I'll go with this one first ... Explain a hermaphrodite?

np. Here are rebbutals which prove there isnt one single quranic contradiction by the will of God.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quranerr.htm




dictionary.com

1. an individual in which reproductive organs of both sexes are present. Compare pseudohermaphrodite.
2. Biology. an organism, as an earthworm or plant, having normally both the male and female organs of generation.
3. a person or thing in which two opposite qualities are combined.
–adjective 4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a hermaphrodite.
5. combining two opposite qualities.

So if its not a human, then he is excluded from the verse because the verse was directed to humans. If he was a human with both male and female oragns then he is unnatural so he also is exluded.

Not human?! Unnatural?! Oh my!

I'll leave it right there! Holy hell!

Sean

recheck my repy the link didnt get posted i thought it did

Sean why do u always try to be disrespetful to me? Since the first day I signed up here u always try to disrespect me. Why is this? Is it just because im a muslim because thats the only reason I can find .. Did I ever speak to u in a disrespetfull way?

Yes! didnt u read what I said? If hes not human meaning if its an animal or a plant!

Not at all. I'm simply asking the same questions I ask Christians et al. If you make bold claims, you should be ready to defend them--as everyone does here. And you, impaticular, like to make very bold claims with regards to your faith.

By the way ... I concede the "crucifixion" error. This is a somewhat sticky issue, but one I think should be stricken from the error/contradiction list. Some may argue otherwise. The rest ... no.



I think you can see how easily one can misinterpret your statement. That said .... Unnatural?! Holy hell!

Now, can you answer my question in your other thread "Question to Christians"?

Kindly,

Sean

Don't the Quran teach Alexander the Great was a Prophet ?

Don't it teach the Place in mecca is built by Abraham and Ishmael ? and most historians think its only a little older then the start of islam .
its like 3000 years or more newer then it should be or is this just rumers ?

Being a hermaphrodite (sp?) is unnatural, I don't think he meant his comment in an offensive way. From what I gather, that since hermaphrodites suffer an "unnatural" medical condition; they are excuded from punishment. Is that right, Muslim?

Why would Mohammed say? "May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of the prophets." Bukhari, Vol. 1, #427

I thought Mohammed taught Muslims to be respectful of other beliefs, not curse them!

Irish

"Yes but in Islam we are obligated to forbid wrong. If u see someone doing someting wrong in Islam u arent allowed to just say this isnt any of my bussiness, what will happen to the world if everyone did this? And what will hapen to the world if everyone followed this forbidding wrong and asking ppl to do good. Anyway eatig the wife isnt an obligation in Islam. It would be better if he didnt. Mohammed peace be upon him never ever did."


Thank you for your answer. On the other hand, is there any merit for the one who has been forced by somebody else to stop 'sinning'? Enforcing 'righteousness' , like by the 'vice police' in Saudi Arabia for example, while being good for societal peace, does not actually promote spiritual growth. There is a difference between being good, striving on one's own initiative to improve on an inward spiritual level, and just ACTING good, willingly or forced to! . If I may add another question, I do not quiet understand the concept of "nashiz". As far as I know this is how disobediant wives were labelled, and in some countries even by civil law, were made subject to punishment by the husband with the aid of the police. This used to be the case until recently in Egypt for example. Husbands could forbide their wives from issuing passports or travelling abroad without their permission. The issue was only addressed after one case, when a university professor was forbidden by the police from leaving the country to attend an academic seminar out of spite by a husband from whom she was separated and already in the process of legal divorce. To sum up, what is the definition of "nashiz" , how does it apply to the legal and Islamic status of women? There are such wide differences between Tunisia, Egypt, and Kuwait for example. I am interested in YOUR personal take of it.



"For the first part, no only the small sins. In Islam sins are divided in two, small and big.The small ones are. As for if that person didnt feel repentant , well you see in Islam were judged by our intention. Why would a person pray if he didnt feel repentant? I cant give u a detailed answer since im not a scholar but I think they are forgiven as long as he prayed and this is from God's mercy ad God know best."


What are the big and small sins?



"I cant remember the verse number at this moment but I am sure that it doesnt end with but you will not be fair."


'Walan Ta'delou'


"My interpretation is that of the scholars, you have to be fair if u werent u might go to hell for that. This is why the more relegious a Muslim is the greater the chance is he doesnt want to marry more then one. So my take is it is allowed but you barely find a Muslim who knows his relegion and wants to do this. Polygamy has to happen at some point, because woman on earth are more then man as statistics have show so it has to happen at some point but you barely find a Musim who wants this."

(4:2,3)" Give unto orphans their wealth, exchange not the good for the bad (in your management thereof) nor absorb their wealth. Lo! That would be a great sin. And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hand possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice." AND (4: 129) "Ye will not be able to deal equally between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so). But turn not altogether away (from one), leaving her in suspense. If ye do good and keep from evil, lo! Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful."


"plz, if my answers arent any good visit www.chatislam.com on weekends ull find scholars their and theyll gladely answer u and give u much better answers than me bro"

Actually, it is 'sis' not bro. Thank you for your referance I will look it up, but I am also interested in your opinions and point of view as a practicing muslim and Kuwaity

Pardon me but what are you talking about? What crusifixion error?



Which one exactly, I only see one link about alleged quranic contradictions and I give u the rebuttel didnt I?

no.



