Misconceptions and quries about Islam

[kkawohl]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Seems like this is turning into one of those "look how great American secularism is!" sort of discussions. After all the flag-waving and back-slapping perhaps we should have a good ol' critical discussion about that after.

Supplanting one expression of Faith for another.

How great American secularism is?

How about U.K secularism?...or if one isn't satisfied therewith one always has the option of moving to an Islamic controlled country.

A religious Faith rule conflicts with a democratic government.

[banjo]

samabudhi said:

So where did it come from?

A mixture of things including distortions of christian texts, cultural factors, pre-islamic arab religious practices and personal revelation.

In the early days of christianity there were numerous gospels going round that didn't make it into the final NT. It is right that they didn't make it into the NT because they were all written later than the four gospels and are of extremely dubious veracity.

Some of them put more stress on certain prophets than others and hence we see Noah get mentioned in the quran lots of times despite the fact that he is a fairly minor prophet in the bible. Also these gospels had important differences to the four gospels we know eg in some of them Jesus wasn't crucified but escaped (note that this is the quranic version of events). These gospels did have their own sects, especially in the middle east area. Mohammed would almost certainly have heard about them and what they believed, he probably would have met them since they were around Saudi Arabia at the time.

Over time these sects died away as conventional christianity took over the mainstream and they now no longer exist. But they did exist for a few hundred years and they did have followers and they were situated in Arabia. And they do say many of the things that are in the quran.

That's just my take.

kkawohl said:

3. None of the so-called "Holy Books" are "the infallible words of God"; they were written by fallible men.

That may be what you think and it may be what I think but it's not what muslims think, which is what we're talking about.

4. Four witnesses to rape is excessive...that does not make (all of) Islam wrong...it makes one statement therein incorrect.

This argument might work with any other religion (such as christianity) but not with islam. To muslims, the quran is the direct word of God, word for word, all of it. It is an exact replica of a book that resides in heaven.

If one bit of it is wrong then it's all wrong. God doesn't make mistakes so if there is a mistake in islam (even just one mistake) then the quran cannot have come from God.

The inerrancy of the quran is central to islamic belief. This is why you see otherwise sensible countries like Pakistan enacting bizarre laws like the four witnesses to a rape law. They think you've got to enact these laws even if they seem to go against common sense. Their reasoning is that human common sense is nothing compared to God's great wisdom so we should not question it even if it seems strange and unfair.

They have God's word written down right there in front of them so they should act on it. It doesn't occur to them to question whether it is in fact God's word. Religious criticism in muslim countries is not at the stage it is at in western countries. They are allowed to discuss different interpretations of the quran but the idea of doubting the divine origin of the whole thing is off limits.

[kkawohl]

Originally Posted by banjo

In the early days of christianity there were numerous gospels going round that didn't make it into the final NT. It is right that they didn't make it into the NT because they were all written later than the four gospels and are of extremely dubious veracity.

Dubious veracity or was the NT also created to mislead the gullible? See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

To muslims, the quran is the direct word of God, word for word, all of it. It is an exact replica of a book that resides in heaven. If one bit of it is wrong then it's all wrong. God doesn't make mistakes so if there is a mistake in islam (even just one mistake) then the quran cannot have come from God.

From: THE BIBLE AND THE QUR'AN

AN HISTORICAL COMPARISON

http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/hist...r/contents.htm

From the Conclusions section:

5) that Muhammad was not known as the seal of prophets until the late seventh century;

6) that the earliest we even hear of any Qur'an is not until the mid-eighth century;

7) and that the earliest Qur'anic writings do not coincide with the current Qur'anic text. All of this data contradicts the Qur'an which is in our possession, and adds to the suspicion that the Qur'an which we now read is NOT the same as that which was supposedly collated and canonized in 650 A.D. under Uthman, as Muslims contend (if indeed it even existed at that time). One can only assume that there must have been an evolution in the Qur'anic text. Consequently, the sole thing we can say with a certainty is that only the documents which we now possess (from 790 A.D. onwards) are the same as that which is in our hands today, written not 16 years after Muhammad's death but 160 years later, and thus not 1,400 years ago, but only 1,200 years ago.

