Historians are finally stepping up to the plate, shrugging off fears of retribution by the Muslim community, and critically examining the Koran as they have other religious texts. The hard questions are being asked ... and the answers are not what the fervently religious want to hear.

Revisionist historians argue Koran has been mistranslated
Alexander Stille, New York Times
Saturday, March 2, 2002

To Muslims, the Koran is the very word of God, who spoke through the angel Gabriel to Mohammed: "This book is not to be doubted," the Koran declares unequivocally at its beginning. Scholars and writers in Islamic countries who have ignored that warning have found themselves the target of death threats and violence, sending a chill through universities around the world.

Yet despite the fear, a handful of experts have been quietly investigating the origins of the Koran, offering radically new theories about the text's meaning and the rise of Islam.

Christoph Luxenberg, a scholar of ancient Semitic languages in Germany, argues that the Koran has been misread and mistranslated for centuries. His work, based on the earliest copies of the Koran, maintains that parts of Islam's holy book are derived from pre-existing Christian Aramaic texts that were misinterpreted by later Islamic scholars who prepared the editions of the Koran commonly read today. So, for example, the virgins who are supposedly awaiting good Islamic martyrs as their reward in paradise are in reality "white raisins" of crystal clarity rather than fair maidens.

Christoph Luxenberg, however, is a pseudonym, and his scholarly tome, "The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran," had trouble finding a publisher, although it is considered a major new work by several leading scholars in the field. Verlag Das Arabische Buch in Berlin ultimately published it.

The caution is not surprising. Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" prompted a fatwa, or death sentence, because it appeared to mock Mohammed. Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed because one of his books was thought to be irreligious. When the Palestinian scholar Suliman Bashear argued that Islam developed as a religion gradually, rather than emerging fully formed from the mouth of the prophet, he was thrown from a second-story window by his students at the University of Nablus.

The disquiet extends to non-Muslim scholars in Western countries. "Between fear and political correctness, it's not possible to say anything other than sugary nonsense about Islam," said one scholar at an American university who asked not to be named, referring to the threatened violence as well as the widespread reluctance on U.S. college campuses to criticize other cultures.

The touchiness about questioning the Koran predates the latest rise of Islamic militancy. As late as 1977, John Wansbrough of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London wrote that subjecting the Koran to "analysis by the instruments and techniques of biblical criticism is virtually unknown."

Wansbrough insisted that the text of the Koran appeared to be a composite of different voices or texts compiled over dozens if not hundreds of years. After all, scholars agree that there is no evidence of the Koran until 691 -- 59 years after Mohammed's death -- when the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem was built, carrying several Koranic inscriptions.

These inscriptions differ to some degree from the version of the Koran that has been handed down through the centuries, suggesting, scholars say, that the Koran may have still been evolving in the last decade of the seventh century. Moreover, much of what we know as Islam -- the lives and sayings of the prophet -- is based on texts from between 130 and 300 years after Mohammed's death.

In 1977, two other scholars from the School for Oriental and African Studies at London University -- Patricia Crone (a professor of history at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton) and Michael Cook (a professor of Near Eastern history at Princeton University) -- suggested a radically new approach in their book "Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World."

Since there are no Arabic chronicles from the first century of Islam, the two looked at several non-Muslim seventh-century accounts that suggested that Mohammed was perceived not as the founder of a new religion but as a preacher in the Old Testament tradition, hailing the coming of a messiah.

"Crone and Cook came up with some very interesting revisionist ideas," says Fred M. Donner of the University of Chicago and author of the recent book "Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing." "I think in trying to reconstruct what happened, they went off the deep end, but they were asking the right questions."

The revisionist school of early Islam has quietly picked up momentum in the last few years as historians began to apply rational standards of proof to this material.

Scholars such as Luxenberg and Gerd-R. Puin, who teaches at Saarland University in Germany, have returned to the earliest known copies of the Koran to grasp what they suggest about the document's origins and composition. Luxenberg's radical theory is that many of the text's difficulties can be clarified when it is seen as closely related to Aramaic, the language group of most Middle Eastern Jews and Christians at the time.

For example, the famous passage about the virgins is based on the word hur, which is an adjective in the feminine plural meaning simply "white." Islamic tradition insists the term hur stands for "houri," which means virgin, but Luxenberg insists that this is a forced misreading of the text. In both ancient Aramaic and in at least one respected dictionary of early Arabic, hur means "white raisin."

Luxenberg has traced the passages dealing with paradise to a Christian text called Hymns of Paradise by a fourth-century author. Luxenberg said the word paradise was derived from the Aramaic word for garden, and the descriptions of paradise described it as a garden of flowing waters, abundant fruits and white raisins, a prized delicacy in the ancient Near East. In this context, white raisins, mentioned often as hur, Luxenberg said, makes more sense than a reward of sexual favors.

Some Muslim authors have begun to publish skeptical, revisionist work on the Koran as well. Several new volumes of revisionist scholarship, "The Origins of the Koran," and "The Quest for the Historical Mohammed," have been edited by a former Muslim who writes under the pen name Ibn Warraq.

This article appeared on page A - 15 of the San Francisco Chronicle

AND:

Muslim scholars who question Islam end up fleeing Muslim lands or being attacked.

For a while Abu Zaid remained in Egypt and sought to refute the charges of apostasy, but in the face of death threats and relentless public harassment he fled with his wife from Cairo to Holland, calling the whole affair "a macabre farce." Sheikh Youssef al-Badri, the cleric whose preachings inspired much of the opposition to Abu Zaid, was exultant. "We are not terrorists; we have not used bullets or machine guns, but we have stopped an enemy of Islam from poking fun at our religion.... No one will even dare to think about harming Islam again."--The Atlantic

Sean

Can we get a response from our Muslim members?

I'd be quite interested to hear their view point on this subject...

-watches and waits-

Personaly Id be amazed if it had been translated right first time, after all its never been managed with any other ancient text!

How about we let 'sleeping dogs lie'........You can't mess with our fellow muslim UMers....

I'm a Muslim.

Actually, I don't think the Koran has been modified over the centuries, because God Himself has said in it that He would keep it safe and unchanged. It's a matter of faith.
On the contrary, I believe the Sunna, which is Muhammad's speech (regarded as a main source of Islam's teachings), has been modified. There seems to be several statements that contradict each other. Also, the fact that it was collected and organized by different Muslim scholars makes it less unqiue. That's why I only take the Koran seriously.

