny. In the Name of Allah website

And third, which is a study done on Islam's roots. I cannot honestly verify how reputable this source is, BUT what should be taken to consideration the EVIDENCE that is provided, not by what the authors conclude, but by other people who have written on the same subject (you can see that in the foot notes. There's a lot of evidence)

Studies on Islam

It is often assumed that belief in the jinn who were thought to dwell in the desert originated with the Bedouin and was passed from them to the settled tribes. This assumption does not seem to me to be well founded. The Bedouin who are familiar with the desert feel much less fear there than do village or city dwellers who regard this unknown region as terrifying and who imagine that all sorts of monsters and demons dwell there. This tendency existed already in the Ancient East. 59 And there is another fact that deserves attention: among Arab peoples today, belief in spirits is much more intense among the agricultural population than among the Bedouin. 60 It is further worth noting that, according to W. F. Albright who bases his ideas on certain facts already established by Th. Noldeke and M. Lidzbarski, the word jinn is not Arabic but derived from Aramaic. Aramaic-speaking Christians used the term to designate pagan gods reduced to the status of demons. He concludes from this that the jinn themselves were introduced into Arabic folklore only late in the pre-Islamic period. 62 However that may be,' one must reckon seriously with this possibility, for it is supported by other observations of detail.' Even if one accepts an autochthonous pre-Christian animism among the Bedouin (which seems reasonable to me), this animism could have been reinforced by contributions from sedentary Arabs, and one should not see in it either the core or the root of the pre-Islamic Bedouin religion. The possibility of the secondary diffusion even of beliefs and practices which one would prefer to designate as very primitive is not purely theoretical. We have a clear example of it in the spread of Zar ceremonies (with their ideology) into Egypt and Arabia. This diffusion which occurred only since the nineteenth century was effected by African slaves. 64 We now know that what is "primitive" in the sense of a value judgment is not necessarily so in the chronological sense.

There is again, the familiar tone of Islam's pagan roots. And that jinn again, are not a concept unique to Islam. If you have the patience to go through this paper, it is worth looking into. Studies on Islam website

Allright, I want to sum it up on jinns: the concept existed before Islam.


NOW IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE ABOUT PAGAN ROOTS OF ISLAM, GO TO THE OTHER FORUM, WHERE XERO CREATED AND I STARTED TALKING ABOUT THIS. IT WOULD BE BEST TO KEEP THIS DEBATE IN ONE AREA.



AND IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO ME ABOUT THE PAGAN ROOTS OF CHRISTIANITY, EITHER CREATE AN ENTIRE NEW FORUM OR JUST PM ME. I KNOW ABOUT PAGAN ROOTS OF CHRISTIANITY, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT.


AND FOR GOD'S SAKE IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEBATE ABOUT THIS, USE SECULAR SOURCES. I'VE ALREADY MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT I'M NOT A MUSLIM AND NOT IN LINE WITH MUSLIM THOUGHT.
DO NOT MIX APPLES AND ORANGES. TALK WITH ME ON A LEVEL THAT I UNDERSTAND WITH HISTORY.

Yup, time by time the prophets gave their massege from Allah...