The orthodox Muslim view of the Qur'an as self-evidently the Word of God, perfect and inimitable in message, language, style, and form, is strikingly similar to the fundamentalist Christian notion of the Bible's "inerrancy" and "verbal inspiration" that is still common in many places today.

In 1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a, in Yemen, laborers working in a loft between the structure's inner and outer roofs stumbled across an unappealing mash of old parchment and paper documents -- damaged books and individual pages of Arabic text, fused together by centuries of rain and dampness, gnawed into over the years by rats and insects. Intent on completing the task at hand, the laborers gathered up the manuscripts, pressed them into some twenty potato sacks.

Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam's first two centuries -- they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Qur'an in existence. What's more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Qur'anic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.

The mainly secular effort to reinterpret the Koran -- in part based on textual evidence such as that provided by the Yemeni fragments -- is disturbing and offensive to many Muslims, just as attempts to reinterpret the Bible and the life of Jesus are disturbing and offensive to many conservative Christians.

Nevertheless, there are scholars, Muslims among them, who feel that such an effort, which amounts essentially to placing the Koran in history, will provide fuel for an Islamic revival of sorts -- a re-appropriation of tradition, a going forward by looking back. Thus far confined to scholarly argument, this sort of thinking can be nonetheless very powerful and -- as the histories of the Renaissance and the Reformation demonstrate -- can lead to major social change. The Qur’an, after all, is currently the world's most ideologically influential text.

------------------------
The only way to eradicate the constant strife between the Muslims, Christians and Jews is for ALL religions to perceive Allah/God as being rational and logical; this would bring everyone’s concept of God into the 21st Century.

[Mohsin]

Banjo, at one place you are saying that according to Islam, rape is not being concidered as a serious crime in the sight of God and on the other hand you are saying that law has got nothing to do with faith.
Firstly, I would like to thank you because you have made me learn more about my religion, get into contact with some scholors and learn about this current topic which I would have never wanted to learn for myself, was never interested in it. Yes, I have met a few people and yes I have learen somethings about this law, but if you are going to wait for a complete and comprehensive reply with arguments, wait a little more as I need to make a few more meetings and learn about a few more scenarios. If you really would have held yourself strong, you would have had asked someone or raised this issue in some Muslim controlled forums. One thnig that I can make clear, and that is that your questions are not actually errors, but terms of the sharia law. These such terms are present at several places. So, this not a contradiction, but condition made for the law.

One thing that I can safely say is that faith has got a lot to do with sharia law. Heh, where do you think it came from? From the Qur'an. Another thing, if a person confesses his or her's crime, there is no need for evidence/witness. When there is a number fixed for witnesses, it is for a reason. When the Qur'an says four witnesses, you cannot give the capital punishment until you get them. Something missed out by some people that Islam is eager on killing the poeple so easily, well, it's not. The number is fixed, it is high, and unless it is satisfied, you cannot drag a person to death. If the count or number of witnesses are low and they have evidence, the suspect can be give a punishment, but not that of stoning/death in the case of rape. A victim has got the right to file the case even if there are not witnesses for it. The evidences and stuff can be used to point at the criminal/suspect if unknown, and then, even after that, two cases can happen. Either the suspect accept his crime and thus recieve the punishment and save his afterlife, or there is a process of confessions or oath taking(Something that is carried out especially when there are no witnesses, no evidences). They should take Allah(the Almighty God) as a witness and say four time that they are true. For the fifth time, they should say that the curse of Allah(the Almighty God) be on them if they are liars. You might think that it is odd, but for a believer, he/she would not risk his/her afterlife for this life. There are stories which are present in history in which people are very much willing to accept their crime and ask for the punishments in order to be forgiven in the afterlife. Also, capital punishment or the punishment made for the praticular crime in the sharia can only be given if the critaria is complete. Either confession, or providing complete number of witnesses or in a state that you cannot deny. Also, in many cases when the evidences are good, the judges have got the right to give alternative punishments following the Hadiths or Ijmahs and if not there, by deciding for themself.