Aside from this, and as to the mistranslation issue, I've heard that the Koran in any language other than Arabic is not as clearly understandable as it is in its original language. Probably, because there are a lot of Arabic words that have no exact synonyms in other languages, especially latin ones.

Was the Quran mistranslated? Of course it was ( is ).

As Dr. Haisook pointed out, during the translations in other languages one had to use similar and not exact words in order to translate from Arabic. This is also the reason why many words in the Quran are still Arabic although translated in another language. This happens only when there is not even a similar translation of the word able.

I pointed many times out that the misconseption of the Quran is in the translations itself. Sometimes a thought or a sentence loses it's meaning when tried to translate in another language.

I speak several different languages, 4, and also about a 10 dialects and and I do understand 3-4 other dialects from a similar language family. And, believe me, eve to translate from one dialect to another of the same language is sometimes very hard.

And then, if we count in the dogmatic way of some muslim sholars or Imams regarding the understanding of the written scriptures, it is only natural that some of the surahs are not easy acceptible for many people.

The say I like the most from the Quran is " God gives inteligence to whom he wants, and keep it away from who he wants ". There is so much truth in it.

Luv it! Great article Seanph! But I hope we do not see any naive Christians gloating over the fact the Kouran is so flawed, for as any serious student of the Bible knows, the whole premise of Satan as the enemy of God, and a fallen angel are based on eqully inept mistranslations of the Hebrew Old Testament by latin speaking Christians. And this has far greater theological ramifications than whether or not to expect grapes or virgins in heaven.

BTW I have lost track of a passage that referred to a "great wise serpent in heaven" in Islamic theology that judges sinners, much as in early Christian doctrine that most Christians have now forgotten. I believe it is not in the Kouran proper, but still in the very early supplementary scriptures. I found it on the internet, but lost the link. Have you heard of this? I have little doubt it was also originally in some obscure Syriaic-Aramaic Christian texts, much like the "white grapes in paradise".

The very thought of deflowering virgin after virgin has always sickened me a bit especially when its refered to as a gift from God. White raisins of clarity, however I would buy by the pound if the great diety would just drop all the trade restrictions. We could all use a little more clarity.




Sounds a lot like the Vatican and measures taken to ensure that secrets of history and true meaning of religious scripture are hidden forever.


So many institutions are focussing on "we are all entirely equal but you have to attend inter-cultural training classes or you will be fired" that the message has been lost. It used to be simply about not harrassing someone that's different but now there's so much compromise and pay-out/lawsuits that companies all over globe must placate the vocal money-grubber/attention whores and its costing us millions per year.

While I do believe in equality for all persons that wish to step up to the plate, better themselves and society and God forbid raise their children in a possitive atomosphere I don't think workers should be forced to learn verses taken from the Koran to keep their jobs as I and my much better half have.

I am a Muslim myself, and I agree with Dr Haisook. The translation from Arabic to different languages might have caused the mistranslation. But as for the Arabic version itself, the meanings are not translated.

Just a note, if anyone is thinking that the radical groups might have read mistranslated Quran and got the wrong message, i think they're mistaken. Because the countries that those radical groups come from, they are quite proficient in Arab, as it is their main language. So they'll be reading the "actual" version of the Quran.

Does this mean that since they can actually read the Quran in the original, they have interpreted it correctly, as such are justified in their actions?

It's just like reading a poetry in ancient english. The meaning is the same, but they way they interpreted the text is unknown. It is just like some people who reads a poem, but interpreted them wrongly.

4:89
They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

So in other words do not have non muslim friends (Jews and Christians), unless they convert to Islam, if they refuse or decide they made a mistake in converting, kill them.

4:91
Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.

Again, an open invitation to kill those who are not muslim.

4:101
And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.

It is a fact that those who aren't muslim are enemies of muslims. By the way there is another passage that quite clearly states who these disbelievers are.

5:17
They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary.

That would make christians unbelievers, wouldn't it?

9:33
He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.

Here we have the code of arms of Islam. By any means possible, Islam will eventually be the only religion on earth.

I suppose when you have passages like these it is almost an invitation to become a warrior of God in the Holy Jihad.

This thread makes me yawn.

Its a feeble attempt by anti islamists to spread their propaganda

Has Quran been mistranslated?

Ok so if it has been mistranslated.

Just get the correct translation.

Or the smart guy who started this thread forgot that the original Quran is written in Arabic. Arabic as a language is still spoken and written today. If there is a problem with English German or Spanish translation just go the source and correct it.

This is not true with most other holy books where issues of mistranslation can be a big thing.

Like the original Bible was supposed to be written in Aramaic. Aramaic is now dead. No one knows how to write read or speak authentic aramaic. So you can potentialy claim that the current latin english or dutch translation is a fake.

There is a big problem if thats the case. There is no original Aramaic to turn to!!!!!!!

They have the original Qu'ran. Its the Hadeeth that is questionable.

Btw All Muslims pray in the original Arabic. When you go to China they pray in Arabic. Sort of the way early Christians prayed in Latin.

But surely the arabic language would have evolved/changed over the past milennia, making mis-translations likely, and also couple with verbal tradition, which most monotheistic belief systems rely on, this would also cause mistranslations of holy texts due to one persons intepretations being accepted as "correct".

So just because the language is still spoken today, chances are it has changed somewhat and people who intepret the texts differently may be too scared to admit this, or point this out, due to the nature of the religion itself and it's rules against questioning the belief.

Simple question to muslim, mainpoint, dr haisook or hafizbms:

Are these verses quoted by Jor-el in the Quran?

If so, can you apply any other translation, or interpretation to their meaning?

I love when someone with absolutely no experience in either Islam or Arabic insist that their interpretation of the Qu'ran is the true one.

Then provide the true interpretation of the verses quoted truethat.


Or how is someone supposed to learn about your faith?

So far, all I've seen from the muslims on this board is snappy little quips that answer nothing, all the while blaming "western bias and anti-islamic" writings.

BUT when a question is asked, and I think mine was simple enough, there are 3 possible answers:

1 - Yes it is in the book, and it does mean what it says.

2 - No it isn't in the book, and it is totally fabricated.

3 - Yes it is in the book, but it means.........


But instead, truethat jumps on the apparant islamic bandwagon, crying "FOUL" along with the rest. I have read these threads with a sincere desire to learn about Islam, from its followers, and have become disillusioned that any of you will give a straight honest answer to a direct question.

