Materialist/reductionism is the true religion of Western Civilization.
Your true religion is your ontological theory, i.e. how you view the fundamental basis of reality. You can pray all day long and cry "Jesus died for my sins", but if in your heart-of-hearts you believe you are nothing but a bag of chemicals, then your core materialist belief will supersede everything else.
The great deception has worked very well, unfortunately. People find it more enjoyable to think aliens on other planets exist, than get mocked by other fools for believing in the Almighty.
Keep in mind, though, the Bible most strongly condemns the false teachers, not so much the people. The churches are heavily subverted and controlled from the top down, not the bottom up. Imagine what America would be like if even 10% of the country were regularly hearing a true Christian message every week.
Churches haven't kept up with modern times and haven't done a good job of keeping young people in the church. Plus their brand is really tarnished because of the racism and bigotry pushed from the religious right which pushed people away from the church.
It's sad because, even though I'm atheist, I love going to church with my catholic wife, and think churches were one of the few things holding our country together through small comunties that support s each other.
I'd ask you to consider if churches have been subverted, and driving away the young people with irrelevant, childish or old-fashioned programming is intentional.
The "Christian Right" that was behind segregation and racism wasn't Christian at all. It was Freemasons that created the KKK and subverted a lot of these churches.
Rev. King's civil rights movement had tons of Christians from every denomination, just as the antislavery movement was driven by Christians.
Not all Christians are racists bigots, but the whole evangelical political movement was founded on segregation and bigotry where they used the Bible as political argemuents for racism and discrimination. It's changed now and talked about in politically correct terms such as school choice and privatization of schools.
the whole evangelical political movement on the right was founded on segregation and bigotry where they used the Bible as political argemuents for racism and discrimination.
Francis Schaeffer is widely acknowledged for bringing Christians into politics, and he wasn't the least bit racist. Who, specifically are you talking about?
It's changed now and talked about in politically correct terms such as school choice and privatization of schools.
Implying that because you believe this policies would disproportionately harm minorities, that their advocates must agree with your conclusions and be secretly conspiring to hurt black and hispanic kids?
Or, you know, they just disagree with you about the best way to help those kids, and race has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Politicization of religion and warlord popes kinda left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Also we've been brainwashed into thinking that it is Christianity itself that caused atrocities like the inquisition, rather than subversive satanists. Ultimately the goal of the elites is to get all people to abandon their faiths, I'm sure you can imagine why they'd want that.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Islam is no different here from Christianity and Judaism, there are textual variants present in earlier manuscripts making the reconstruction of the original text impossible.
What are you even talking about?There are no textual variants of Quran.There are different dialects of Quran since Arabs had different dialects but the meaning of the Quran still remains the same throughout all of history and to this very day.This is an undisputed fact among every Muslim alive in the world today.
That is a statement of faith. It is not a statement of fact, because there are textual variants. If you are interested in a classic article in the field concerning the Quran canon formation, you can read 'The Qur’an and its world: VI. Emergence of the Canon: the Struggle for Uniformity' that was published in Manuscripta Orientalia.
Thus, it is today evident that the real history of the fixation of the Qur’ānic
text attested in early manuscripts differs in extremely serious fashion from the
history preserved in the Muslim tradition. Only an analysis of manuscripts will
allow us to reconstruct the true history of the canon’s establishment.
I have had this discussion many times with people online that have studied only one side of history and have a very limited knowledge of Quran and Islamic history.You are doing the same thing those people do.I can go into details to prove to you how you are wrong but let me just make one point which is the strongest one So here it goes,
The Quran was present in written form even before the death of the Prophet but thats not even an important fact because Quran was transmitted orally from the Prophet to his companions and then from them to everyone else.Also it was not revealed in a day infact it took 23 years for the entire Quran to be revealed and the Prophet and his companions used to pray 5 times a day(Muslims today also pray the same times) and the recitation of the Quran is part of the prayer to this very day.The last sermon the prophet gave was at the Hajj he performed and he spoke to a gathering of 150000 companions many of which were hafiz Quran(someone who memorises whole Quran) and he told them that Today i have completed the religion for you and he said it because the Quran was already revealed in its entirety and not only was it present in written form word by word but also in the hearts of thousands of companions as well.So whether it was written after or before the death of prophet does not matter because its main mode of transmission was oral.So we have an unbroken chain of transmission going straight to the Prophet.
Also you are confusing the dialects/Styles of the Quran with textual variants so let me paste a detailed response from a very reputable Islamic source which will answer your confusion better then me.
Firstly :
you should note, may Allaah bless you, that the Qur’aan was revealed in one style at the beginning, but the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) kept asking Jibreel until he taught him seven styles, all of which were complete. The evidence for that is the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas who narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Jibreel taught me one style and I reviewed it until he taught me more, and I kept asking him for more and he gave me more until finally there were seven styles.”
(narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3047; Muslim, 819)
Secondly, what is meant by styles (ahruf, sing. harf)?
The best of the scholarly opinions concerning what is meant is that there are seven ways of reciting the Qur’aan, where the wording may differ but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction.
Thirdly:
Some of the scholars said that what was meant by ahruf was the dialects of the Arabs, but this is far-fetched, because of the hadeeth of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab who said: “I heard Hishaam ibn Hakeem reciting Soorat al-Furqaan in a manner different from that in which I used to recite it and the way in which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught me to recite it. I was about to argue with him whilst he was praying, but I waited until he finished his prayer, and then I tied his garment around his neck and seized him by it and brought him to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, I heard this man reciting Soorat-al-Furqaan in a way different to the way you taught it to me.’ The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him, ‘Recite it,’ and he recited it as I had heard him recite it. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, ‘It was revealed like this.’ Then he said to me, ‘Recite it,’ so I recited it and he said, ‘It was revealed like this.’ This Qur'aan has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easiest for you.’”
(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2287; Muslim, 818)
It is known that Hishaam was Asadi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani Asad in Quraysh) and ‘Umar was ‘Adawi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani ‘Adiyy in Quraysh). Both of them were from Quraysh and Quraysh had only one dialect. If the difference in ahruf (styles) had been a difference in dialects, why would two men of Quraysh have been different?
The scholars mentioned nearly forty different opinions concerning this matter! Perhaps the most correct is that which we have mentioned above. And Allaah knows best.
Fourthly:
It seems that the seven styles were revealed with different wordings, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are synonymous, as Ibn Mas’ood said: “It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’).”
