Printable View
It was directly qouted into to him by the messenger angel - Cebrail (=Gabriel). Such moments were described as "trances". As soon as the "quoting" was finished, he used to convey what he was told to the "katip"s (=writers) so that the holy words were kept unchanged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
is this angel an ''angel of light'' thats how ive heard him described before?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Gabriel is exactly the same angel that announced to Mary that she was to bear God's son. He was kept quite busy in those days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
The 'Angel of Light' you may have heard of is probably Lucifer, the Light Bearer.
i heard that the angel that was supposed to have met muhammed was described as an angel of light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haruchai
what i don't understand is why god would have gone to all the effort of sending prophets if he knew their messages would be almost compleately erased and replaced?
Well, as Christians are fond of saying, who knows what is in God's mind? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
You might say that Mohammed (pbuh) was chosen as the last prophet precisely because he ensured the Qu'ran was kept exactly as given - even ensuring the language stayed the same.
All the holy books beforehand were in many different languages and different interpretations. For those who accept the Qu'ran as the word of God, it is exactly that - unchanged.
Seems a logical step for this God fella to take. ~;)
well being omnipotent he gets everything right the first time, the idea that he couldn't stop his words getting changed is weird and the Quran itself is open to interpretation in fact it contains the same sort of inconsistancys and unusually harsh sentiments (for a loving god to make) as the old testament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haruchai
The Torah is also preserved in its native tongue isn't it?
So how would you be accused of your sins after death without getting warned about them ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
The point is humankind is free to draw his destiny. I mean, you are shown what you are capable of, how you behave and react. The point is that it's not something that God is "not able to", it is something that God tests the humans about their intentions when there is no force over it.Quote:
well being omnipotent he gets everything right the first time, the idea that he couldn't stop his words getting changed is weird...
Probably considering the facts about how previous religions were partly corrupted and were re-written by humans to serve their earthly desires, the way of dictiation may feel harsh. But take human nature into account, if you draw a responsibility line, man generally performs and obeys it at lower degrees. So loosened and soft messages would totally fail, me thinks. What's more this is religion -a dogma. In Islam, the first thing you accept is the unity of Allah. You accept the power of a superior being at first step. Watching the other concepts of Islam taking this rule of thumb into account, will make it more easier to comprehend the rest about it.Quote:
..and the Quran itself is open to interpretation in fact it contains the same sort of inconsistancys and unusually harsh sentiments (for a loving god to make) as the old testament.
Thanks for your manner approaching neutrally inquisitive towards Islam. :bow:
oh, what i meant was why give a prophecy to your prophets that you know will be replaced so that even those trying to follow the prophets will be unable toQuote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
i agree, it just would seem unfair for god to allow false teachings to prosper without any evidence for the real teachingQuote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
again i agree but what about the teaching to kill those that convert from Islam?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Im glad that this is how you interpret my questions this is exactly what i am aiming for :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
The Quran was kept as oral tradition till the 11th century, around 500 years. Anything that has been kept as oral tradition that long will be changed slowly. Around the 11th century individual cities started to write down their Qurans, creating many different qurans. They were also being written during the first crusade, you can probably guess what hearing news of a city canabalized by barbaric christians would have effected the writtings held in it. Late 15th century (if I remember correctly.) is when the turkish king had all qurans but the one he wanted destroyed. My point in all this is that the quran much like the bible and many other books in the world has been changed over the milenia. The belief that any holy book is unchanged since its conception is a bit flawed. Another odd fact, Mohamed was originally an orthodox priest.Quote:
Originally posted by LeftEyeNine
Probably considering the facts about how previous religions were partly corrupted and were re-written by humans to serve their earthly desires, the way of dictiation may feel harsh.
wow! realy?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Eh? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
The first was written in the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh).
Not really. http://www.answers.com/topic/qur-anQuote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Actual fragments exist from the 7th century, and a full copy from the 9th. Most tradition maintains scribes wrote the words of Mohammed (pbuh) down there and then through dictation, though many modern scholars also believe that the verses were memorized (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/QURAN.HTM) until Caliph Uthman collated the first official text version around 656 AD.
I thought I read recently of a copy that has been discovered that is 7th century, but I can't find the link. Anyway, it is widely accepted that the Qu'ran has remained unchanged since dictation.
BigTex, you should simply revise your source(s) about Quran.
exactly when did Muhammed die?
OK found a link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4581684.stm
The oldest Qu'ran is in Tashkent, and was written in the 7th century - 651 AD.
According to the article, this was 19 years after Mohammed's (pbuh) death in 632 AD.
Uzbekistan is a dangerous place these days, but I would love to go and see that book. :book:
and is it word for word the same as modern qurans?
Yes, I believe so. Indeed, IIRC it is an act of blasphemy to change the wording of the Qu'ran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
Translations into other languages are allowed, but they may not be used for reference in theological discussion. If one wishes to be taken seriously in a discussion of Islam, one has to read Arabic.
i see
Ok, new question, what is the official muslim stance on people who are converted from Islam to another religion or become atheists?
People from other religions were respected in muslim countries througout history. There are examples, when people with other beliefs, pursued by christians were welcomed in muslim countries. There may be exceptions due to corruptive governments, I don't know.
This is, why when someone tries to interpret the Quran, he has to be careful. The phrase "war against nonbelievers" must not have automatically to do something with war by weapon, sadly this is, how most of islamophobes like to interpret it.
Oh, I almost was about to forget your actual question. To turn away from Islam/change to another religion when you know the teachings well is according to the Quran punished in the afterworld, since islam is seen as the last, unchanged and true religion. Death sentence on earth is absolutely nonsense and has nothing to do with the Islam.
I do not really know a lot about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
Supposedly it is never stated in the Qur'an that apostasy is punishable by death. But some scholars have argued for death penalty by their interpretation of the Hadiths.
“People from other religions were respected in muslim countries througout history.” The ones from the Book, Christian and Jews. And respected isn’t the word, tolerated is better.
Please apologize my bad english... I'm trying my best. "Respected" may be too positive but "tolerated" sounds too negative to me.
i know well how honourably Islam has treated people of other faiths in history, far better (on average) then the ''christian'' europeans treated people of other faiths, i think that this is attested by the number of christians in Muslims countries at the time, compared with the treatment of muslims in spain and other muslim cities when they were retaken.
So, the Quran does not say that converts from Islam should be killed, would it then be fair to say that an incident such as the proposed execution of a christian in Afganistan would be considered murder by muslims to?
Of course, there is a fundamental: "Islam is the religion of intentions". That means you should intend to pray, worship and obey from the heart. If Islam is something you are forced, memorized or something you keep reluctantly -say, something you are involved since your parents are, simply leave it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
I am a Muslim from the heart, I believe because I feel the existence of Allah and find my way through his discipline -Islam. That guy sentenced to execution will be murdered if the punishment gets done. There is no way Islam can get along with such wretched and poisonous interpretions.
Then 'accepted' would be a nice compromise.Quote:
Originally Posted by ivoignob
another question, a bit of a weird one, what relevance does the number 666 have in Islam?
None that I know of. There are 6666 ayets in Kuran as a sidenote. (Ayet: Each sentence of sures)