In one such story of accepting or confessing, a women came to Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) and said that she had commited adultry and she would like to recieve the punishment for it rather then being punished in the afterlife. She was pregnent. She was told to come back after she had given birth to the child. After she gave birth, she did return and asked for the punishment. Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) told her to feed and take care of her child for two and a half years and atleast until when her child would be able to eat with his own hands. Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) really wanted to see if she would rethink and repent on her own while forgetting about recieving the punishment for it. Again, after two and a half years, she did return and with her child, she also brought a piece of bread. She gave it to the child and the child ate it. Thus showing that the child is old enough to eat on its own. After that, Prophet Muhammd(P.B.U.H) gave the order for the sentence to be carried out. During that time, a man cursed her while stoning. When Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) came to know of it, he(P.B.U.H) got angry and said that the dergee of repentance of that woman was so great that it could be sufficient for all the people of Makkah.(Don't know about you people but this story was very inspiring for me)


The most fearful punishent of all is that of rape. Even the sight of it makes you shake with fear and make you wish to not to do the crime, not to be on the criminals place. About the witnesses, there is a very strick punishement promised in the afterlife for those who act as a false witness. Also if caught, the witness will recieve eighty lashes and would be regarded as an untrusted person. They can repent to save their afterlife, but will recieve punishment in this life. Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) has regarded this act(of being false witness) as GUNAH-e-Kabira(among the biggest sins). One more thing. In Islam, it is better to hide a crime and repent for yourself if you can and in the cases you can, but when the rights of others are taken away or harmed, punishment becomes important. Also, it is not concidered good to just keep talking about crimes or sins, but concidered better to conceal it when you can.

Another thing I want to say is that if you analyze the complete laws of Islam, conditions are made by which doing of such sins can be avoided. I mean, it is preffered to get married quickly and when you are able to, hijab is made important, polygeny is also made lawful, intermingling of the sexes is avoided, alcahol is completely banned. So, just by leading you life according to the Islamic laws, Muslims can easily avoid themselves being tempted into doing such sins.

Sufficient reply, I hope it is as law is not the subject of my interest. Also, I am not very good in explaining, so I appologize for any grammatical errors. If you want to know more about law from me, you will have to wait for the answers. One thing for sure, you initial questions are somewhat answered.

[Mohsin]

Regards Vajradhara

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

do you find it at all curious that the text that he taught from contained no Islamic or Qur'anic verses? in fact, do you not find it at all interesting that, despite his quotes, he's still not a Muslim? how "impressed" could he have really been if he's still not a Muslim?

About Dr. Moore not becoming a Muslim, a great mystery as on the very same or similar conferrance, if you go through the link http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-h.htm , you will come to know that Professor Tejatat Tejasen who is the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand, accepted Islam. Also, there are many who have entered into Islam because of it's compatability with science. Moore, in his comments did say that Qur'an is a devine revelation, but contine to be a non-Muslim. This situation is not new however. It was also there during the life time of Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H). People even after seeing clear signs from Allah(SWT) continued to deny/reject Islam. Allah(the Almighty God) has said in the Qur'an that:

[2.6] Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe.
[2.7] Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes...

Not being able to see and hear means that the signs from Allah(the Almighty God) would not be concidered, or they will not accept Islam even after seeing and hearing the clear signs from Allah(the Almighty God). I do not know about you people but I have come across many people who are falling completely to this verse, i.e. their nature is exactly like what has been mentioned in the above verses. If anyone thinks otherwise, concider Islam with a positive and an open minded approach.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

further, when Dr. Moore writes about embroyological matters, there are no references to Qur'anic material. heck... Galen had a more detailed explanation of embroylogical than the Qur'an does.. and Galen lived thousands of years
before the Qur'an was received...