Fifthly:
With regard to the seven recitations (al-qiraa’aat al-saba’), this number is not based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah, rather it is the ijtihaad of Ibn Mujaahid (may Allaah have mercy on him). People thought that al-ahruf al-saba’ (the seven styles) were al-qiraa’aat al-saba’ (the seven recitations) because they happened to be the same number. But this number may have come about coincidentally, or it may have been done deliberately by Ibn Mujaahid to match what was narrated about the number of styles (ahruf) being seven. Some people thought that the styles (ahruf) were the recitations, but this is a mistake. No such comment is known among the scholars. The seven recitations are one of the seven styles, and this is the style that ‘Uthmaan chose for all the Muslims.
Sixthly:
When ‘Uthmaan made copies of the Qur’aan, he did so according to one style (harf), but he omitted the dots and vowel points so that some other styles could also be accommodated. So the Mus-haf that was copied in his time could be read according to other styles, and whatever styles were accommodated by the Mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan remained in use, and the styles that could not be accommodated fell into disuse. The people had started to criticize one another for reciting differently, so ‘Uthmaan united them by giving them one style of the Qur’aan.
Seventhly:
Your saying that Mujaahid’s different recitations meant the seven styles (ahruf) is not correct, as was said by Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. (Majmoo’ah al-Fatawa, vol. 13, p. 210)
Eighthly:
The seven readers or reciters were:
1- Naafi’ al-Madani
2- Ibn Katheer al-Makki
3- ‘Aasim al-Kufi
4- Hamzah al-Zayaat al-Kufi
5- Al-Kisaa’i al-Kufi
6- Abu ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ala’ al-Basri
7- ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Aamir al-Shaami
The ones who have the strongest isnaad in recitation are Naafi’ and ‘Aasim.
Also you are confusing the dialects/Styles of the Quran with textual variants so let me paste a detailed response from a very reputable Islamic source which will answer your confusion better then me.
There is no confusion here:
Among the Canonical variants listed in the literature, there were three instances of a consonantal variant and one diacritical mark variant. The diacritical mark variant did affect meaning, as did one of the consonantal variants.
As one would expect from the title, the Uncanonical variants had many
more variants affecting meaning and recitation when compared with the
Canonical ones. Including the Shi’ite variants in this category, seventeen variants were listed in the literature, seven of which were found in the manuscripts.
While containing an authentic memory of the kinds of variants found in the
Canonical text-form, the variants listed so extensively in the Islamic literature
are at best an incomplete record of the variants that the manuscript tradition
once contained, and perhaps they are also a selective list with records of
the larger and more significant variants having been suppressed along with
variant text-forms. Looking at the variants in the manuscripts against the
backdrop of the Islamic records points to an early editing process on the text
that was intensive and extensive, intensive in its application to the precise
consonantal text of the Qur’ān, and extensive in its application geographically
and numerically to the textual tradition of the Qur’ān as it spread with
the conquests.
Did you even read what you sent me?Can you see the title of the chapter? "General Observations concerning variants in Islamic Literature"
Among the Canonical variants listed in the literature, there were three instances of a consonantal variant and one diacritical mark variant. The diacritical mark variant did affect meaning, as did one of the consonantal variants.
Once again i am not talking about the Islamic literature.I am talking about the Quran.I just showed you that the main mode of transmission of the Quran was oral.
As one would expect from the title, the Uncanonical variants had many more variants affecting meaning and recitation when compared with the Canonical ones. Including the Shi’ite variants in this category, seventeen variants were listed in the literature, seven of which were found in the manuscripts.
I dont have time to discuss the Uncanonical variants so just leave it at that.Also i am amazed that you copied two irrelevant paragraphs from the page here but you conveniently ignored the rest of the paragraph between the two you copied.Why? because it dis proves your point and proves mine?
The Canonical variants actually found in the manuscripts only involved small differences to the consonantal line of text that did not effect the meaning.They presented a smaller degree of variety in form and effect then those listed in the literature as having at one time existed.
and what about the very next paragraph,
All if these Canonical variants would have effected the sound of the recitation of these verses as well.The differences would have been noticeable to the listener or reciter.In a liturgical setting,the use of these various readings could have caused confusion,even though the basic meaning of the story was kept intact.
How is this any different from when i said that there are seven dialects/styles of recitation and none of them effects the meaning of the Quranic text.
While containing an authentic memory of the kinds of variants found in the Canonical text-form, the variants listed so extensively in the Islamic literature are at best an incomplete record of the variants that the manuscript tradition once contained.
Once again may i remind you we are not talking about variants listed in Islamic literature we are talking about the Quran.
One of the phrases Fedeli notes as omitted in the Bonhams palimpsest was
three short words from S. 5:42, fa-’in jā’ūka )جاءوك فان” , )And if they come
to you.”15 The other is in the Fogg palimpsest from S. 2:217, ‘an dīnikum,
) دينكم عن” )from your faith.”16 The omission of these phrases does affect the
meaning of the text. Fedeli argues that this last one is possibly an indication
of the construction of the Qur’ānic text confirming the justification that fighting
in the holy month of Rajab was then permitted to Muslims.17 As such,
this particular omission could have been intentional for political and religious
reasons.
And there is this variant
The manuscript used in this study, BNF 370a, had a portion containing a few
words that were erased and rewritten with what is now considered to be the
standard form of the text. Unfortunately, the underlying corrected portion of
text was so effectively defaced it cannot be reconstructed. However, what can
be discerned is that whatever the original text was, it was a shorter form than
what it was replaced with. Two other such corrections can be observed on the
same page of text, though they occur in S. 14:44, outside of the portion exhaustively
examined for this study.
One of the phrases Fedeli notes as omitted in the Bonhams palimpsest was three short words from.
Do you even know what is going on here and who is Fedeli and Bonhams palimpsest? or did you just copied something without knowing what it actually is?
Bonhams Palimsest is the transcript examined by Alba Fedeli which was from a CHRISTIAN REVEREND named Mingana and her conclusion was that all of Mingana's transcription can be suspected to be wrong.This dude was accused of foregry many times hence no scholar believes what this lying christian has to say.
Furthermore Surat 2 and 5 are not even in the contents of this mushaf!!
The manuscript used in this study, BNF 370a, had a portion containing a few words that were erased and rewritten with what is now considered to be the standard form of the text. Unfortunately, the underlying corrected portion of text was so effectively defaced it cannot be reconstructed. However, what can be discerned is that whatever the original text was, it was a shorter form than what it was replaced with.