I dont know how many years but yes they built it.



lol Irish I was waiting for u to ask it. First you have to understand why he said this. He always used to tell the Muslims that dont be too exesive when praising me, always say Mohammed is Gods slave i.e worshiper. He was always afraid that after his death he would be worshiped and he always used to warn them from this.

During the Battle of Uhud, the Prophet’s incisor was broken, . His lower lip was ruptured, and he had a bleeding wound on his forehead. He was constantly drying up the blood to keep it from falling upon the ground, saying, “If any of this blood falls on the ground, Divine Punishment would descend upon them [the Quraysh].” The situation weighed on the Companions, and they implored, “Why do you not pray against them?” He replied, “I have not been sent to damn people. I have been sent as a caller and a mercy. O, God! Forgive my people for they know no better.”

So you can see that if he was going to curse someone for any reason, especially since those who harmed him,were pagans and Christians and Jews in Islam are better than pagans, he would have cursed the pagans but he didnt. He asked God to forgive them. So why would he curse the Christians and Jews?


He also said that "Oh Allah I am but human. If I wrong someone or curse someone forgive him his sins for that".

Before his death he cursed the Christians and Jews who did this as to show the Muslims and scare them so that they wont ever dare of worshiping him or coming close to doing so.

Abu Abdullah Al-Jadali reports that he asked Aishah about the Prophet’s manners. Her answer to him was: “He was never given to using vulgar language, and he would never deliberately do so. Nor would he raise his voice in the market place. He did not reply to a bad deed with a similarly bad one. Rather, he would forbear and forgive.” (Related by Ahmad, Al-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawood Al-Tayalisi)

Abdullah ibn Amr gives a similar report, stressing that the Prophet never used obscenities, whether by spontaneous reaction or deliberately. He then adds that the Prophet used to say: “Those of you who are best in manners are the best of you.” (Related by Al-Bukhai and Muslim)


Tetisheri.. A woman isnt allowed to travel alone in Islam because she has to be protected by a guardian. If that guardian makes sure the place is safe he can leave her after that. As for the nushuz and my personal opinion, I follow prophet Mohammed peace be upon him as the Quran instructs me to and he never beat any of his wives.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satelli...FAskAboutIslamE

hope i answered ur questions.

According to the Quran (Surah 18:89-98) Alexander the Great was a devout Muslim and lived to a ripe old age. Historical records however show that Alexander the Great died young at 33 years of age (356 - 323 B.C.), and believed he himself was divine, forcing others to recognize him as such. In India on the Hyphasis River (now Beas) Alexander erected twelve altars to twelve Olympian gods.


I found that on the web maybe no truth too it .

Ok I’m afraid you lost me somehow! You’re saying he cursed the Christians and Jews only to scare the Muslims. That I am afraid makes no sense to me.
Perhaps you can explain it another way.

Irish

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/zulqaranain.htm thats a web page i just found on this alexsander the great being a muslim.

Nova Scotia ive already adressed this if uve only read my reply. Im afraid ur going off topic posting links! The Quran DOES NOT SAY ALEXANDER THE GREAT WAS A MUSLIM! One guy who translated the Quran wrote in his commentatory that this is alexander the great, HE made the mistake, NOT the Quran. It isnt alexander. The Quran doesnt say Alexander it says zul Qarnain.




Him cursing them wasnt an invocation of a curse on them since he had previously prayed to God that if he ever curses someone let that be mercy to them and forgive them their sins if I do such a thing. The Muslims didnt know this so when they herd him cursing the Christians and Jews they understood it the way you did, as a curse, were as it wasnt a curse since he had previosly prayed to God that if he curses someone that would be the opposite of a curse, mercy to him and that God would forgive him (the cursed) his sins. Get it?

Oh I see, why did you not say that, he was just kidding. A sense of humor right up to the end eh!.

The curse was specifically on those who started worshiping the graves and it wasnt even a curse Irish. And even it was which it wasnt, whats wrong with cursing those who worship graves? keep in mind he never cursed all the Jews and Christians only those who did this to the graves.

Egyptian crucifixtion.



Alleged?! Here ...

Sincere Questions to Christians
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=1531711

Alexander in the Qur'an is a theory that holds that the character of Dhul-Qarnayn, mentioned in the Qur'an, is in fact Alexander the Great. The name Alexander itself is never mentioned in the Qur'an. Dhul-Qarnayn (in Arabic ذو القرنين) is a figure who was well-known in the lore of the early medieval dwellers of the Arabian Peninsula, and is mentioned in the Qur'an, the sacred scripture of Islam. Dhul-Qarnayn is regarded by some Muslims as a prophet. The Qur'an indicates that the people (at least Jewish rabbis), during Muhammad's time, already knew tales of a person of great power by the name of Dhul-Qarnayn.

It is almost universally held, among Western scholars, that the character of Dhul-Qarnayn corresponds to Alexander the Great. The reason for this is that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn as described in the Qur'an follows very closely some passages of the Alexander Romance, a thoroughly embellished compilation of Alexander's exploits from Hellenistic and early Christian sources, which underwent numerous expansions and revisions throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Historically, Muslim scholars have endorsed the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with the Alexander the Great, although competing theories have been proposed, some recently (see Dhul-Qarnayn for details). Orientalist scholars, studying ancient Christian legends about Alexander the Great, independently came to the conclusion that Dhul-Qarnayn is an ancient epithet for Alexander the Great. As a result, the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn has become a matter of great controversy in modern times.

SOURCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_in_the_Qur'an



What's wrong with that?! How frightening! Good grief? Who else would you curse because they held different beliefs? Christians? Jews? Hindus? Atheists?