Professor Keith Moore had written a book - ' The Developing Human'… and in his new edition, the 3rd edition, he has incorporated the new things which he found from the Qur'an and the Hadith - for which he got an award for the best medical book written in that year by any single author. You should check that out if you can. About Galen, he was a scientist, devoted his entire life to it, but still, he failed to touch many points that Qur'an did and Qur'an is not a book of science.
I am not going to argue with this that many, almost 85% or even more of the discoveries of scientific valued verses are made after the actual discoveries made by science. For one point, the Qur'an says… in Surah Najm, Ch. No. 53, Verse No. 45 and 46, that… ‘We have created the human beings and made them into male and female through minute quantity of liquid which is ejaculated’.
Qur'an thus says it is the male which is responsible for the sex of the child. The Qur'an repeats this message in Surah Qiyamah, Ch. No. 75, Verse No. 37 to 39, that
[75.37] Was he not a small seed in the seminal elements,
[75.38] Then he(man) was a clot of blood, so He(Allah) created (him) then made (him) perfect.
[75.39] Then He(Allah) made of him two kinds, the male and the female.

This is something that well, among many things that Gelan did not know, only found recently with the help of the discovery of genetics, but also if it would have been concidered earlier, the evil practice of accusing and harming women and even killing them(still goes on in rural areas of backword nations including Muslim ones) for giving birth to females would have been reduced at a conciderable rate. (Just a thought that I wanted to share)

[Mohsin]

A thing that I would like to say is that if there is any error found in the Qur'an, which there is not, but even if it is, it would be concidered that there is some curruption in it, not that the whole Qur'an is not from God. It would be totally illogical to think that way.

Originally Posted by banjo

A mixture of things including distortions of christian texts, cultural factors, pre-islamic arab religious practices and personal revelation.

I have many lectures which discuss this current issue. I will paste a small section from one of them to prove you wrong, to prove that the Qur'an is not coppied.

Firstly, the historical fact that the Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) was illiterate is sufficient to prove that the Qur'an was not coppied from the Bible. Also, those who say that, they fail to realize that there was no Arabic version of the Bible when the Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) was present. The first, the earliest Old Testament in Arabic that we have was by R. Sadias Gaon in the year 900 C. E. that is Common Era. More than 200 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H). And the earliest New Testament - Arabic that we have was published by Erpenius in 1616 about a thousand years after the death of the Prophet (may peace be upon him). I do agree that there are some similarities between the Bible and the Qur’an. That does not indicate that the latter had been copied from the former. It can also mean that they both have a common third source. All the revelations of Allah (SWT) have the common message of ‘monotheism’. They have the common message. All the previous revelations since they were time bound, as I mentioned, they have not been maintained in their original form and have been interpolated. And there are several concoctions, which have been done by the human beings. But there are bound to be a few points, which are common. Just because of these similarities, it would be wrong to say that Prophet Muhammad (May peace be upon him) copied from the Bible. Then it would also mean that Jesus (May peace be upon him) Nauzubillah(May Allah forgive me) copied the New Testament from the Old Testament because there are many things common in the old and the New Testament. Both of them had a common source. And suppose some one copies in an examination, I will not write in the answer paper, I have copied from my neighbor. I will not write I have copied from Mr. XYZ. Muhammad (May peace be upon him) and Allah (SWT) clearly indicate that Jesus (May peace be upon him), Moses (May peace be upon him), all the other prophets were prophets of God Almighty. It gives them due credit and due respect. If he(P.B.U.H) would have copied, he(P.B.U.H) would not have mentioned, that Jesus and Moses (May peace be upon them) were prophets of God. This proves he did not copy.

Also, there are many errors present in the modren day Bible, even scientific ones. Was Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) well versed to have found them and remove them? No. He (P.B.U.H) was an illiterate.
Also, the challanges of the Qur'an, the biggest one, to produce even a chapter somewhat similar to it has not been accepted and/or competed. Some did try, but failed miserably. Their works can be found in the history books.

Originally Posted by banjo

They have God's word written down right there in front of them so they should act on it. It doesn't occur to them to question whether it is in fact God's word. Religious criticism in muslim countries is not at the stage it is at in western countries. They are allowed to discuss different interpretations of the quran but the idea of doubting the divine origin of the whole thing is off limits.