Do you even understand what you are pasting here.Someone erased and changed the text from the original text.
A 10th-century manuscript known as BNF Arabe 370a has several places where the original text has been erased and replaced with the text matching the modern reading in a different handwriting. The interesting thing is that, in each of these places, the modern text is too long to fit into the erased space and must be crammed in with smaller print.This seems to indicate that the manuscript originally preserved a text that was in several places shorter (and therefore obviously different) than the text we have today.
I hope this answers your points and please dont come up with some other statement taken out of context to try to proof that Quran has been changed because its not.Who do you think wrote all these books to point out variations between different manuscripts?It was Muslim scholars that were trying to expose forgeries by non Muslims sources.So please dont waste your time with these things.You remind me of this guy.He has been refuted again and again by Muslims and non Muslims but he is still making the same arguments again and again.He has been trying to do his PHD in Islamic studies for last 10 years but cannot because he talks complete non sense and his sources are unreliable.So my suggestion to you is dont waste your time with something that is not even an issue among the Muslims.The fact that the Quran is unchanged is the single most undisputed fact among 100% of Muslims all over the world.Even Qadyani Muslims that the majority of Muslims consider to be non Muslim believe the Quran is unchanged.
I hope we can continue this dialogue respectfully. I will address your claims of oral primacy later, but for now I want to concentrate on this.
You wrote this:
Do you even understand what you are pasting here.Someone erased and changed the text from the original text.
Let me quote the pertinent section of the quote:
written with what is now considered to be the standard form of the text.
The text is stating the opposite, it is stating that the underlying text was corrected to confirm to the standard reading.
You then quote this part:
This seems to indicate that the manuscript originally preserved a text that was in several places shorter (and therefore obviously different) than the text we have today.
Same objection, what the text is saying is that the original text was different from the standard text, and was corrected to conform to it.
The statement stands, there are textual variants. The Small's text actually states the opposite of what you claim.
The very practice of correcting old manuscripts to conform to a standard text is.... evidence that the underlying manuscripts were variants.
The variants described above are all examples of variants made deliberately to conform the text to a form the scribe considered to be correct and which matches the form of text which by the fourth Islamic century was considered to be standard or canonical. For these variants, elements of religious dogma and political concern were very possibly involved in that by the third Islamic century, the ‘Uthmānic rasm was considered by most to be the Qur’ān text for liturgical use, theological belief, and legal reasoning. Modifying existing texts to read according to its standard form was thus an act to bring a greater degree of unity and conformity to the manuscripts surviving from an earlier era of the manuscript tradition.
Did you even read what you sent me?Can you see the title of the chapter? "General Observations concerning variants in Islamic Literature"
The evidence that early Islamic literature contains plenty of discussions concerning variants and variant readings is evidence that supports the claim that there were textual variants.
That there are errors produced in the manuscript transmission, is , I hope, accepted even by you.
For the Qur’ān, only three of the thirteen corrections observed (23 percent)
are to correct a copyist mistake. Seven of the thirteen (54 percent) intentionally
conform the text in the manuscript to the consonantal form of the standard
text. Three of these thirteen (23 percent) are also efforts to update the
orthography, but to a new reading system of the text no longer considered to
be standard or canonical.
There are few unintentional copyist mistakes corrected in the Qur’ān
manuscripts surveyed. Three are corrected and eighteen are not corrected (14percent). Though the sampling for these mistakes and corrections is small and any conclusions made from them are tentative, this perhaps indicates that as a tendency many copyist mistakes escape correction in these manuscripts.
Now concerning the claim about oral primacy of the Quran, I will quote Fred Donner's review of Small's book.
The evidence analyzed by Small also shows that the
tradition of oral recitation or oral transmission of the
text was insufficient to serve as a check against variant
readings. Indeed, it appears that oral recitation usually
followed refinements in the orthography of the
written text (e.g., the addition of hamzas, diacritical
dots, and unambiguous vowelings), which progressively
limited the range of possible ways of reading
the consonantal text
Not only are there textual variants, but the variants and oral recitation influenced each other.
So to reiterate my original claim. Islam is the same just like the other Abrahamic religions. There are textual variants and therefore the original reading can not be established. The fact that in Islam there emerged a standardized reading and that other traditions were suppressed, does not change that fact. Concerning the uncanonical variants... well there it is. You admit there are variants, they are just not accepted based on the criteria of faith.
ok this is gonna be my last reply.Even though i am not an expert or a scholar of Quranic history but let me assure you none of this is new to me and if you wanna discuss the authenticity of the manuscripts and the specific differences between various manuscripts please take it up with an actual scholar of Islam that has studied these manuscripts in there original form.
Same objection, what the text is saying is that the original text was different from the standard text, and was corrected to conform to it.
The statement stands, there are textual variants. The Small's text actually states the opposite of what you claim.
Yeah i agree the original text was changed to conform to the modern standard but thats my point as well.These manuscripts are not authentic and were probably forgeries but because we dont know what was changed we cant say for sure.I dont see how this proves Quran was not preserved because the main mode of transmission of Quran was oral not written.Anyone can forge whats written in a document but no one can change what millions of people have already memorized word by word all over all over the world.
I can go into details about how you are wrong about Oral transmission but please dont waste your time with me by claiming that variants and oral recitation influenced each other by referencing me to a book by a non Islamic scholar.You have no idea how important oral transmission was in the Arab culture of that time and how important it is even today in Islam.What part of Muslims have an unbroken chain of transmission going back all the way to the Prophet do you not understand? So your proof that a non Muslim scholar says in a book that Oral transmission and variants of Quran influenced each other is not really proof of anything for a Muslim such as me living in a Muslim country.Also here is what wikipedia says about Fred Donner work "a plausible and compelling, if necessarily somewhat speculative, alternate account of the emergence of Islam".
It was nice talking to you and a good discussion but i think there is no point in going any further because as a Muslim i will not accept non Islamic sources as credible and you will never acknowledge what Muslim scholars have to say.So lets leave it to scholars like Jay Smith that pretend they know Islamic and Quranic history and are trying to do a PHD with no success because the arguments and references he uses are not only unreliable but also academically unsound.
It was nice talking to you and a good discussion but i think there is no point in going any further because as a Muslim i will not accept non Islamic sources as credible and you will never acknowledge what Muslim scholars have to say.