In'shallah.

Many muslims take pride in the fact that Quran is the same Quran since centuries. You are making some baseless assumptions when you claim" muslims are too scared to point this out". I havent heard this coming from any muslim although i have heard it coming from many non muslim religious extremists. I dont know whether its out of jealousy (people cant trust books of their own faith) or its plain hatred of other religions or cultures, people who dont belong to a certain religous group start making up these things about other religions of which they have only superficial knowledge of.

Regarding the first point you raised it is true time changes a lot cultures evolve metaphors become cliches, proverbs become outdated but the MAINPOINT is that the words remain the same. It is true that interpetation may change but the scientific fact is words of Quran in arabic have remained the same.

Now if you cant swallow this hard evidence its your loss.

As an atheist its not my belief now but I practiced it for some time. As I have stated in the past when I see someone talking about the Koran, its usually an indication that they haven't read the actual text. Most muslims refer to it as the Qu'ran. And its muslims and not moslems. When I see moslem I know its someone reading a TRANSLATION.

One of the selling points of the Qu'ran to me is that they have the actual original document written by Mohammed. I am sure that there are parts missing or mistakes and whatnot but true muslims try to read it in the original language and ALL muslims irregardless if they speak Arabic PRAY in Arabic and recite the Qu'ran in Arabic.

So this whole topic seems a bit off to me. When someone says "this quote means this" and they don't know the history, they don't know the difference between the hadith's or hadeeths or the Qu'ran. They don't know the beliefs of modern muslims. Well I find it amusing.

Its not that hard to find out information about something if you want to.

has the koran been mistranslated? surely language has changed since it was first written.

the bible we know for sure has been mistranslated -

Muslims pray in the original language. Its the common language of all Muslims. I'm not an expert on this but I think they are playing games. They HAVE the original Qu'ran.

and, surprisingly, the question will not be answered; lost amidst the quibbling about praying in the original tongue..........

So I guess my answer is "OnlyMuslims can read and understand theQu'ran, and for any infidel to even ASK if its correct is enough to send any good son of Allah running to fetch his sabre"


Thanks for all the non-information ladies and gentlemen.

may the peace of your god be with you.

Dear JPDM1

I advise buying this translation of Quran

An Interpretation of the Qur'an: English Translation of the Meanings (Paperback)
by Majid Fakhry (Author)

Its approved by the Al Azhar Univerisity which has been around for 1000 years. I have a copy of it at home. You can buy it on amazon. If you have questions after going through it feel free to post them if i am around ill try to answer them.

On a side note what faith do you follow

Good luck on your research

I have been doing my homework as well truethat, I'm sorry to say that you are sadly mistaken about the so called original document written by Mohammud.

1st because Muslims say he didn't write anything, since he was illiterate. He couldn't read or write, supposedly.
I have serious doubts about the veracity of such a tale. 1st his background, which was considered high middle class, for that time. He was not only related to merchants but was one himself. Do you know of any merchant who cannot keep a ledger?

The word they relied on to bestow illiteracy upon the Prophet was "UMMY." Unfortunately for those "scholars," this word clearly means "Gentile," or one who does not follow any scripture (Torah, Injeel, or Quran)
see 2:78, 3:20 & 75, 62:2]; it does NOT mean "illiterate."

The Prophet was a successful merchant. The "Muslim scholars" who fabricated the illiteracy lie forgot that there were no numbers during the Prophet's time; the letters of the alphabet were used as numbers. As a merchant dealing with numbers every day, the Prophet had to know the alphabet, from one to one-thousand.

This wasn't a simple nomad we are talking about, he grew up in a city and was well acquainted with many different types of people of all religions. He knew quite a few christians personally.

As for the Quran, it was supposedly written on many different pieces of materials, from leaves to parchment, bones pieces of wood, etc (I'm talking about the original). Whatever was at hand was used. Also it was supposedly dictated word for word by Mohammud to a scribe or scribes. The stories vary in relation to this.

Details of Muhammuds' life? Nothing is recorded earlier than ibn Ishaq's work (100 years after Mohammud) exists - and many don’t like his details! Especially concerning Aisha, Mohammuds' last wife.

Now for the interesting part:

Abu Bakr (Mohammuds father in law) made one single copy from the various verbal and written material. This copy was later kept by 'Umar and then by his daughter Hafsa.

Some traditions about the origin of the Qur'an say that Abu Bakr was instrumental in preserving it in written form. It is said that after the hard-won victory over Musailimah, Umar ibn al-Khattab (the later Caliph Umar), saw that many of the Muslims who had memorized the Qur'an from the lips of Muhammud had died in battle. Abu Bakr asked Umar to oversee the collection of the revelations. The record, when completed, was deposited with Hafsa bint Umar, daughter of Umar, and one of the wives of Muhammud. Later it became the basis of Uthman ibn Affan's definitive text of the Qur'an. However, other historians give Uthman the principal credit for collecting and preserving the Qur'an. Shi'as strongly refute the idea that Abu Bakr or Umar were instrumental in the collection or preservation of the Qur'an, rather that they refused to accept Ali's Qur'an.

Nineteen years after the Prophet Muhammud's death, during the reign of Khalifa `Uthman, a committee of scribes was appointed to make several copies of the Quran to be dispatched to the new Muslim lands. The copies were to be made from the original copy of the Quran assembled by Abu Bakr from the various verbal and written material.

This committee was supervised by `Uthman Ibn `Affaan, `Ali Ibn Abi Taaleb, Zeid Ibn Thaabet, Ubayy Ibn Ka`ab, `Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubair, Sa`eed Ibn Al-`Aas, and `Abdul Rahman Ibn Al-Haareth Ibn Heshaam. The Prophet, of course, had written the Quran in its chronological order of revelation, together with the necessary instructions to place every piece in its proper position. The last sura revealed in Medina was Sura 9. Only Sura 110, a very short sura, was revealed after Sura 9, in Mina.

The committee of scribes finally came to Sura 9, and put it in its proper place. One of the scribes suggested adding a couple of verses to honor the Prophet. The majority of scribes agreed. `Ali was outraged. He vehemently maintained that the word of God, written down by the hand of His final prophet, must never be altered.

Ali's protest is documented in many references, but I cite and reproduce here the classic reference AL ITQAAN FEE 'ULUM AL QURAN by Jalaluddin Al-Suyuty, Al-Azhareyyah Press, Cairo, Egypt, 1318 AH, Page 59.