This is again where you are not totally correct. True on the part of Pakistan and many other Muslim countries, but you fail to realize that more then 1/3rd of the Muslims are living in non-Muslim countries. They are concidering religion at a very different angle. They are putting their religion through many tough tests and coming out correctly. The very first post of this thead, I mentioned about IRF(Islamic Research Foundation) which is in India. I have seen their lectures and debates which they carried out not only in India, but also in USA, UK and Australia. Also in the end, there is often an open queation and answer session. Even the toughest question are answered with some good logics. Also, if you look at Canada, the Muslim society there is also working very well there and in around 1992, Islam became the second largest religion there after Christianity. More and more people are entering into Islam. According to an article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. I do not know about secularism, really want to know how much they have increased or decreased.

[banjo]

Hi Mohsin:

A thing that I would like to say is that if there is any error found in the Qur'an, which there is not, but even if it is, it would be concidered that there is some curruption in it, not that the whole Qur'an is not from God. It would be totally illogical to think that way.

The problem is that if you find one error in the quran then it is highly unlikely that that is the only error. How did that error get there? The only way that error could have got there is by some kind of human interference. Once you accept that there is human interference in the quran then the floodgates open.

What else is wrong? You don't know what is wrong and what is right so the only assumption you can make is that it is all wrong. The quran itself tells you to do this. It says that God has perfected his religion for you and called it islam. Note that word "perfected". There is no room in islam for error because God says it is perfect.

If God says it is perfect then it is perfect. If we discover that it is not perfect then that means it can't have come from God. God would not have allowed imperfections to appear. God is all-powerful. He does not make mistakes. It is not possible that humans could have interfered with the quran because the quran tells us that it is perfect.

There cannot be any errors in the quran because the quran tells us that it is perfect. Therefore if we find an error, it means that the quran is not perfect and yet this cannot be because the quran (God) tells us that it is perfect.

If there is an error in the quran then the quran was wrong when it told us that it was perfect. If the quran is wrong then it doesn't come from God because God is never wrong.

As regards the subject of rape:

When there is a number fixed for witnesses, it is for a reason. When the Qur'an says four witnesses, you cannot give the capital punishment until you get them. Something missed out by some people that Islam is eager on killing the poeple so easily, well, it's not. The number is fixed, it is high, and unless it is satisfied, you cannot drag a person to death. If the count or number of witnesses are low and they have evidence, the suspect can be give a punishment, but not that of stoning/death in the case of rape.

I don't know where you got this from but it's incorrect. The four witnesses to a rape rule comes from zina. The definition of zina is:

"A man and a woman are said to commit ‘zina’ if they willfully have sexual intercourse without being validly married to each other."

This covers a range of "sins" from adultery to rape (at least as it is interpreted in Pakistan). Zina requires four witnesses thus rape requires four witnesses. The suspect cannot be punished because if the victim does not produce four witnesses then the suspect cannot be found guilty.

The evidential standard has not been reached.

A victim has got the right to file the case even if there are not witnesses for it.

Yes but the problem is that if the victim doesn't produce the four witnesses (and therefore loses the case) then it is assumed that unlawful sex took place and the victim gets punished for adultery. The punishment for adultery is 80 lashes or stoning depending on what interpretation you wish to use.

The evidences and stuff can be used to point at the criminal/suspect if unknown, and then, even after that, two cases can happen. Either the suspect accept his crime and thus recieve the punishment and save his afterlife, or there is a process of confessions or oath taking(Something that is carried out especially when there are no witnesses, no evidences). They should take Allah(the Almighty God) as a witness and say four time that they are true. For the fifth time, they should say that the curse of Allah(the Almighty God) be on them if they are liars. You might think that it is odd, but for a believer, he/she would not risk his/her afterlife for this life. There are stories which are present in history in which people are very much willing to accept their crime and ask for the punishments in order to be forgiven in the afterlife.

I'm sure there are such stories but the bottom line is that you can't trust a rapist to tell the truth. Rapists have much lower moral standards than you or I. A rapist who has already raped several women may think he's going to hell anyway. He probably doesn't particularly believe in islam anyway - if he believed in islam then he wouldn't be going around raping people.

A criminal will do whatever it takes to stay out of jail. You cannot have "fear of the afterlife" as a point of law. It might work on you, it might work on many other people but it wouldn't necessarily work on the lowest scum of society. Unfortunately, with law, it is this section of society that we are dealing with.