I have no problems with accepting what any scholar says, whether they be Jewish or Muslim. What I object to is statements of faith being passed as statements of faith. The belief in an 'unbroken chain of transmission' is an article of belief, like the Jewish belief that the oral law has been passed down since Sinai is a religious belief. It is not based on evidence or fact.
No one denies there is a standard text. What can't be claimed is that it is the same as the original text.
I am going to recommend you read Rezvan's article that was already referenced. 'The Qur’an and its world: VI. Emergence of the Canon: the Struggle for Uniformity.' can be read, for free, here:
It was nice talking to you and a good discussion but i think there is no point in going any further because as a Muslim i will not accept non Islamic sources as credible
Why do you hold such a view? I mean if everyone adapted this type of hermeneutics it would entail that only Marxists could be credible to Marxists, Christians to Christians, Jews to Jews, etc... It seems to be a defense of the faith not an engagement with human beings trying to understand the world. Plenty of people have studies the Quran, and Islamic history as well as tradition that are not Muslim and have been able to contribute towards understanding.
Well i dont have a problem accepting Non Muslim scholars when it concerns anything else in Islam just when it concerns Quranic History because there have been many instances of forgeries from Non Muslims.But thats not the main reason.
The reason i find Islamic/Arab sources credible is because thats where Islam came from so they were the first one to know what happened.For example i will not go to Islamic sources if i wanted to know about Judaism, the best sources for me to learn will be early Jewish scholars and literature.I am not trying to dismiss non Islamic scholars and their contribution towards Islam but i think they should not be treated at the same level of credibility as Islamic sources.You might think i am being biased but believe me i am not, i think its only logical to go for the earliest actual source from where Islam came from and most of those sources are Arab and Islamic in nature.Most of the non Muslim world (Jews/christians) were not even interested in Islam at that point because it was largely unknown and small religion concentrated in Arabia.In an odd way this also helped Islam and Quran to make sure that it stayed pure and unaltered as compared to other major religions at that time.By the time Islam spread to the rest of the world (and we know it spread like a wild fire) it was already too late for anti Islam elements to make Quranic text controversial because thousands of Muslims all over the world had already memorized it word by word.So they missed their window of opportunity when Islam was young and growing.
I also find non Islamic sources very dismissive of the accuracy of Oral transmission of Quran and most of the time their counter argument is just stating that oral transmission was not accurate,which i find very intellectually dis honest and biased.I guess you have to be a Muslim and live among Muslims to experience what i mean by accuracy of Oral transmission.Even though i am not a good Muslim by any definition but even i know many short chapters of the Quran word by word down to sounds of individual words.
Another thing you have to understand about the Oral transmission is that a very special effort was taken in order to make sure that thousands of companions of the Prophet knew the whole Quran word by word even before the death of the Prophet.As i already mentioned that Quran was revealed bit by bit in 23 years and The Prophet and his companions were praying 5 times a day reciting the same Quran.This is apart from Ramadan when they offered an additional all nightly prayer throughout the month reciting the Quran many times over.It was as though God knew that no matter how divine a text is if it is left in a written form there is a chance of altering and forging the text but if thousands of people memorize and recite the same text there is no chance of altering or deviating from the original text.This might seem like a religious belief to you but its not its a fact.This also makes sure that no one in the future can come up with another new found manuscript of the Quran that is totally different from the Quran today and claim that this proves the Quran was changed and hence not divine because the Muslims will simply ignore such an idioit because we know our Quran and its history and we dont need any one else to tell us how it is.Besides you cannot ignore Oral transmission and argue about textual variants because first you have to deal with Oral transmission as it was the first and the most reliable earliest mode of transmission, textual variants came much later and by that time Islam was already established.
Honestly the only way to proof the Quran is changed and hence not divine is if you can show me it has errors and contradictions thats why you see all those discussions online between Non muslims and Muslims because thats the only way left to argue.Thats why i keep saying that you are wasting your time because even Non Muslim scholars(Chritian and Jews) have stopped arguing this point.Why do you think that Guy Jay Smith is a joke among Muslims?
In the end let me say it was a good discussion and i am sorry if i came out as bit harsh and un apologetic sometimes because English is not my first language.when i first replied you i thought of you as a usual western Guy bashing Islam without any knowledge but i now see that i was wrong and i am sorry for that and its good to see someone who is knowledgeable and is willing to have a good dialogue.
The Quran was written by three people after the death of the prophet. His successor was deposed and his bloodline wiped out. Which is why you have a split between Sunni and Shia.
I'm not sure there are any deities or prophets who have come and left without an ideological divide that came later. It's fascinating really. If we accept there is a waging battle between two sides, it appears that one side is always set to destroy what the other creates shortly after its created.
The Quran was written by three people after the death of the prophet.
You clearly have a very one sided knowledge of Islamic history.The Quran was present in written form even before the death of the Prophet but thats not even an important fact because Quran was transmitted orally from the Prophet to his companions and then from them to everyone else.Also it was not revealed in a day infact it took 23 years for the entire Quran to be revealed and the Prophet and his companions used to pray 5 times a day and the recitation of the Quran is part of the prayer to this very day.The last sermon the prophet gave was at the Hajj he performed and he spoke to a gathering of 150000 companions many of which were hafiz Quran(someone who memorises whole Quran).So whether it was written after or before the death of prophet does not matter because its main mode of transmission was oral.
His successor was deposed and his bloodline wiped out. Which is why you have a split between Sunni and Shia.I'm not sure there are any deities or prophets who have come and left without an ideological divide that came later. It's fascinating really. If we accept there is a waging battle between two sides, it appears that one side is always set to destroy what the other creates shortly after its created.
Yes there was fight between Muslims about who will lead them now that the Prophet was gone and since the prophet never mentioned any successor specifically so muslims chose the most suited man for the Job.Also it says in the Quran that he was the last of Prophets and no one will come after him so there was no ideological divide among Muslims.if you have any idea about Shia split then you would know that it was a political divide not an idealogical one.The shia only emerged after the nephews of the prophet were killed in the battle of Badr.So it was more of a political divide among Muslims then the ideological one that you are claiming.Of course the Shia later went on to create their own ideology and interpretation of Islam and some groups among them have strayed too far from Islam but majority of Muslims in this world still dont believe in their theological interpretation.
So whether it was written after or before the death of prophet does not matter because its main mode of transmission was oral.
The Natives and the Jews both have oral traditions. In fact the Torah was never meant to be written, it was meant to be recited. One can argue that any oral tradition written down is opening it up for misinterpretation.