Translation: `Ali was asked: "Why are you staying home?" He said, "Something has been added to the Quran, and I have pledged never to put on my street clothes, except for the prayer, until the Quran is restored."

The horrendous dimensions of this crime can be realized once we look at the consequences:

(1) `Uthman was assassinated, and `Ali was installed as the fourth Khalifa.

(2) A 50-year war erupted between the new Khalifa and his supporters on one side, and the Mohammedan distorters of the Quran on the other side.

(3) `Ali was martyred, and eventually his family, the prophet Muhammad's family, except for some women and children, were killed.

(4) The disaster culminated in the infamous Battle of Karbala, where `Ali's son, Hussein, and his family were massacred.

(5) The Muslims were deprived of the pure, unaltered, Quran.

The distorters of the Quran finally won the war, and the "official" history that came to us represented the victors' point of view. This apparent victory for God's enemies was, of course, in accordance with God's will. In just two decades after the Prophet's death, the idol worshipers who were defeated by the Prophet in the conquest of Mecca (632 AD) reverted to idolatry. Ironically, this time around their idolwas the Prophet himself. Such idol worshipers obviously did not deserve to possess the pure Quran. Hence the blessed martyrdom of the true believers who tried to restore the Quran, and the apparent victory for the distorters of God's word.

The first peace time ruler after this lengthy and disastrous war was Marwan Ibn Al Hakam (died 65 AH/684 AD). One of the first duties he performed was to destroy the original Quran, (Abu Bakr's assembled copy)"fearing it might become the cause of NEW disputes" [see `ULUM AL-QURAN, by Ahmad von Denffer, Islamic Foundation, Leicester, United Kingdom, 1983, Page 56.]. The question an intelligent person must ask is: "If the original Quran were identical to the Quran in circulation at that time, why did Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam have to destroy it?!"

See:ULUM AL-QURAN, by Ahmad von Denffer, Islamic Foundation, Leicester, United Kingdom, 1983, Page 56 (Muslim site)

We are always being told, "this is the ‘superior religion", the "Final Revelation".
THIS, we are told, had come to "replace" what had become "confused or corrupted".

Yet we find two conflicting versions of the Quran in the early years!!!

It seems all is not so clear cut as muslims say.

Dear Mainpoint,

Are you suggesting that I misquoted and/or misinterpreted the Suras I posted?

Thank you for the suggestion. I will take it under advisement


But I am curious why you ( or any muslim here) cannot answer my simple questions: Are the verses ( suras? ) quoted above in the Qu'ran, or not?

If yes, can you provide an alternative interpretation to what has been posted?


And to answer your question mainpoint, I follow no faith but my own. That doesn't not mean that I am not curious about others faiths.

Tsk Tsk whatever makes you think these are "baseless assumptions"?
When one of the first rules of Islam is to not question the authenticity of their religious texts it leads to those muslims who do question it to be in fear for their academic careers etc as they are shunned by the rest of their religious community.

I should mention that i have more than just a "superficial knowledge" of the religion as I have been studying the origins of monotheism for a very long time now.

One would think that rather than be so defensive about your religion, accusing others of ignorance and such, you would enlighten us and try and teach us, but instead you accuse us of "jealousy" and bigotry.

Now, is that your religion talking? Refusing to teach, accept, or discuss peoples opinions? or simply a failing of your own?

Oh boy i am frustrated i wrote a very long and detailed response but i had an urgent matter to attend to when i came back it got deleted somwhow.

Anyhow ill go ahead write briefly what i was going to say if you dont mind.

Basically Quran is the same for last 1400 years unchanged.

There are no conflicting copies known to exist, unless you are hiding a copy that is 1400 years old and has different words

I must say you have done good and exhaustive research.

Now you may go and argue even if there are no conflicting copies that doesnt mean there would have been effort by man to alter it. Which i agree with you there could have been efforts as there are efforts right now eg non muslims asking muslims to alter quran!

The copies Usman man about 15 years after Muhammad PBUH death some of them still survive today and there is no difference with the copies in circulation today.

What about the period of 15 years from Prophet Muhammad PBUH death. There are verses still surviving today and there is no difference!!!

Alis quote which you quoted i am glad you quoted

This can tell you how serious devout muslims are about preservation of Quran. ITs a core belief. At the same time muslims believe its God who has promised man that he will preserve Quran till the end of time.

What part of authencity are you questioning?

Please clarify you question maybe i misunderstood your question. Ill try my best to answer you question.

The point you raised about muslims being "scared" about their own religion is a baseless assumption.

Why is this a baseless assumption?
WEll lets see i am a muslim iam not scared i dont see many muslims i know who are scared. On the contrary they are very content and pround of being muslims. The only thing that upsets them is the discrimination and stereotyping they face in western countries.
Now lets hear where did you get your information or maybe it was just a baseless assumption

-sigh- misinterpreting people's text deliberately, or simply not reading them in full = frustrating.

I said they were scared to raise their opinions that conflict with accepted teachings. I didn't say they were scared in general. I do clarify this in the post of mine you quoted, if you'd care to go back and re-read it.

Please read a persons post in its entirety before making your own baseless assumptions on what that person is trying to communicate with you.

Muslims in general question a lot of their religious beliefs. There are question and answer sessions held in mosques all the time. Most leaders of mosques have an open invitation to anyone to come in and ask any questions.

Even in academia i have seen scholars debating religous teachings. Many scholars are infact very passionate about their respective opinions. There are even famous TV shows aired in muslim countries where i have seen this happen.

All this is done in an academic, constructive and an educated way.

Now please answer my question where did you get the notion that "I said they were scared to raise their opinions that conflict with accepted teachings", whereas i have told you from personal experience as a muslim that thats not the case.

"I love you when you bow in your mosque, kneel in your temple, pray in your church. For you and I are sons of one religion, and it is the spirit." - Copy to Clipboard


-- Kahlil Gibran

I never heard about this Phrase but this my way of understanding. Good one BNW.

A failing of his own, EC. He has accused me of posting false information ... and run for the hills when I called him on it. MP is interested solely in apologetics and nothing more.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=1559167

Sean

I am here. I dont see any hills where i live

Basis of a good argument and debate is the quality, unbiasness and reliability of your sources.

I request anyone posting and making an argument have atleast an iota of common sense and logic otherwise it goes on to support tabloid information which seanph likes to post and one misconception leads to another.