It is quite niaive to think that "fear of the afterlife" will work on hardened criminals and rapists. To have this built into the legal system is just plain silly.

Also, capital punishment or the punishment made for the praticular crime in the sharia can only be given if the critaria is complete. Either confession, or providing complete number of witnesses or in a state that you cannot deny. Also, in many cases when the evidences are good, the judges have got the right to give alternative punishments following the Hadiths or Ijmahs and if not there, by deciding for themself.

Yes but unless you have four witnesses then the criteria is not complete (for rape) and so you cannot find the accused guilty. It doesn't matter about the punishment if you can never find the person guilty. You have to find someone guilty before you can inflict some kind of punishment on them.

Another thing I want to say is that if you analyze the complete laws of Islam, conditions are made by which doing of such sins can be avoided. I mean, it is preffered to get married quickly and when you are able to, hijab is made important, polygeny is also made lawful, intermingling of the sexes is avoided, alcahol is completely banned. So, just by leading you life according to the Islamic laws, Muslims can easily avoid themselves being tempted into doing such sins.

Being married has no connection to whether or not someone becomes a rapist. Plenty of rapists are also married. Studies have shown that rape is more about power than sex. It's a power trip for them not a lack of sex thing.

A couple of other points while I'm here:

I have many lectures which discuss this current issue. I will paste a small section from one of them to prove you wrong, to prove that the Qur'an is not coppied.

Firstly, the historical fact that the Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) was illiterate is sufficient to prove that the Qur'an was not coppied from the Bible.

I'm not so sure about Mohammed's supposed illiteracy. Wasn't his first wife an important businesswoman? And in any case Mohammed didn't write things down, he had secretaries who wrote things down for him. And also, if we work on the assumption that the quran didn't come from God then there is no problem in the idea that it is in fact the work of several people rather than just one.

Back then, people knew religious stories as oral traditions. Mohammed will have known about the christian oral traditions of the time. He had no need to write anything down whether he was illiterate or not.

Also, those who say that, they fail to realize that there was no Arabic version of the Bible when the Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) was present. The first, the earliest Old Testament in Arabic that we have was by R. Sadias Gaon in the year 900 C. E. that is Common Era. More than 200 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H). And the earliest New Testament - Arabic that we have was published by Erpenius in 1616 about a thousand years after the death of the Prophet (may peace be upon him).

Yes but as I said, religious stories were passed along by oral tradition not by writing.

I do agree that there are some similarities between the Bible and the Qur’an. That does not indicate that the latter had been copied from the former. It can also mean that they both have a common third source. All the revelations of Allah (SWT) have the common message of ‘monotheism’. They have the common message.

So we are left with the choice:

Either this common message came from the fact that they were all copying from each other or the common message came from the fact that they all spoke to an invisible "God" in the sky.

Which one sounds the most rational?

All the previous revelations since they were time bound, as I mentioned, they have not been maintained in their original form and have been interpolated.

This is the official muslim position but unfortuately it is not supported by the evidence. All the evidence we have suggests that the bible (both OT and NT) are exactly the same as they have always been. The dead sea scrolls date from before the time of Jesus. They contain all the books of the OT except one and the versions of the OT found in the dead sea scrolls are exactly the same as the ones we have now.

The oldest copy of the NT is a copy of the gospel of John. It dates to not long after Jesus died and it is exactly the same as the gospel we have now.

What evidence can you give me that any of the books of the bible have been changed from their original form?

Then it would also mean that Jesus (May peace be upon him) Nauzubillah(May Allah forgive me) copied the New Testament from the Old Testament because there are many things common in the old and the New Testament.

No it wouldn't because christianity sees itself as a continuation of judaism. It doesn't try to change anything in judaism. Jesus wouldn't try to copy anything from the OT because (christians think) that jesus came to fulfill many of the OT prophecies not to re-interpret them or change them.

The idea of Jesus copying from the OT doesn't make sense. Christianity openly admits using the jewish OT. The jewish Torah is also part of the christian bible. Christianity doesn't claim that anything in judaism is wrong or has been altered, it doesn't claim that anything in the OT has been changed.