Sean

Why does the Koran say Jesus was a muslim when he was Jewish by both blood and religion?

I don't think he was jewish by religion as the jewish preist of the Time seemed to have issue with him and his teachings.

I assure you he was indeed Jewish by religion

What?! Jesus lived and died a devout Jew, NS--as did his Disciples (continued to worship in the Temple after Jesus' death according to Acts of the Apostles).

http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quranerr.htm

As for Alexander the Great in the Quran, my dear friend, the Quran as you yourself pasted, never says alexander the great it says thul qarnain or dhul qarnain. Dhaul qarnain simply means one with two lumps on heads i.e that he wore something like that. There is no proof on earth that you can gather to prove that the Quran says its alexander the great because the Quran simply never says so. Dont quote me a scholar who made a mistake, he isnt divine, he made a simple mistake pure and simple.




My dear sister Muslims say that Jesus was a Muslim not meaning that he followed the Islamic religion we have today but that he was a Muslim by the definition of the word Muslim which means "one who surrenders to God". Muslims believe that all three Abrahamic faiths, Judaism Christianity and Islam are in fact ONE religion not three, they are just in different forms. All prophets preached one religion which is to surrender to God. We dont believe God sent three different religions that makes no sence why would God divide us instead of unite us right? Jesus was a Jew by ethnicity, by blood, the religion he followed which you call judaism at that time we call Islam. Because we believe all prophets preached the same religion surrenering your will to God i.e Islam just in different forms. First it was monotheism, then came the ten commandments, and more laws started coming etc and the final form of that is the Islam we have today. So all prophets preached Islam just in different forms to make people ready to the final form of Islam, the Islam we have today. Moses never said hes preaching a religion called Judaism did he? Jesus never said he's following a religion called Judaism too and Christianity for that matter. They were Jews by ethnicity, by blood, by religion, they were Muslims (i.e surrendering to God).

Muslim, I did not miss your point. You missed mine. My point is that if God made man the way he is, ( a sinner) then God has no right to judge anyone. Have you ever heard of Munchausen by proxy syndrome or Factitious Disorder by Proxy? It is a form of child abuse in which a parent induces real or apparent symptoms of a disease in a child, then will at the right time get help. The affected parent is usually very helpful in the hospital setting and is often appreciated by the nursing staff for the care she gives her child. She is commonly seen as devoted and unusually self-sacrificing, which can make medical professionals unlikely to suspect the diagnosis.
We put the parents in jail for this. Yet we accuse God of this same thing. How just is a God who will make mankind apart from Himself and then judge him for the sins that he does? It is said that God made man in His own likeness and image, (which would be without sin or falut). Is God like man? Is God a sinner? My point is everything that reproduces will follow in the same way, that is by seed. Nothing just appears. I comes from a seed sown. God spoke and it came into being. The natural thing come from the spiritual. God's word is His seed. So if He created man by His word, then it would be like I said "after it's own kind".

another short question for you, do you think that earlyer wrightings, lets say by plato, could be included in koran, or plato wrighting somehow influenced wrigting of koran?

If yer going to ask, aztek.. ask it right.

sin is diferent in every society, it's only exists in our mind, so is fairness, what normal for some, whould be sin for others, so i think there is no such thing as sin, ecpesialy if we are made just like god itself (not shure if we can call him he or she, since its niether or both).
in the book of job(not sure i spelled it right), there is a part where god and satan test a man for his unconditional love of god, very interesting, read it.

So the Koran is spotless, without contradictions nor errors, but the Bible--a book containing the two religions Islam is closely related--is riddled with them? Talk about eyes wide shut! How can you trust the Koran when its very author later repudiated various texts he once claimed authentic "... as "satanic" verses revealed not by Gabriel but by Satan?" How can you trust Muhammad? First, the text is from Gabriel, then from Satan! Some messenger! And hardly reliable!

And you completely ignored my answer ...

Alexander in the Qur'an is a theory that holds that the character of Dhul-Qarnayn, mentioned in the Qur'an, is in fact Alexander the Great. The name Alexander itself is never mentioned in the Qur'an. Dhul-Qarnayn (in Arabic ?? ???????) is a figure who was well-known in the lore of the early medieval dwellers of the Arabian Peninsula, and is mentioned in the Qur'an, the sacred scripture of Islam. Dhul-Qarnayn is regarded by some Muslims as a prophet. The Qur'an indicates that the people (at least Jewish rabbis), during Muhammad's time, already knew tales of a person of great power by the name of Dhul-Qarnayn.

It is almost universally held, among Western scholars, that the character of Dhul-Qarnayn corresponds to Alexander the Great. The reason for this is that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn as described in the Qur'an follows very closely some passages of the Alexander Romance, a thoroughly embellished compilation of Alexander's exploits from Hellenistic and early Christian sources, which underwent numerous expansions and revisions throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Historically, Muslim scholars have endorsed the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with the Alexander the Great, although competing theories have been proposed, some recently (see Dhul-Qarnayn for details). Orientalist scholars, studying ancient Christian legends about Alexander the Great, independently came to the conclusion that Dhul-Qarnayn is an ancient epithet for Alexander the Great. As a result, the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn has become a matter of great controversy in modern times.

SOURCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_in_the_Qur'an

And you did not answer ...

What's wrong with that?! How frightening! Good grief? Who else would you curse because they held different beliefs? Christians? Jews? Hindus? Atheists?

Nor ...