One can argue that any oral tradition written down is opening it up for misinterpretation.
Yes one can argue but it will be a invalid argument in this case because we have an unbroken chain of transmission going straight to the Prophet.As i said earlier there were many Hafiz Quran even during the time of the prophet and even today the number of Hafiz Quran is in the millions all over the Muslim world.
Because they realised the "Children of Israel" are black people. And so instead of assisting them, they rounded them up as slaves. They're still lynching the earths rightful rulers up until this very day!
I live in the uk and most young people here aren't religious at all. I myself went to a Christian school yet pretty much everyone left an atheist. Religion is a lie, it's propaganda at the highest level that teaches you to blindly believe based on faith as aposed to evidence. To teach it as truth to any kid is a form of child abuse. The sooner religion dies off the better his world will be.
I've never understood why people defend religion on this sub so much and hate on science.
The answer to this very question lies within the Bible itself. What we are seeing is nothing less than the fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy in OUR TIMES. Make no mistake, these are the last days. The SIGNS OF THE TIMES are right there, in plain sight for all to see, if they were not completely blind.
The falling away, the apostasy of the church, the following of deceiving lying doctrines of demons (this sub is FULL of them) that so many buy hook line and sinker. We were forewarned of all of this. But so few dare to even pick the Word up and try to read it for themselves and rely on the foolishness of others to "de-bunk" it for them.
( 1 Timothy 6:3-5 ) "If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain."
( 2 Timothy 3:1-7 ) "But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth."
( 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 ) "Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."
the whole evangelical political movement on the right was founded on segregation and bigotry where they used the Bible as political argemuents for racism and discrimination.
Francis Schaeffer is widely acknowledged for bringing Christians into politics, and he wasn't the least bit racist. Who, specifically are you talking about?
It's changed now and talked about in politically correct terms such as school choice and privatization of schools.
Implying that because you believe this policies would disproportionately harm minorities, that their advocates must agree with your conclusions and be secretly conspiring to hurt black and hispanic kids?
Or, you know, they just disagree with you about the best way to help those kids, and race has absolutely nothing to do with it.
47 comments
n/a 13_Bloodlines 2017-06-30
Well...mass only lasts for so long.
n/a TheMadQuixotician 2017-06-30
Tell that to Baptists
n/a OsoFeo 2017-06-30
Materialist/reductionism is the true religion of Western Civilization.
Your true religion is your ontological theory, i.e. how you view the fundamental basis of reality. You can pray all day long and cry "Jesus died for my sins", but if in your heart-of-hearts you believe you are nothing but a bag of chemicals, then your core materialist belief will supersede everything else.
n/a bannanaflame 2017-06-30
They just changed their god to "science" still extremely devote
n/a IanPhlegming 2017-06-30
It's been a long process, with a lot of different downward forces.
n/a andwhatjusthappened 2017-06-30
Because they're hypocrites. They live like atheists, except when they want to expunge their guilt. Then they pretend to be Christians.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-30
CINO's
n/a august_landmesser 2017-06-30
Most atheists I know follow the red letter more than the folks who go to church every Sunday. But that's just my experience.
n/a bookstheyburn 2017-06-30
Too much Talmudvision.
n/a TheMadQuixotician 2017-06-30
Portmanteau!
n/a usernamenn 2017-06-30
The great deception has worked very well, unfortunately. People find it more enjoyable to think aliens on other planets exist, than get mocked by other fools for believing in the Almighty.
"And many shall fall away from the faith..."
n/a EagleOfAmerica 2017-06-30
Keep in mind, though, the Bible most strongly condemns the false teachers, not so much the people. The churches are heavily subverted and controlled from the top down, not the bottom up. Imagine what America would be like if even 10% of the country were regularly hearing a true Christian message every week.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-30
Churches haven't kept up with modern times and haven't done a good job of keeping young people in the church. Plus their brand is really tarnished because of the racism and bigotry pushed from the religious right which pushed people away from the church.
It's sad because, even though I'm atheist, I love going to church with my catholic wife, and think churches were one of the few things holding our country together through small comunties that support s each other.
n/a EagleOfAmerica 2017-06-30
I'd ask you to consider if churches have been subverted, and driving away the young people with irrelevant, childish or old-fashioned programming is intentional.
The "Christian Right" that was behind segregation and racism wasn't Christian at all. It was Freemasons that created the KKK and subverted a lot of these churches.
Rev. King's civil rights movement had tons of Christians from every denomination, just as the antislavery movement was driven by Christians.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-30
Not all Christians are racists bigots, but the whole evangelical political movement was founded on segregation and bigotry where they used the Bible as political argemuents for racism and discrimination. It's changed now and talked about in politically correct terms such as school choice and privatization of schools.
n/a EagleOfAmerica 2017-06-30
Francis Schaeffer is widely acknowledged for bringing Christians into politics, and he wasn't the least bit racist. Who, specifically are you talking about?
Implying that because you believe this policies would disproportionately harm minorities, that their advocates must agree with your conclusions and be secretly conspiring to hurt black and hispanic kids?
Or, you know, they just disagree with you about the best way to help those kids, and race has absolutely nothing to do with it.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-30
Don't have much time right now, but check out "The United States of Anxiety" podcast. It talks about the history and origins of our "culture wars"
n/a SlipperySkeet 2017-06-30
Politicization of religion and warlord popes kinda left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Also we've been brainwashed into thinking that it is Christianity itself that caused atrocities like the inquisition, rather than subversive satanists. Ultimately the goal of the elites is to get all people to abandon their faiths, I'm sure you can imagine why they'd want that.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-30
And people like Ted Cruz who want to overthrow the government with the Christian Right dictating the country
n/a EagleOfAmerica 2017-06-30
I'm not aware of a time Cruz has said that, but Dominionists are real and dangerous.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-30
He hasn't said it but his father did
n/a EagleOfAmerica 2017-06-30
His dad was probably a CIA asset, so that should tell you something about whether Dominionism is a Christian movement or a psy op.
n/a TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-06-30
So Tes Cruz is part of a psy op?
n/a leidogbei 2017-06-30
Matt 6:6
n/a EagleOfAmerica 2017-06-30
Basically every major denomination is heavily infiltrated and subverted. The Bible warns about it in the Book of Jude.
n/a afniluser 2017-06-30
The bible has also been changed so many times by man so why do you Christians believe it is the word of God? The Quran has never once been changed.
n/a williamsates 2017-06-30
Islam is no different here from Christianity and Judaism, there are textual variants present in earlier manuscripts making the reconstruction of the original text impossible.
https://www.amazon.com/Textual-Criticism-Quran-Manuscripts-Keith/dp/0739177532
n/a reality_crusher 2017-06-30
What are you even talking about?There are no textual variants of Quran.There are different dialects of Quran since Arabs had different dialects but the meaning of the Quran still remains the same throughout all of history and to this very day.This is an undisputed fact among every Muslim alive in the world today.
n/a williamsates 2017-06-30
That is a statement of faith. It is not a statement of fact, because there are textual variants. If you are interested in a classic article in the field concerning the Quran canon formation, you can read 'The Qur’an and its world: VI. Emergence of the Canon: the Struggle for Uniformity' that was published in Manuscripta Orientalia.