Like I mentioned before if someone has a question about certain topic go to the people with first hand knowledge.

For the sixth time ... What information that I posted was incorrect, MP?

I have had that happen to me once or twice. I know how frustrating it can be to lose a post that took hours to prepare.

Now, I would like to draw your attention to post 26 where I gave a detailed history of the situation that originated the question on two different versions of the Quran.

As you may have noted I posted a link that was one of my sources of information. This link is from a book written by Ahmad von Denffer and is called "Ulum al-Qur'an".

This is a muslim scholar and author of quite a few books, it is quite clear that there is evidence to back up his claim of the 2 Quran versions. I'll post the information on the link so that you don't have to go back...

The Difference between Abu Bakr's and 'Uthman's Collection

Abu Bakr had made one single copy from the various verbal and written material. This copy was later kept by 'Umar and then by his daughter Hafsa.

'Uthman had many copies prepared from this copy and sent them to various places in the Muslim world, while the original suhuf were returned to Hafsa and remained with her until her death. Later, Marwan b. Hakam (d. 65/684), according to a report in Ibn Abi Dawud, collected it from her heirs and had it destroyed, presumably fearing it might become the cause for new disputes. 'Uthman also kept one of the copies for himself. This version of the text, also known as 'Mushaf 'Uthman in fact constitutes the ijma'(consensus) of the sahaba, all of whom agreed that it contained what Muhammad had brought as revelation from Allah. [According to Ibn Abi Dawud (117-8) eleven changes were made under al-Hajjaj, among them e.g. 5:48 'shari'atan wa minhajan' into 'shir'atan wa minhajan'; 12:45 'ana atikum bi-ta'wilihi' into and unabbi'ukum bi ta'wilihi. These are again according to Ibn Abi Dawud mistakes which were made in the preparation of Uthmans copy (pp. 37-49). The first version of 12:45 e.g. was the reading of 'Ubay (ibid. p. 138) and Ibn Masud (ibid. p. 39).]

The wide distribution of this text and its undisputed authority can also be deduced from the reports on the battle of Siffin (A.H. 37) 27 years after the death of the Prophet, and five years after 'Uthman's copies were distributed, Mu'awiya's troops fixed sheets from the Qur'an on their spears to interrupt the battle. [See Suyuti, History of the Caliphs. transl. H. S. Jarrett. Baptist Mission Presss Calcutta. 1881, p. 177.] However nobody accused anyone else of using a 'partisan' version of the text, which would have made a splendid accusation against the enemy.

Now. if we go to wikipedia and do a search on Abu Bakr, you will find a section in his biography that is very interesting...

See: Wikipedia - Abu Bakr

Go to the section that says "The Qur'an".

As you can see, these are not baseless ussumptions, but are one of the main reasons for the origin of the Sunni and shiite movements. These antagonistic movements have been at odds ever since, but it all started because of Abu Bakr's original manuscript copy and 'Uthman's later and eventually definitive version of the Quran, which you accept as Gospel.



The reason there is no difference is because Abu Bakr's manuscript and all its copies were destroyed, as I stated, why were they destroyed if there was no difference and what was the war between Uthman and Ali all about if, this was not the reason (which in fact was Alis accusation from the beginning)?

The Quran went throgh a process of sanitization, the copy that you hold is the result of that process.

Dear Jorel

Before i start my answer i will go ahead and give a brief history of islam and use analogies to simplify explaination of my thought. Now my opinion and views may not be 100% correct. But i believe something based on the weight of different types of evidences. I think even analyses of religoius faiths should be carried out with some logic or scientific methodology. But as someone posted in another thread and i agree certain aspects of ones beliefs cannot be tested eg there is just no way to tell if there is satan or there are angels or jinns. So as an example if you are going to have faith in Quran you are going to have faith they exist. Scientificaly speaking according to occams razor they dont, but you cannot prove for a fact they dont exist either!!!!! even if you havent seen them or most likely may never see them during this life time or will know no one who has seen them.

I want to emphasize when people report history 1400 years ago its not like reporting history let say of world war 2 which happened less than a 100 years ago. Which happened when tv film camera printing press were already invented. We know on a day to day basis what happened in world war 2. What date what time germany invaded russia or what time Karl Doenitz surrendered.

These events we can be sure of to a great extent. How so becuase most scholars agree. I am just going to summarize some known facts then go on to make my argument

Muhammad PBUH is born
He preached islam.
Number if his followers increased gradually.
He described islam as a relilgion which is a continuation of religion taught by prophets starting from Adam to Jesus.
Main belief is oneness of God and Muhammad PBUH as last prophet.
From the get go islam and muslims faced prosecution.
However they overcame initial challanges and islam became a dominant religion of Arabia.
Muhammad PBUH job as a prophet is theologically speaking passing on the actual word of God to the people.
This happened in the way of Quran.
Muhammad PBUH could be doing anything when he would get his revelations.
His revelations would come in sentences.
During his initial years thery were slow eg some scholars report there was a gap of 3 years betwenn the first 2 revelations.
When he did have a large following he would immediately have them written down by his followers.

Now when Muhammad PBUH passed away he had a large following.
When i mean large following i mean he was the leader of a whole new nation.
He was The most important person in the whole of Arabia.
All he said was properly documented.
All his actions were noted.
Just look at how much attention we pay to celebrities today. Paparazzi chase important people all over the place.

There are clear instructions from Muhammad PBUH from that time to preserve and spread islamic teachings.
Also Quran started to spread where different languages were spoken or the dialect of arabic was different.
All first 4 leaders were not directly related to each other.
There is one thing well known that all of them were fervent supporters of the Muhammad PBUH even in the days when he was the most prosecuted person in Arabia.
I would say this may have been the only time there was a democratic islamic society.
Ever since after that most islamic countries have suffered 1 monarchy after another.
If you look closely at islamic history people also stood up claiming to be the next Muhammad PBUH very soon after his death.
I would have to agree with you there may have been efforts even to alter the Quran to suit someones poilitcal goal or purpose.
Also there could have been unintentional spelling or dialect or orthographical errors.
There are different ways scholars go on to study how such efforts may have occured.
Some Scholars say Usmans copy came from Hafsa. some say Osman compilation is solely attributed to him. Some say Abubaker had the copy all along and Hafsa didnt have anything to do with it. The fact of the mater is no one can say for sure.
The differences if there were are agreed by most scholars to have been minor.