This is blantantly false. The Koran was written down over a period of some twenty plus years. It was written on whatever could be found--pieces of parchment, stone and even animal bones! Only later, some scholars say as late as the tenth century, was it compiled--and in no particular order.

... The Qur'an is organized into separate chapters called surahs. The order of the surahs, however, does not reflect the chronological order of the Quranic verses, nor does the surah structure reflect the nature of the original Quranic revelation. During his lifetime, Muhammad would have individual verses revealed to him; these revelations occurred unexpectedly and in surprising places. Typically, revelation would put Muhammad in a trance-like state. He, and others, would memorize the revealed verses and, under the guidance of Gabriel, Muhammad organized these verses into the existing surahs. The intervention of Gabriel in ordering the various verses in Islamic history is meant to guarantee not only the sanctity of the individual verses, but the religious validity of the organization of these verses in the Qur'an.

The Qur'an was an oral text throughout the lifetime of Muhammad; it was also a fluid text. The complete text resided only in the memories of Muahmmad and his followers. As he added verses and reorganized the text, his followers would rememorize the text in the light of the additions or edits. This means that the Qur'an was a living text during the lifetime of Muhammad. Certain verses revealed to Muhammad were later repudiated by him as "satanic" verses revealed not by Gabriel but by Satan. These verses were expunged from the text that so many had memorized.

After the death of Muhammad, the text of the Qur'an was written down in the caliphate of Abu Bakr. Until 'Uthman, one and only one written text existed. For over a decade after the death of Muhammad, the Qur'an remained primarily an oral text in the memories of the faithful. In Islamic accounts of the history of the Qur'an, this oral text was entirely faithful to the original verses—this is entirely possible, but Western historians generally agree that some corruptions must have produced slight variations throughout the Islamic world. Nevertheless, the military expansion of Islam led to two direct consequences concerning the integrity of the Quranic text. First, large numbers of the faithful were dying out in the various military expeditions. Each time someone died who had the Quranic text memorized, that meant that one copy of the Qur'an disappeared forever. Second, the expansion of Islam swelled the ranks of the faithful. Many of these new converts spoke other langagues and the original Arabic of the Qur'an began to corrupt. Faced with these two threats to the integrity of the Qur'an, 'Uthman orderd a rescension of the text to be made and to serve as the definitive written version of the text. A rescension is a version of a text that is assembled from all the variant versions of that text. 'Uthman, however, relied on two sources: the written text that had been ordered by Abu Bakr and that still existed, and the various oral texts of Muslims who memorized it during the lifetime of Muhammad. In Islamic history, there is no variation between these two sources, so the Uthmanic "rescension" is largely a codifying of a single version of a text. This version, the 'Uthmanic rescension, is the version of the Qur'an that has remained, unchanged, the central holy text of Islam...

SOURCE: Islamic Studies, Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/ISLAM.HTM

Copied and recopied from various oral and written text[s]. Even Muhammad later repudiated verses he claimed authentic as "satanic" verses revealed not by Gabriel but by Satan. Hardly reliable or coherent--just like the Bible.

Sean

it was question for muslim, not you.

Yes, and you were going to ask about atlantis, since you mentioned it in another thread.

*sighs* Yegads...

i already did, a few pages ago.

Aztek wrote
sin is diferent in every society, it's only exists in our mind, so is fairness, what normal for some, whould be sin for others, so i think there is no such thing as sin, ecpesialy if we are made just like god itself (not shure if we can call him he or she, since its niether or both).
in the book of job(not sure i spelled it right), there is a part where god and satan test a man for his unconditional love of god, very interesting, read it.

You are way off base with this Aztek. The book of Job does not show God pitting satan against man to see who would win. When you read the book you will see that Job was in fear about his children and his possessions. Look at Job 1:4-5 and Job 3:25,26. Fear is like faith in the opposite. Fear will bring about the negative things while faith will bring about the positive. Remember Job lived back when there was no written word.
Job 42:3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
Job 42:4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
Job 42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
He had only heard by word of mouth, so his statment in Job 1:21 the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away was not true. It was not God, but satan who took away. Also Job 2:10 What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?
There is a wealth of stuff in Job, but if misunderstood will confuse you. Look at the end of Job in James 5:11 with Job 42:12.

No, thats why God forgives us our sins, since He created us knowing we would sin and He could have created us sinless.



No because of two reasons, the first, Plato and all the others had some mistakes in their writings i.e scientific mistakes but the Quran doesnt. And second, it was impossible because the Arabs had no idea how to even read or write never the less know who plato was for that matter.


Go to the site I gave you and read the rebuttal for this and ull understand why.



Yes I did. The Quran does not say alexander it says dhul qarnain. The number of Muslim scholars who said this was alexander is maybe one or two and they were wrong. Even if every single Muslims scholar said this, it still has no bases since the Quran doesnt use the word alexander my friend.



You are very ignorant when it comes to Islam because you have been reading many anti Islamic sites yet never bothered reading what Muslim sites have to say about this.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/qura...tual-reply.html

You are the last person who should be pointing a finger. You're also a hypocrite. Yes, I used sites critical of Islam ... just as you used apologetic sites! For information on the Koran and Muhammad, I used academic sites only. The information was correct. Muhammad did repudiate various verses later in his life as "being not from Gabriel but from Satan." Are you denying this very basic fact?

Islamic Studies, Rutgers University
http://virtualreligion.net/vri/islam.html

Islamic Studies, Fordham University
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/islam/islamsbook.html

Islamic Studies, Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/ISLAM.HTM



You are ignoring consensus opinion simply because it does not fit your preconceived notions of what should be. This is simple intellectual dishonesty.