Here is a free PDF of the article.
http://www.kunstkamera.ru/files/lib/978-5-88431-178-7/978-5-88431-178-7_05.pdf
Where you should note this part.
n/a reality_crusher 2017-06-30
I have had this discussion many times with people online that have studied only one side of history and have a very limited knowledge of Quran and Islamic history.You are doing the same thing those people do.I can go into details to prove to you how you are wrong but let me just make one point which is the strongest one So here it goes,
Also you are confusing the dialects/Styles of the Quran with textual variants so let me paste a detailed response from a very reputable Islamic source which will answer your confusion better then me.
you should note, may Allaah bless you, that the Qur’aan was revealed in one style at the beginning, but the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) kept asking Jibreel until he taught him seven styles, all of which were complete. The evidence for that is the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas who narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Jibreel taught me one style and I reviewed it until he taught me more, and I kept asking him for more and he gave me more until finally there were seven styles.”
(narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3047; Muslim, 819)
Secondly, what is meant by styles (ahruf, sing. harf)?
The best of the scholarly opinions concerning what is meant is that there are seven ways of reciting the Qur’aan, where the wording may differ but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction.
Thirdly:
Some of the scholars said that what was meant by ahruf was the dialects of the Arabs, but this is far-fetched, because of the hadeeth of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab who said: “I heard Hishaam ibn Hakeem reciting Soorat al-Furqaan in a manner different from that in which I used to recite it and the way in which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught me to recite it. I was about to argue with him whilst he was praying, but I waited until he finished his prayer, and then I tied his garment around his neck and seized him by it and brought him to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, I heard this man reciting Soorat-al-Furqaan in a way different to the way you taught it to me.’ The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him, ‘Recite it,’ and he recited it as I had heard him recite it. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, ‘It was revealed like this.’ Then he said to me, ‘Recite it,’ so I recited it and he said, ‘It was revealed like this.’ This Qur'aan has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easiest for you.’”
(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2287; Muslim, 818)
It is known that Hishaam was Asadi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani Asad in Quraysh) and ‘Umar was ‘Adawi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani ‘Adiyy in Quraysh). Both of them were from Quraysh and Quraysh had only one dialect. If the difference in ahruf (styles) had been a difference in dialects, why would two men of Quraysh have been different?
The scholars mentioned nearly forty different opinions concerning this matter! Perhaps the most correct is that which we have mentioned above. And Allaah knows best.
Fourthly:
It seems that the seven styles were revealed with different wordings, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are synonymous, as Ibn Mas’ood said: “It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’).”
Fifthly:
With regard to the seven recitations (al-qiraa’aat al-saba’), this number is not based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah, rather it is the ijtihaad of Ibn Mujaahid (may Allaah have mercy on him). People thought that al-ahruf al-saba’ (the seven styles) were al-qiraa’aat al-saba’ (the seven recitations) because they happened to be the same number. But this number may have come about coincidentally, or it may have been done deliberately by Ibn Mujaahid to match what was narrated about the number of styles (ahruf) being seven. Some people thought that the styles (ahruf) were the recitations, but this is a mistake. No such comment is known among the scholars. The seven recitations are one of the seven styles, and this is the style that ‘Uthmaan chose for all the Muslims.
Sixthly:
When ‘Uthmaan made copies of the Qur’aan, he did so according to one style (harf), but he omitted the dots and vowel points so that some other styles could also be accommodated. So the Mus-haf that was copied in his time could be read according to other styles, and whatever styles were accommodated by the Mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan remained in use, and the styles that could not be accommodated fell into disuse. The people had started to criticize one another for reciting differently, so ‘Uthmaan united them by giving them one style of the Qur’aan.
Seventhly:
Your saying that Mujaahid’s different recitations meant the seven styles (ahruf) is not correct, as was said by Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. (Majmoo’ah al-Fatawa, vol. 13, p. 210)
Eighthly:
The seven readers or reciters were:
1- Naafi’ al-Madani
2- Ibn Katheer al-Makki
3- ‘Aasim al-Kufi
4- Hamzah al-Zayaat al-Kufi
5- Al-Kisaa’i al-Kufi
6- Abu ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ala’ al-Basri
7- ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Aamir al-Shaami
The ones who have the strongest isnaad in recitation are Naafi’ and ‘Aasim.
The most eloquent are Abu ‘Amr and al-Kisaa’i.
Warsh and Qaaloon narrated from Naafi’.
Hafs and Shu’bah narrated from ‘Aasim.
And Allaah knows best.
n/a williamsates 2017-06-30
There is no confusion here:
http://i.imgur.com/fZsRsV3.png
http://i.imgur.com/n5zlVRX.png
n/a reality_crusher 2017-06-30
Did you even read what you sent me?Can you see the title of the chapter? "General Observations concerning variants in Islamic Literature"
I dont have time to discuss the Uncanonical variants so just leave it at that.Also i am amazed that you copied two irrelevant paragraphs from the page here but you conveniently ignored the rest of the paragraph between the two you copied.Why? because it dis proves your point and proves mine?
and what about the very next paragraph,
How is this any different from when i said that there are seven dialects/styles of recitation and none of them effects the meaning of the Quranic text.
Once again may i remind you we are not talking about variants listed in Islamic literature we are talking about the Quran.
n/a williamsates 2017-06-30
Sure...except there is this variant.
And there is this variant
There are textual variants.
n/a reality_crusher 2017-06-30
Do you even know what is going on here and who is Fedeli and Bonhams palimpsest? or did you just copied something without knowing what it actually is? Bonhams Palimsest is the transcript examined by Alba Fedeli which was from a CHRISTIAN REVEREND named Mingana and her conclusion was that all of Mingana's transcription can be suspected to be wrong.This dude was accused of foregry many times hence no scholar believes what this lying christian has to say. Furthermore Surat 2 and 5 are not even in the contents of this mushaf!!