As for Osman's version copies of which survive till this date
All three (Ibn Masud, Ubay Ibn Ka'b, and Ali) are recorded as having accepted the Uthmanic(Osmanic) text as authoritative.

So thats the point i tried to make before
Lets summarize

Whats the strongest evidence we have
Quranic copy written just 15 years after Muhammad PBUH death = same as Copy we see today
One thing to note there were no diacritical marks on Osmanic copy

Now if you doubt about the 15 yers in between. i can say i am pretty confident there is no difference reason being.
1. Its just 15 years, some of the closet and staunchest supporters of Prophet PBUH and islam are still alive. So even if 1 guys would have wanted to change something he couldnt have.
2. It is a democratic society
3. loose verses surviving from that period show no difference.

Regarding changing the Quran. You can do it right now. You can write some new statements or make up new words. As a practising muslim if some muslim comes across such a document he will destroy it. Why? This belief has been there since Muhammads PBUH time. Its sacred word of GOd and we cannot alter it.
It is not a belief that has arisen mater of factly. Something like i say something in 21st century "oh by the way you know we havent altered our book since 1400 years", whereas the belief of the initial islamic leaders may have been different.

Again i will summarize

Based on scientific evidence and critical analysis so far WE have the same Quran these days as the one during the days of Prophet PBUH and early muslims.
That doesnt mean you can stop your search for more evidence or scholarly study into the question Yawn I am going to sleep

Jorel, recent finds--actually been quite some time--say something different. Fragments of the Koran found in the Great Mosque of Sana'a in Yemen differ from the authorized versions of the Koran.

... 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. [i]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 Observer

AND (Very good aticle):

What Is the Koran?

Researchers with a variety of academic and theological interests are proposing controversial theories about the Koran and Islamic history, and are striving to reinterpret Islam for the modern world. This is, as one scholar puts it, a “sensitive business"

... This means that soon von Bothmer, Puin, and other scholars will finally have a chance to scrutinize the texts and to publish their findings freely a prospect that thrills Puin. So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Koran is just God's unaltered word,� he says. They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Koran has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Koran has a history too. The Sanaa fragments will help us to do this.�

Puin is not alone in his enthusiasm. The impact of the Yemeni manuscripts is still to be felt, �says Andrew Rippin, a professor of religious studies at the University of Calgary, who is at the forefront of Koranic studies today. [i]Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed.�[/i]

SOURCE
http://www.dushkin.com/text-data/articles/23323/body.pdf

AND:

Different copies of Qur'an

A number of Hadith mention that several of Muhammad's companions wrote down their own collections of the revelations.

The best-known among them is Ibn Masud. He claimed to have learned some seventy Surahs directly from the prophet. Muhammad told other people to learn the Quran from him and three others. (Bukhari 6:61:521) However, Surah 1, 113 and 114 were missing in his collection. Ubay bin Kab, the prophet's secretary in Medina, is one of the other three whom the prophet recommended as a teacher of the Quran. Ubay bin Kab's collection contained two additional Surahs and an otherwise unknown verse. His text was widely used in Syria before the appearance of Uthman's text. Abu Musa's collection was used by the people of Basra and was identical with the material of Ubai bin Kab. These different collections of the Quran contained many variant readings. More than 1700 are attributed to Ibn Masud alone.

WIKI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_de...of_the_Qur.27an

Kindly,

Sean

You of course know that, there is absolutely no written record of Mohammuds life until about 100 years after his death, when the 1st ever biography was written about him. What we have though is folk stories, passed on over time, that were then collected to create a more or less complete picture of his life.

The stories about his sayings and that of his companions were all passed on orally and only much later were written down on manuscripts creating the Hadith among other books.

So, there is absolutely no reliable testimony of how things went and how they really happened. The most you can ever say is that you believe these things by faith, that they are true and with that I have no argument, but to actually say that that is how something happened is impossible unless you want to stretch faith with wishful thinking.

As for the conclusions I have drawn, one cannot most certainly say that Islam has the real and correct version of the Quran. One can only accept such a statement by faith but not by any provable document.

So, in my opinion Mainpoint, the Quran is in no better postion than the bible in this matter and cannot be placed over the bible as a more supreme and reliable document.

Any argument to the contrary can only be based on faith and not on proof.

These verses are accurate wording may different from english translation to translation.

But your conclusion is wrong. why you may ask you havent read the verses before and afterwards

If you read them you will know these verse deal with situation of war. When muslim nation or muslims are attacked by others.

They deal with conduct during war which is very important which i will explain later but lets lets some verses before and afterwards.

4:86 And when you are greeted with a certain greeting, greet back with a better one or return it, for Allah keeps count of everything!

4:90 Except for those who seek refuge with a people with whom you are bound by a compact, or come to you beacuse their hearts forbid them to fight you or fight their own people. Had Allah wished, He would have made them dominate you, and then they would have certainly fought you. If however they leave you you alone and do not fight you offer you peace then Allahs allows you no way against them

4:75 And why dont you fight for the cause of God and for the down trodden, men, women and children, who say: "Lord, bring us out of this city whose inhabitants are unjust and grant us, from You a protector, and grant us from you , a supporter.


i can go on and on but the bottom line when you select a line from the whole paragraph who can get the wrong deduction








.

Mainpoint,

there was an earlier question before this post that was asking how some muslim extrmists can interpret the Quran so that they feel that they are justified in taking human life. These terrorists or "soldiers of the Jihad" as they refer to themselves, interpret these verse in exactly the way I showed in my post.

And they aren't taking things out of context because they are at war, with every single person that exists outside of their circle, including muslims.

That's the whole point of my post.

Mainpoint,

there was an earlier question before this post that was asking how some muslim extrmists can interpret the Quran so that they feel that they are justified in taking human life. These terrorists or "soldiers of the Jihad" as they refer to themselves, interpret these verse in exactly the way I showed in my post.

And they aren't taking things out of context because they are at war, with every single person that exists outside of their circle, including muslims.

That's the whole point of my post.

"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them)."

This is saying, to me, "don't follow the ways of the unbeleiver (non-muslim).

"So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah;

This is saying, to me, "don't be friendly with non-muslims, unless they BECOME muslims"

"if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,"

This tells me: If they renounce islam, and return to their faith, you can kill them at will, and treat them as enemies.