Sean

I know that this question has allready been asked...but I'm still not sure as to WHY the Quran says to kill all Christians and Jews. And another question is this.. Why would the even say to kill christians and Jews....rather then Witches and Devil Worshipers?

My sister no where in the Quran does it say this if uve only read the first pages of this topic ud have seen that.




You are ignoring a fact it doesnt say alexander. Yusuf Ali said it is alxander he isnt even a scholar he just translated the Quran and made a mistake in the commentatory. EVen if a scholar did say that, he doesnt have that right since the Quran doesnt say that so we cant say this is so and so and this is so and so, thats extremely not allowed in Islam.

This only happened once. I read one of the sites u gave my and it said Mohammed came from a low clan or a small clan! Mohammed peace be upon him came from Quraish the greatest Arabian tribe at that time. They are giving you wrong facts why didnt they site their resources on that? I would just like it if you instead of reading sites, islamic or anti islamic, would go and study islam for yourself. The anti Islamic sites get their information supposedly from islamic resources too so why dont just go to the islamic resources yourself? I mean look at that site it was supposed to be a correct site with correct info yet they didnt even know where he came from!



And u are also not abbiding by the rules I set for this topic. I said this is only for those who are sincere and want to learn about Islam not debate. When you read sites which give wrong facts I have to tell u wake up.
Im sure theyre not all wrong but they had a wrong fact just as I demonstrated.

okay. Why dont u read the Quran for yourself for a change?



Dont forget this topic as I stated in the begening is for only sincere questions for those who want to learn about Islam. If u want to debate me, PM me all u have to say. All ur saying is that Mohammed was affected by Satan in a couple of verses. Ok. And he cleared that up. So please dont waste my time debating over something whichis of no use. I think maybe the point you're trying to get too is that maybe the Quran was from Satan or something like that, read it for yourself dont waste my time.

I'm sorry, what I read wasn't from the quran, but something supposedly stated by Hadiths. Again, I appologize.

These verses that Muhamed got from Satan .


Is that where he told them it was Good to worship the 3 Gods of the Mechans ?

Isn't that what the guy who wrote the book satanic verses had a price put on his head for . For exposeing these verses that was removed .

I really don't know much about it .

It doesn't have to! There is enough information for a majority of scholars to determine the likelihood that it was--including many Muslim scholars!



So do most scholars! UGH!

Abdullah Yusuf Ali (14 April 1872 - 10 December 1953) was an Indian Islamic scholar who translated the Qur'an into English. His translation of the Qur'an ranks alongside the translation of Marmaduke Pickthall as the most widely-known and used in the world.

SOURCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_Ali

What a bunch a crap! You are so intellectually dishonest that it's not even funny!



It happened multiple times! You know nothing regarding the founder of your own religion!

... Certain verses revealed to Muhammad were later repudiated by him as "satanic" verses revealed not by Gabriel but by Satan. These verses were expunged from the text that so many had memorized ...--Professor Richard Hines (Ph.D.), Washington State University

The Qur'an, Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/ISLAM.HTM

Verses -- Plural!

The Quraysh was his tribe (a tribe that had contentiously split before Muhammad's birth), not his clan. He was raised by his grandfather who belonged to the relatively poor Hashim clan. Now, that doesn't mean abstract poverty. But it doesn't mean he was wealthy either. He married into wealth in his early twenties.

The following is from General Education 110x World Civilizations to 1500 course, Washington State University:

We do know that he came from a relatively poor clan, the Hashim, that was, in fact, the clan that headed the opposition to the wealthy merchant clans. He was born after the death of his father—this meant that he could inherit none of his father's property so he grew up in poverty. He became the servant and at the age of twenty-five married a wealthy widow, Khadija.

Muhammad's poverty in his youth and the social tensions in Mecca with bitter divisions resulting from the unequal distribution of wealth among the clans became significant aspects of the message of Islam. While the message of the Qur'an is universal, it is also very historically specific in its content and the traditions surrounding its content. The message that Muhammad delivered was meant for very specific circumstances and many of the revelations would address specific concerns addressed to Muhammad. As far as the division of wealth and Muhammad's poverty, one of the fundamental messages of the Qur'an is the emphasis on material welfare and the entire community's responsibility for the material welfare of all its members.--Professor Richard Hines (Ph.D.), Washington State University

Muhammad, Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/ISLAM.HTM

AND:

Birth of the Prophet

10. It was in the midst of such conditions and environments that Muhammad was born in 569 after Christ. His father, 'Abdullah had died some weeks earlier, and it was his grandfather who took him in charge. According to the prevailing custom, the child was entrusted to a Bedouin foster-mother, with whom he passed several years in the desert. All biographers state that the infant prophet sucked only one breast of his foster-mother, leaving the other for the sustenance of his foster-brother. When the child was brought back home, his mother, Aminah, took him to his maternal uncles at Madinah to visit the tomb of 'Abdullah. During the return journey, he lost his mother who died a sudden death. At Mecca, another bereavement awaited him, in the death of his affectionate grandfather. Subjected to such privations, he was at the age of eight, consigned at last to the care of his uncle, Abu-Talib, a man who was generous of nature but always short of resources and hardly able to provide for his family.