Do you even understand what you are pasting here.Someone erased and changed the text from the original text.
I hope this answers your points and please dont come up with some other statement taken out of context to try to proof that Quran has been changed because its not.Who do you think wrote all these books to point out variations between different manuscripts?It was Muslim scholars that were trying to expose forgeries by non Muslims sources.So please dont waste your time with these things.You remind me of this guy.He has been refuted again and again by Muslims and non Muslims but he is still making the same arguments again and again.He has been trying to do his PHD in Islamic studies for last 10 years but cannot because he talks complete non sense and his sources are unreliable.So my suggestion to you is dont waste your time with something that is not even an issue among the Muslims.The fact that the Quran is unchanged is the single most undisputed fact among 100% of Muslims all over the world.Even Qadyani Muslims that the majority of Muslims consider to be non Muslim believe the Quran is unchanged.
n/a williamsates 2017-06-30
I hope we can continue this dialogue respectfully. I will address your claims of oral primacy later, but for now I want to concentrate on this.
You wrote this:
Let me quote the pertinent section of the quote:
The text is stating the opposite, it is stating that the underlying text was corrected to confirm to the standard reading.
You then quote this part:
Same objection, what the text is saying is that the original text was different from the standard text, and was corrected to conform to it.
The statement stands, there are textual variants. The Small's text actually states the opposite of what you claim.
The very practice of correcting old manuscripts to conform to a standard text is.... evidence that the underlying manuscripts were variants.
This spells out quite a few corrections:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=24d3hhi&s=9
I will quote a pertinent section:
The evidence that early Islamic literature contains plenty of discussions concerning variants and variant readings is evidence that supports the claim that there were textual variants.
That there are errors produced in the manuscript transmission, is , I hope, accepted even by you.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=s3f4b9&s=9
You can see a nice table describing some of the variants on this page:
https://i.imgur.com/1jDeX6l.png
Now concerning the claim about oral primacy of the Quran, I will quote Fred Donner's review of Small's book.
https://i.imgur.com/9UZ64BN.png
Not only are there textual variants, but the variants and oral recitation influenced each other.
So to reiterate my original claim. Islam is the same just like the other Abrahamic religions. There are textual variants and therefore the original reading can not be established. The fact that in Islam there emerged a standardized reading and that other traditions were suppressed, does not change that fact. Concerning the uncanonical variants... well there it is. You admit there are variants, they are just not accepted based on the criteria of faith.
n/a reality_crusher 2017-06-30
ok this is gonna be my last reply.Even though i am not an expert or a scholar of Quranic history but let me assure you none of this is new to me and if you wanna discuss the authenticity of the manuscripts and the specific differences between various manuscripts please take it up with an actual scholar of Islam that has studied these manuscripts in there original form.
Yeah i agree the original text was changed to conform to the modern standard but thats my point as well.These manuscripts are not authentic and were probably forgeries but because we dont know what was changed we cant say for sure.I dont see how this proves Quran was not preserved because the main mode of transmission of Quran was oral not written.Anyone can forge whats written in a document but no one can change what millions of people have already memorized word by word all over all over the world.
I can go into details about how you are wrong about Oral transmission but please dont waste your time with me by claiming that variants and oral recitation influenced each other by referencing me to a book by a non Islamic scholar.You have no idea how important oral transmission was in the Arab culture of that time and how important it is even today in Islam.What part of Muslims have an unbroken chain of transmission going back all the way to the Prophet do you not understand? So your proof that a non Muslim scholar says in a book that Oral transmission and variants of Quran influenced each other is not really proof of anything for a Muslim such as me living in a Muslim country.Also here is what wikipedia says about Fred Donner work "a plausible and compelling, if necessarily somewhat speculative, alternate account of the emergence of Islam".
It was nice talking to you and a good discussion but i think there is no point in going any further because as a Muslim i will not accept non Islamic sources as credible and you will never acknowledge what Muslim scholars have to say.So lets leave it to scholars like Jay Smith that pretend they know Islamic and Quranic history and are trying to do a PHD with no success because the arguments and references he uses are not only unreliable but also academically unsound.
n/a williamsates 2017-06-30
I have no problems with accepting what any scholar says, whether they be Jewish or Muslim. What I object to is statements of faith being passed as statements of faith. The belief in an 'unbroken chain of transmission' is an article of belief, like the Jewish belief that the oral law has been passed down since Sinai is a religious belief. It is not based on evidence or fact.
No one denies there is a standard text. What can't be claimed is that it is the same as the original text.
I am going to recommend you read Rezvan's article that was already referenced. 'The Qur’an and its world: VI. Emergence of the Canon: the Struggle for Uniformity.' can be read, for free, here:
http://www.kunstkamera.ru/lib/rubrikator/02/978-5-88431-178-7/
But, this piece you wrote sticks out
Why do you hold such a view? I mean if everyone adapted this type of hermeneutics it would entail that only Marxists could be credible to Marxists, Christians to Christians, Jews to Jews, etc... It seems to be a defense of the faith not an engagement with human beings trying to understand the world. Plenty of people have studies the Quran, and Islamic history as well as tradition that are not Muslim and have been able to contribute towards understanding.
n/a reality_crusher 2017-06-30
Well i dont have a problem accepting Non Muslim scholars when it concerns anything else in Islam just when it concerns Quranic History because there have been many instances of forgeries from Non Muslims.But thats not the main reason.
The reason i find Islamic/Arab sources credible is because thats where Islam came from so they were the first one to know what happened.For example i will not go to Islamic sources if i wanted to know about Judaism, the best sources for me to learn will be early Jewish scholars and literature.I am not trying to dismiss non Islamic scholars and their contribution towards Islam but i think they should not be treated at the same level of credibility as Islamic sources.You might think i am being biased but believe me i am not, i think its only logical to go for the earliest actual source from where Islam came from and most of those sources are Arab and Islamic in nature.Most of the non Muslim world (Jews/christians) were not even interested in Islam at that point because it was largely unknown and small religion concentrated in Arabia.In an odd way this also helped Islam and Quran to make sure that it stayed pure and unaltered as compared to other major religions at that time.By the time Islam spread to the rest of the world (and we know it spread like a wild fire) it was already too late for anti Islam elements to make Quranic text controversial because thousands of Muslims all over the world had already memorized it word by word.So they missed their window of opportunity when Islam was young and growing.