Do I have this right? Or am I out-of-context? And if you would be so kind, what are the verses immediately in front and behind this one?

Its a long Sura(chapter) ill have to do a lot of typing. I am just going to copy and paste some verses before and after from a website.

60. Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tâghût (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaitân (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray.

61. And when it is said to them: "Come to what Allâh has sent down and to the Messenger (Muhammad )," you (Muhammad ) see the hypocrites turn away from you (Muhammad ) with aversion.

62. How then, when a catastrophe befalls them because of what their hands have sent forth, they come to you swearing by Allâh, "We meant no more than goodwill and conciliation!"

63. They (hypocrites) are those of whom Allâh knows what is in their hearts; so turn aside from them (do not punish them) but admonish them, and speak to them an effective word (i.e. to believe in Allâh, worship Him, obey Him, and be afraid of Him) to reach their innerselves.

64. We sent no Messenger, but to be obeyed by Allâh's Leave. If they (hypocrites), when they had been unjust to themselves, had come to you (Muhammad ) and begged Allâh's Forgiveness, and the Messenger had begged forgiveness for them: indeed, they would have found Allâh All-Forgiving (One Who accepts repentance), Most Merciful.

65. But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad ) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.

66. And if We had ordered them (saying), "Kill yourselves (i.e. the innnocent ones kill the guilty ones) or leave your homes," very few of them would have done it; but if they had done what they were told, it would have been better for them, and would have strengthened their (Faith);

67. And indeed We should then have bestowed upon them a great reward from Ourselves.

68. And indeed We should have guided them to a Straight Way.

69. And whoso obeys Allâh and the Messenger (Muhammad ), then they will be in the company of those on whom Allâh has bestowed His Grace, of the Prophets, the Siddiqûn (those followers of the Prophets who were first and foremost to believe in them, like Abu Bakr As­Siddiq ), the martyrs, and the righteous. And how excellent these companions are!

70. Such is the Bounty from Allâh, and Allâh is Sufficient as All­Knower.

71. O you who believe! Take your precautions, and either go forth (on an expedition) in parties, or go forth all together.

72. There is certainly among you he who would linger behind (from fighting in Allâh's Cause). If a misfortune befalls you, he says, "Indeed Allâh has favoured me in that I was not present among them."

73. But if a bounty (victory and booty) comes to you from Allâh, he would surely say - as if there had never been ties of affection between you and him - "Oh! I wish I had been with them; then I would have achieved a great success ( a good share of booty)."

74. Let those (believers) who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter fight in the Cause of Allâh, and whoso fights in the Cause of Allâh, and is killed or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward.

75. And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allâh, and for those weak, ill­treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help."

76. Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allâh, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Tâghût (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitân (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitân (Satan).

77. Have you not seen those who were told to hold back their hands (from fighting) and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat­as­Salât), and give Zakât, but when the fighting was ordained for them, behold! a section of them fear men as they fear Allâh or even more. They say: "Our Lord! Why have you ordained for us fighting? Would that you had granted us respite for a short period?" Say: "Short is the enjoyment of this world. The Hereafter is (far) better for him who fears Allâh, and you shall not be dealt with unjustly even equal to the Fatilâ (a s*spam filter*h thread in the long slit of a date­stone).

78. "Wheresoever you may be, death will overtake you even if you are in fortresses built up strong and high!" And if some good reaches them, they say, "This is from Allâh," but if some evil befalls them, they say, "This is from you (O Muhammad )." Say: "All things are from Allâh," so what is wrong with these people that they fail to understand any word?

79. Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allâh, but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself. And We have sent you (O Muhammad ) as a Messenger to mankind, and Allâh is Sufficient as a Witness.

80. He who obeys the Messenger (Muhammad ), has indeed obeyed Allâh, but he who turns away, then we have not sent you (O Muhammad ) as a watcher over them.

81. They say: "We are obedient," but when they leave you (Muhammad ), a section of them spend all night in planning other than what you say. But Allâh records their nightly (plots). So turn aside from them (do not punish them), and put your trust in Allâh. And Allâh is Ever All­Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.

82. Do they not then consider the Qur'ân carefully? Had it been from other than Allâh, they would surely have found therein much contradictions.

83. When there comes to them some matter touching (public) safety or fear, they make it known (among the people), if only they had referred it to the Messenger or to those charged with authority among them, the proper investigators would have understood it from them (directly). Had it not been for the Grace and Mercy of Allâh upon you, you would have followed Shaitân (Satan), save a few of you.

84. Then fight (O Muhammad ) in the Cause of Allâh, you are not tasked (held responsible) except for yourself, and incite the believers (to fight along with you), it may be that Allâh will restrain the evil might of the disbelievers. And Allâh is Stronger in Might and Stronger in punishing.

85. Whosoever intercedes for a good cause will have the reward thereof, and whosoever intercedes for an evil cause will have a share in its burden. And Allâh is Ever All-Able to do (and also an All-Witness to) everything.

86. When you are greeted with a greeting, greet in return with what is better than it, or (at least) return it equally. Certainly, Allâh is Ever a Careful Account Taker of all things.

87. Allâh! Lâ ilâha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Surely, He will gather you together on the Day of Resurrection about which there is no doubt. And who is truer in statement than Allâh?

88. Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the hypocrites? Allâh has cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom Allâh has made to go astray? And he whom Allâh has made to go astray, you will never find for him any way (of guidance).

89. They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliyâ' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allâh (to Muhammad ). But if they turn back (from Islâm), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliyâ' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.

90. Except those who join a group, between you and whom there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with their breasts restraining from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. Had Allâh willed, indeed He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allâh has opened no way for you against them.

91. You will find others that wish to have security from you and security from their people. Every time they are sent back to temptation, they yield thereto. If they withdraw not from you, nor offer you peace, nor restrain their hands, take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them. In their case, We have provided you with a clear warrant against them.

92. It is not for a believer to kill a believer except (that it be) by mistake, and whosoever kills a believer by mistake, (it is ordained that) he must set free a believing slave and a compensation (blood money, i.e Diya) be given to the deceased's family, unless they remit it. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you and he was a believer; the freeing of a believing slave (is prescribed), and if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation (blood money - Diya) must be paid to his family, and a believing slave must be freed. And whoso finds this (the penance of freeing a slave) beyond his means, he must fast for two consecutive months in order to seek repentance from Allâh. And Allâh is Ever All­Knowing, All­Wise.