11. Young Muhammad had therefore to start immediately to earn his livelihood; he served as a shepherd boy to some neighbours. At the age of ten he accompanied his uncle to Syria when he was leading a caravan there. No other travels of Abu-Talib are mentioned, but there are references to his having set up a shop in Mecca. (Ibn Qutaibah, Ma'arif). It is possible that Muhammad helped him in this enterprise also ...--Introduction to Islam by Muhammad Hamidullah

SOURCE: The Prophet of Islam--His Biography (USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts), University of Southern California
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/p...et/profbio.html



I am. And I'm using academic sites from some the top collegiate institutions around.

The information was correct regarding Muhammad and you were wrong! Again, my information came straight from courses on Islamic Studies from premiere institutions--Fordham, Rutgers, WSU, USC et al.



So how could you possibly trust anything he said?! And how could Muhammad be even remotely sure it was Gabriel and not Satan all along?! Even from the beginning Muhammad wasn't sure who was supposedly speaking to him.

... At first, Muhammad doubted that his vision had come from God. But his wife Khadija reassured him ...--Contributor: Charles J. Adams, Ph.D., Former Professor of Islamic Studies, McGill University (Critically reviewed by Ali Hassan Abdel-Kader)

Additional resources:

Armstrong, Karen. Muhammad. 1992. Reprint. Harper, 1993.

Cook, Michael A. Muhammad. Oxford, 1983.

The only thing that you demonstrated ... is your own lack of knowledge concerning Islam!



I am. But I do not use a religious text to prove that text--that is Circular Reasoning! I'm more interested in examing the text by using Historical Method and Textual Criticism.



I will not debate in hiding.

Sean

as you said mohammed is to islam as Jesus is to christainity but yet you follow what you beleive was taught by jesus and that he was the closest to god...why then do you have mohammed as your center point..also if jesus in islam was the closest to god what placement does mohammed have?

What majority of sholars! U just named one, Yusuf Ali and I told u the guy made a mistake!




U make it sound as if these verses were discovered hundreds of years after he died! He told them they were verses from satan immediately and that was that!

No I wasnt. Historians have differed on this. It is not a fact that Abu Talib was rich or poor. Even if he was poor again you have no point.



If you read the Quran ull know it isnt. Muslims say whenever they begin to read the Quran or pray or anything bad happens I seek refuge with God from the cursed Satan! Just read the Quran sean.

I told u this thread isnt for debating.



Jesus in Islam is of the closest to God not THE closest to God. Mohammed is the centre point of Islam because with him the religion was perfected and completed and everything was explained in more detail. We make no difference between prophets in Islam we love them all and follow them all.

hi i am new to this forum. i was surfing when i came across this very educational forum. I must say the west has many misconceptions about islam. And the totally biased (and state sponsored in some instances ie foxnews) western media doesnt help either. Muslim has done an excellent job.

Seanph has some very tabloid knowledge about islam. YES being european and having a degree from a western university doesnt make you a know it all and by no means makes you right. Educated people do research and look at all possibilities thats their job.

eg i was watching the history channel and they were saying Mary got raped by a roman soldier and thats how jesus came to be.
but the fact of the mater is there is no proof that jesus was concieved through this mean or through immaculate conception. There is just no scientific proof to either.

Now there are points which people are finding difficult to assimilate which i dont know even i can make them understand.

"Quran doesnt talk about Alexander, it talks about a person who wears a hat with 2 horns" "Some scholars say that the man who wears the hat with 2 horns is same as alexander good for them they can publish a sensational paper and get some publicity.
Some scholars find this possibilty plausible. and thats what it is, could be, might be and may have been. Its like the previous example "maybe mary was raped by a roman soldier".

The point Muslim is trying to make and please correct me if i am wrong is that the GOD has written and promised man that till the end of time Quran's Divine word will be unaltered unadulterated by man. The Quran is in actuality something like the expanded version of Ten commandments worded by GOD himself. Now as far as if the words are truly Gods or not it comes down to faith. Just like the faith "Jesus's birth was through immaculate conception." So you have to believe what Prophet Muhammad PBUH said was Gods word. Now some people who dont have faith (who are not muslims) can just say no it was not GOD it was somebody else like satan.

Now what is true and this coming from a very liberal muslim is that full copies of Quran exist from very close to the prophets time (est 20 years) all over the globe. They are very rare but they can be found not only in muslim countries but in major western museums. They have survived war and major political upheavels. On top of that verses from prophets own time exist but in loose form and there have been no discrepencies noted. Now i call that a sign GOD has kept his promise.
Not much need to dig up for dead sea scrolls or hunt for the ark or search for new gospels there.

I have read that Muslim men aren't to listen to music, shake a woman's hand, and are to eat with the right hand only, is this true and if so, what is the reason?

The big problem with Islam is its teaching men to break one of the 10 commandments .


its no better then modern christianity .

Satan only got to get you on One transgression of the Law that you refuse to repent of .

Claiming You Submit to God and Obey him might be all just talk .

Ah, yes, consulting all those sites on Islamic Studies from some of the top universities was certainly tabloid. Give me a break!

Islamic Studies, Rutgers University
http://virtualreligion.net/vri/islam.html

Islamic Studies, Fordham University
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/islam/islamsbook.html

Islamic Studies, Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/ISLAM.HTM

SOURCE: The Prophet of Islam--His Biography (USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts), University of Southern California
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/p...et/profbio.html



I'm not European ... but I do have a degree in both Classics and History. And nowhere did I ever claim to be the fountain of all knowledge.

And what do you think I was doing? Did you see the reference material above that I provided--all academic, many Muslim?! I take research very seriously.