I also find non Islamic sources very dismissive of the accuracy of Oral transmission of Quran and most of the time their counter argument is just stating that oral transmission was not accurate,which i find very intellectually dis honest and biased.I guess you have to be a Muslim and live among Muslims to experience what i mean by accuracy of Oral transmission.Even though i am not a good Muslim by any definition but even i know many short chapters of the Quran word by word down to sounds of individual words.
Another thing you have to understand about the Oral transmission is that a very special effort was taken in order to make sure that thousands of companions of the Prophet knew the whole Quran word by word even before the death of the Prophet.As i already mentioned that Quran was revealed bit by bit in 23 years and The Prophet and his companions were praying 5 times a day reciting the same Quran.This is apart from Ramadan when they offered an additional all nightly prayer throughout the month reciting the Quran many times over.It was as though God knew that no matter how divine a text is if it is left in a written form there is a chance of altering and forging the text but if thousands of people memorize and recite the same text there is no chance of altering or deviating from the original text.This might seem like a religious belief to you but its not its a fact.This also makes sure that no one in the future can come up with another new found manuscript of the Quran that is totally different from the Quran today and claim that this proves the Quran was changed and hence not divine because the Muslims will simply ignore such an idioit because we know our Quran and its history and we dont need any one else to tell us how it is.Besides you cannot ignore Oral transmission and argue about textual variants because first you have to deal with Oral transmission as it was the first and the most reliable earliest mode of transmission, textual variants came much later and by that time Islam was already established.
Honestly the only way to proof the Quran is changed and hence not divine is if you can show me it has errors and contradictions thats why you see all those discussions online between Non muslims and Muslims because thats the only way left to argue.Thats why i keep saying that you are wasting your time because even Non Muslim scholars(Chritian and Jews) have stopped arguing this point.Why do you think that Guy Jay Smith is a joke among Muslims?
In the end let me say it was a good discussion and i am sorry if i came out as bit harsh and un apologetic sometimes because English is not my first language.when i first replied you i thought of you as a usual western Guy bashing Islam without any knowledge but i now see that i was wrong and i am sorry for that and its good to see someone who is knowledgeable and is willing to have a good dialogue.
n/a HideFoundHide 2017-06-30
The Quran was written by three people after the death of the prophet. His successor was deposed and his bloodline wiped out. Which is why you have a split between Sunni and Shia.
I'm not sure there are any deities or prophets who have come and left without an ideological divide that came later. It's fascinating really. If we accept there is a waging battle between two sides, it appears that one side is always set to destroy what the other creates shortly after its created.
n/a reality_crusher 2017-06-30
You clearly have a very one sided knowledge of Islamic history.The Quran was present in written form even before the death of the Prophet but thats not even an important fact because Quran was transmitted orally from the Prophet to his companions and then from them to everyone else.Also it was not revealed in a day infact it took 23 years for the entire Quran to be revealed and the Prophet and his companions used to pray 5 times a day and the recitation of the Quran is part of the prayer to this very day.The last sermon the prophet gave was at the Hajj he performed and he spoke to a gathering of 150000 companions many of which were hafiz Quran(someone who memorises whole Quran).So whether it was written after or before the death of prophet does not matter because its main mode of transmission was oral.
Yes there was fight between Muslims about who will lead them now that the Prophet was gone and since the prophet never mentioned any successor specifically so muslims chose the most suited man for the Job.Also it says in the Quran that he was the last of Prophets and no one will come after him so there was no ideological divide among Muslims.if you have any idea about Shia split then you would know that it was a political divide not an idealogical one.The shia only emerged after the nephews of the prophet were killed in the battle of Badr.So it was more of a political divide among Muslims then the ideological one that you are claiming.Of course the Shia later went on to create their own ideology and interpretation of Islam and some groups among them have strayed too far from Islam but majority of Muslims in this world still dont believe in their theological interpretation.
n/a HideFoundHide 2017-06-30
The Natives and the Jews both have oral traditions. In fact the Torah was never meant to be written, it was meant to be recited. One can argue that any oral tradition written down is opening it up for misinterpretation.
n/a reality_crusher 2017-06-30
Yes one can argue but it will be a invalid argument in this case because we have an unbroken chain of transmission going straight to the Prophet.As i said earlier there were many Hafiz Quran even during the time of the prophet and even today the number of Hafiz Quran is in the millions all over the Muslim world.
Source: I am a Muslim living in a Muslim country.
n/a DC--R1D3R 2017-06-30
Because they realised the "Children of Israel" are black people. And so instead of assisting them, they rounded them up as slaves. They're still lynching the earths rightful rulers up until this very day!
n/a camalew 2017-06-30
Religion is bullshit.
n/a MrNiceDude 2017-06-30
I live in the uk and most young people here aren't religious at all. I myself went to a Christian school yet pretty much everyone left an atheist. Religion is a lie, it's propaganda at the highest level that teaches you to blindly believe based on faith as aposed to evidence. To teach it as truth to any kid is a form of child abuse. The sooner religion dies off the better his world will be.
I've never understood why people defend religion on this sub so much and hate on science.
n/a FakeMassacres 2017-06-30
Christianity is a mental illness... Or maybe a mental deficiency... Rational thought seems to go out the window when dealing with the believers lol.
n/a TheCrazyChristian 2017-06-30
The answer to this very question lies within the Bible itself. What we are seeing is nothing less than the fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy in OUR TIMES. Make no mistake, these are the last days. The SIGNS OF THE TIMES are right there, in plain sight for all to see, if they were not completely blind.
The falling away, the apostasy of the church, the following of deceiving lying doctrines of demons (this sub is FULL of them) that so many buy hook line and sinker. We were forewarned of all of this. But so few dare to even pick the Word up and try to read it for themselves and rely on the foolishness of others to "de-bunk" it for them.
n/a TheMadQuixotician 2017-06-30
Portmanteau!
n/a EagleOfAmerica 2017-06-30
Francis Schaeffer is widely acknowledged for bringing Christians into politics, and he wasn't the least bit racist. Who, specifically are you talking about?
Implying that because you believe this policies would disproportionately harm minorities, that their advocates must agree with your conclusions and be secretly conspiring to hurt black and hispanic kids?
Or, you know, they just disagree with you about the best way to help those kids, and race has absolutely nothing to do with it.