93. And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein, and the Wrath and the Curse of Allâh are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him.

94. O you who believe! When you go (to fight) in the Cause of Allâh, verify (the truth), and say not to anyone who greets you (by embracing Islâm): "You are not a believer"; seeking the perishable goods of the worldly life. There are much more profits and booties with Allâh. Even as he is now, so were you yourselves before till Allâh conferred on you His Favours (i.e. guided you to Islâm), therefore, be cautious in discrimination. Allâh is Ever Well­Aware of what you do.

95. Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with their wealth and their lives. Allâh has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allâh has promised good (Paradise), but Allâh has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward;

96. Degrees of (higher) grades from Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. And Allâh is Ever Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful.

97. Verily! As for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves (as they stayed among the disbelievers even though emigration was obligatory for them), they (angels) say (to them): "In what (condition) were you?" They reply: "We were weak and oppressed on earth." They (angels) say: "Was not the earth of Allâh spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?" Such men will find their abode in Hell - What an evil destination!

98. Except the weak ones among men, women and children who cannot devise a plan, nor are they able to direct their way.

99. For these there is hope that Allâh will forgive them, and Allâh is Ever Oft Pardoning, Oft-Forgiving.

100. He who emigrates (from his home) in the Cause of Allâh, will find on earth many dwelling places and plenty to live by. And whosoever leaves his home as an emigrant unto Allâh and His Messenger, and death overtakes him, his reward is then surely incumbent upon Allâh. And Allâh is Ever Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful.

101. And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salât (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies.

102. When you (O Messenger Muhammad ) are among them, and lead them in As-Salât (the prayer), let one party of them stand up [in Salât (prayer)] with you taking their arms with them; when they finish their prostrations, let them take their positions in the rear and let the other party come up which has not yet prayed, and let them pray with you taking all the precautions and bearing arms. Those who disbelieve wish, if you were negligent of your arms and your baggage, to attack you in a single rush, but there is no sin on you if you put away your arms because of the inconvenience of rain or because you are ill, but take every precaution for yourselves. Verily, Allâh has prepared a humiliating torment for the disbelievers.

103. When you have finished As-Salât (the prayer - congregational), remember Allâh standing, sitting down, and lying down on your sides, but when you are free from danger, perform As-Salât (Iqâmat­as­ Salât). Verily, the prayer is enjoined on the believers at fixed hours.

104. And don't be weak in the pursuit of the enemy; if you are suffering (hardships) then surely, they (too) are suffering (hardships) as you are suffering, but you have a hope from Allâh (for the reward, i.e. Paradise) that for which they hope not, and Allâh is Ever All­Knowing, All­Wise.

105. Surely, We have sent down to you (O Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur'ân) in truth that you might judge between men by that which Allâh has shown you (i.e. has taught you through Divine Inspiration), so be not a pleader for the treacherous.

106. And seek the Forgiveness of Allâh, certainly, Allâh is Ever Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful.

107. And argue not on behalf of those who deceive themselves. Verily, Allâh does not like anyone who is a betrayer of his trust, and indulges in crime.

108. They may hide (their crimes) from men, but they cannot hide (them) from Allâh, for He is with them (by His Knowledge), when they plot by night in words that He does not approve, And Allâh ever encompasses what they do.

109. Lo! You are those who have argued for them in the life of this world, but who will argue for them on the Day of Resurrection against Allâh, or who will then be their defender?

110. And whoever does evil or wrongs himself but afterwards seeks Allâh's Forgiveness, he will find Allâh Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful.

111. And whoever earns sin, he earns it only against himself. And Allâh is Ever All­Knowing, All­Wise.

Wars have been fought since the dawn of civilization.

Ever since man started forming tribes and affiliations there have been battles and wars. It is a grim reality.

Arnold Toynbee's ten-volume analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations, A Study of History, is acknowledged as one of the greatest achievements of modern scholarship In it he has written

Ever since dawn of civilization have risen 2 greatest evils.
1. Slavery: which he reports is now in its deathbed
2. War: there is no end in site to this phenomenon. But that doent mean it cant be controlled or altogether stripped from human civilization in future.

Scientists say its further evidence that man is evolved from animals. Animals fight for potential mate or territory. Its something ingrain in our subconcious.

Going back to the sura i partially pasted above is titled An-Nisa. Which basically means "the women".

I dont see any more befitting name for a chapter that has part of its contents that deal with war.

After all its the women that end up survivng through a war. They are the ones that feel the true brunt of war. Men fight some die some live some are scarred for life. After all the dust is settled its the women that pick up the pieces and rebuild a whole new society!

I think its Quran's greatness that such an important aspect of human civilization was not ignored.

Without rules of engaging the enemy, without treaties without a code of honor, that tries to minimize the damage to unknowing bystanders, that tries to ease human suffering...... wars are going to be what ...figthing in between a bunch of animals ...that are looking for more room and mates.

I didnt want to get into politics but what do we see today in politics today which i find very unnerving some of our leaders wanto break all international treaties wanto break all rules and laws that have been around for years since world war 2. They fail to understand is that its the very rules and codes that make a nation great. And what worth are values such as liberty justice and freedom when they are tested they are left high and dry.

Going back to my point. One of the reasons i feel muslim nations are lagging behind the developed world is that they have forgotten their own true values and honor. Whats happening now in war torn countries is basically indicriminate killings and terror which is against any code or honor.

Hmmmmm

I strongly disagree with you on that point.

I intially thought i would go ahead and formulate a response but i would let you do that since you brought the subject up.

Lets take an objective way to look at this statment.

One i would advise would be to write down the origins of bible and then write down the origins of quran and then compare them side by side.

Do that in a temporal fashion like years and dates.

eg like when jesus was born, when he passed on word of God the bible, when he resurrected/died/lifted into the heaveans which is the oldest bible in existence form what year, Any major councils or event or apostles that are documented to make any changes.

Now when you do that to make things easy only go with things that are supported by hard evidence and accepted by most historians and scholars.

For example dont take tabloid information from seanph like the articel he has from Toby lester which he is plastering all over this forum. Reminds me of an article my wife read at the supermarket "Aliens made Britainy spears shave off her hair!"

Also when you do that list documents that dispute current thougth. Again they should be well known eg the dead sea scrolls. Not an unsubstantiated article written by a previously unknown person or somebody with a known bias or agenda.

When you are done compare them side by side and if you want to post your end product go ahead.