And how could he possibly know this? And the historical record shows that the Koran came into existence like every other holy text--first orally, then written and edited. Nothing new here.

... The Qur'an is organized into separate chapters called surahs. The order of the surahs, however, does not reflect the chronological order of the Quranic verses, nor does the surah structure reflect the nature of the original Quranic revelation. During his lifetime, Muhammad would have individual verses revealed to him; these revelations occurred unexpectedly and in surprising places. Typically, revelation would put Muhammad in a trance-like state. He, and others, would memorize the revealed verses and, under the guidance of Gabriel, Muhammad organized these verses into the existing surahs. The intervention of Gabriel in ordering the various verses in Islamic history is meant to guarantee not only the sanctity of the individual verses, but the religious validity of the organization of these verses in the Qur'an.

The Qur'an was an oral text throughout the lifetime of Muhammad; it was also a fluid text. The complete text resided only in the memories of Muahmmad and his followers. As he added verses and reorganized the text, his followers would rememorize the text in the light of the additions or edits. This means that the Qur'an was a living text during the lifetime of Muhammad. Certain verses revealed to Muhammad were later repudiated by him as "satanic" verses revealed not by Gabriel but by Satan. These verses were expunged from the text that so many had memorized.

After the death of Muhammad, the text of the Qur'an was written down in the caliphate of Abu Bakr. Until 'Uthman, one and only one written text existed. For over a decade after the death of Muhammad, the Qur'an remained primarily an oral text in the memories of the faithful. In Islamic accounts of the history of the Qur'an, this oral text was entirely faithful to the original verses—this is entirely possible, but Western historians generally agree that some corruptions must have produced slight variations throughout the Islamic world. Nevertheless, the military expansion of Islam led to two direct consequences concerning the integrity of the Quranic text. First, large numbers of the faithful were dying out in the various military expeditions. Each time someone died who had the Quranic text memorized, that meant that one copy of the Qur'an disappeared forever. Second, the expansion of Islam swelled the ranks of the faithful. Many of these new converts spoke other langagues and the original Arabic of the Qur'an began to corrupt. Faced with these two threats to the integrity of the Qur'an, 'Uthman orderd a rescension of the text to be made and to serve as the definitive written version of the text. A rescension is a version of a text that is assembled from all the variant versions of that text. 'Uthman, however, relied on two sources: the written text that had been ordered by Abu Bakr and that still existed, and the various oral texts of Muslims who memorized it during the lifetime of Muhammad. In Islamic history, there is no variation between these two sources, so the Uthmanic "rescension" is largely a codifying of a single version of a text. This version, the 'Uthmanic rescension, is the version of the Qur'an that has remained, unchanged, the central holy text of Islam...

SOURCE: Islamic Studies, Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/ISLAM.HTM

And you know this how? How do you know the word of god isn't found in the Vedas, the Bible et al?



And how do you know it wasn't? Muhammad questioned the revelations he was receiving from the start. He also repudiated multiple verses (toward the end of his life) he had received as being not from Gabriel, but from Satan. So how could you possibly trust this man as a reliable source for God's word?

... At first, Muhammad doubted that his vision had come from God. But his wife Khadija reassured him ...--Contributor: Charles J. Adams, Ph.D., Former Professor of Islamic Studies, McGill University (Critically reviewed by Ali Hassan Abdel-Kader)

Additional resources:

Armstrong, Karen. Muhammad. 1992. Reprint. Harper, 1993.

Cook, Michael A. Muhammad. Oxford, 1983.

... Certain verses revealed to Muhammad were later repudiated by him as "satanic" verses revealed not by Gabriel but by Satan. These verses were expunged from the text that so many had memorized ...--Professor Richard Hines (Ph.D.), Washington State University

The Qur'an, Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/ISLAM.HTM

Sean

Again ...

It is almost universally held, among Western scholars, that the character of Dhul-Qarnayn corresponds to Alexander the Great. The reason for this is that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn as described in the Qur'an follows very closely some passages of the Alexander Romance, a thoroughly embellished compilation of Alexander's exploits from Hellenistic and early Christian sources, which underwent numerous expansions and revisions throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Historically, Muslim scholars have endorsed the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with the Alexander the Great, although competing theories have been proposed, some recently (see Dhul-Qarnayn for details). Orientalist scholars, studying ancient Christian legends about Alexander the Great, independently came to the conclusion that Dhul-Qarnayn is an ancient epithet for Alexander the Great. As a result, the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn has become a matter of great controversy in modern times.

SOURCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_in_the_Qur'an

And what scholar--not apologist--claims Ali is incorrect regarding this issue?



I did no such thing. Pay attention when you read. And you stated: "This only happened once." Now you're saying more than once. And it wasn't immediately. It was "later" in his life.

Yes, you were. And scholars are not divided on this. Hell, even the World Book Encyclopedia states this very basic fact. And you're the one who made an issue regarding Muhammad's status and wealth, not I. You stated:

I read one of the sites u gave my and it said Mohammed came from a low clan or a small clan! Mohammed peace be upon him came from Quraish the greatest Arabian tribe at that time.

And the point was made clear by your response ... While Muhammad was from Qyraish tribe, his clan was the relatively poor Hashim! This is Islamic History 101!

Introduction to Islam by Muhammad Hamidullah, USC
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/p...et/profbio.html



The point was ... How can you trust Muhammad when even he claimed to be deceived by Satan?

Sean

omg

Seanph you missed the point again.

Ill make it brief. As an exampple i can give you authentic references from US universities websites and people with PhDs that there is a 12th planet on the solar system on the solar system with an advanced civilization called nibiru. There maybe some references on this mysteries website too. Now can you be absolutey sure there isnt one or is there one. We are not even sure if there is water on mars.

Ill give you some background about myself. I am a scientific researcher. There is a difference between experiments that show somethings maybe associated vs absolute proof. Also some piece of evidence may weight more vs others.

Now what you are asking is basically for GOD to show up and say something like this is my book or jesus was my son and you idiots killed him.

What i told you before is what evidence exists that Quran is the same since its creation. Quran was written down from Prophets Muhammad's mouth on pieces of parchment, animal skin and other places where people could write on during that time plus it was even memorized by the arabs. That was Muhammad's job as a prophet to preserve Gods teachings. After Muhammad's PBUH death islam needed to spread His companion Osman compiled all the verses, which was done less then 20 years after Muhammad's death in form of the book as we know it today and spread it to the world. Originals form that time still exist today. Compare it to the copy found on the street today and there is no difference.

So there is irrefutable evidence that Quran is the same that existed 1400 years ago.

Now if you are skeptical about Quran itself what is going to be a more accurate approach you have 2 choices

1. Listen to a professor at Rutgers university.
2. Read the Quran yourself and decide for yourself if its the work of God or Satan. After all this is what free speech is all about.

You decide.

I am going to look up some verses myself today and see how they stand up in modern times. ill try to post some interesting ones if its ok with MUSLIM

And you really believe this is how to determine the authenticity of a text?! Oh my! I prefer Historical Method, Textual Criticism et al. I do not play guessing games.



The historical record shows that the Koran came into existence like every other holy text--first orally, then written and edited. Nothing new here.

... The Qur'an is organized into separate chapters called surahs. The order of the surahs, however, does not reflect the chronological order of the Quranic verses, nor does the surah structure reflect the nature of the original Quranic revelation. During his lifetime, Muhammad would have individual verses revealed to him; these revelations occurred unexpectedly and in surprising places. Typically, revelation would put Muhammad in a trance-like state. He, and others, would memorize the revealed verses and, under the guidance of Gabriel, Muhammad organized these verses into the existing surahs. The intervention of Gabriel in ordering the various verses in Islamic history is meant to guarantee not only the sanctity of the individual verses, but the religious validity of the organization of these verses in the Qur'an.

The Qur'an was an oral text throughout the lifetime of Muhammad; it was also a fluid text. The complete text resided only in the memories of Muahmmad and his followers. As he added verses and reorganized the text, his followers would rememorize the text in the light of the additions or edits. This means that the Qur'an was a living text during the lifetime of Muhammad. Certain verses revealed to Muhammad were later repudiated by him as "satanic" verses revealed not by Gabriel but by Satan. These verses were expunged from the text that so many had memorized.

After the death of Muhammad, the text of the Qur'an was written down in the caliphate of Abu Bakr. Until 'Uthman, one and only one written text existed. For over a decade after the death of Muhammad, the Qur'an remained primarily an oral text in the memories of the faithful. In Islamic accounts of the history of the Qur'an, this oral text was entirely faithful to the original verses—this is entirely possible, but Western historians generally agree that some corruptions must have produced slight variations throughout the Islamic world. Nevertheless, the military expansion of Islam led to two direct consequences concerning the integrity of the Quranic text. First, large numbers of the faithful were dying out in the various military expeditions. Each time someone died who had the Quranic text memorized, that meant that one copy of the Qur'an disappeared forever. Second, the expansion of Islam swelled the ranks of the faithful. Many of these new converts spoke other langagues and the original Arabic of the Qur'an began to corrupt. Faced with these two threats to the integrity of the Qur'an, 'Uthman orderd a rescension of the text to be made and to serve as the definitive written version of the text. A rescension is a version of a text that is assembled from all the variant versions of that text. 'Uthman, however, relied on two sources: the written text that had been ordered by Abu Bakr and that still existed, and the various oral texts of Muslims who memorized it during the lifetime of Muhammad. In Islamic history, there is no variation between these two sources, so the Uthmanic "rescension" is largely a codifying of a single version of a text. This version, the 'Uthmanic rescension, is the version of the Qur'an that has remained, unchanged, the central holy text of Islam...

SOURCE: Islamic Studies, Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/ISLAM.HTM

Apparent support for their conclusions came from finds made during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a in Yemen, where labourers working in the roof discovered fragments of Korans that are among the oldest in existence. German scholars who studied the manuscripts discovered that some of the Koranic writing diverges from the authorised version, which by tradition is considered the pure, unadulterated word of God. What's more, some of the writing appears to have been inscribed over earlier, "rubbed-out" versions of the text. This editing supports the belief of Wansbrough and his pupils that the Koran as we know it does not date from the time of Mohammad. Andrew Rippin, professor of Islamic history at the University of Victoria in Canada, and the author of a revisionist history of Islam published by Routledge, said: "The Sana'a manuscripts [are] part of the process of filling in the holes in our knowledge of what might have happened."

... The Koran is a scripture with a history like any other - except that we don't know this history and tend to provoke howls of protest when we study it.

The New Statesman Special Report - The great Koran con trick
http://www.newstatesman.com/200112100017

Sean

I have a question to Muslim.
If you are a non-muslim who works in the Middle East and you complain a muslim about his wrong doings and you're the one who got jailed.
How do you cope with this situation? What went wrong in there?