Christians think that jews ought to convert to christianity because the messiah that the jews prophesied arrived in the form of Jesus. But they don't think the jews got anything wrong (unlike muslims who think that jewish scripture has been altered).

Muhammad (May peace be upon him) and Allah (SWT) clearly indicate that Jesus (May peace be upon him), Moses (May peace be upon him), all the other prophets were prophets of God Almighty. It gives them due credit and due respect. If he(P.B.U.H) would have copied, he(P.B.U.H) would not have mentioned, that Jesus and Moses (May peace be upon them) were prophets of God. This proves he did not copy.

Nonsense. Mohammed said that Jesus and Moses were prophets of God but so what? He could hardly have kept them quiet, everyone knew about them. He just changed their importance to make himself more important than them (in the sense that he made himself the final prophet).

The fact that Mohammed kept the Jesus and Moses stories doesn't prove he didn't copy, it just shows that he kept them in because it made his stories all the more powerful by relating them to already understood and accepted religious concepts.

Also, there are many errors present in the modren day Bible, even scientific ones.

This is a common muslim misconception. No offence but I come across it a lot. The idea that the fact there are errors in the bible is some kind of criticism. Only orthodox jews and some fringe christian groups think that the bible is the inerrant word of God (like the quran is thought of by muslims).

In the bible, God speaks to men and then men later write it down. Or the stories are just poems and songs, or they are historical. There is plenty of scope for error in the bible (scientific and otherwise) because it is all written by ordinary men. The quran, on the other hand, is God speaking through Mohammed (via Gabriel) so it's different.

Very few christians and jews think that the bible is the word of God. It's more the will of God.

Also, the challanges of the Qur'an, the biggest one, to produce even a chapter somewhat similar to it has not been accepted and/or competed. Some did try, but failed miserably. Their works can be found in the history books.

Yes, this is a famous challenge but really it's too vague to take seriously. What does it mean - to produce one chapter like it? It certainly can't be taken seriously as a proof of the divine origin of the quran.

I could not produce one play like William Shakespeare wrote yet I don't think Shakespeare was God (although pretty close).

More and more people are entering into Islam. According to an article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%.

I wouldn't get too carried away with all this "islam is the fastest growing religion" stuff if I were you.

Islam is predominant in some very poor countries. Like many poor countries the birthrate is very high. The number of muslims in the world is indeed growing but not particularly through conversion, more through high birthrate.

In fact, in Africa islam is losing a LOT of people through conversion to christianity. There is one country (I forget which but I can look it up later) that used to be majority muslim but is now majority christian.

Islam is not growing particularly fast in terms of conversion. Probably not as fast as christianity. But I don't know the figures for the growth of secularism, I agree that would be interesting. I suspect that with all the religious turmoil in the world there may be quite a lot of people who are rejecting all forms of organised religion.

[I, Brian]

All the evidence we have suggests that the bible (both OT and NT) are exactly the same as they have always been.

What evidence can you give me that any of the books of the bible have been changed from their original form?

There's actually quite a lot of discussion about this on CR in other threads - got to nip out, though, so I'll have to search for them later.

[SchiZo]

hello and peace to you all,

I have not read this thread, however I did notice in a post, just a few above this one, mentioned the topic of rape... and the seemingly requirement of 4 witnesses in Islamic law.

My intentions did not include registering and posting here, I was only briefly browsing through some sites and stumbled upon this topic.

since the thread is titled to the effect of "Misconceptions about Islam", I figured I would let my muslims brother(s) and others here know that, according to islamic law, there is not a requirement of 4 witnesses to a rape. the evidence criteria is left to the ruling body, judge etc.. to decide what is credible proof as it varies from case to case.

Some may argue that so and so country does it this way or another, but frankly I don't give any weight to any country as an authority on Islam..

If someone has some evidence from the Quran itself, as to the evidence requirement for a case of rape, please do bring it to my attention, and I will render my opinion on it.


Now that I have registered and all, maybe I will stick around some... this place does look quite interesting, anyway I better be going as it is quite late here, so take care, and I will come back later if its possible.

[I, Brian]

You're welcome to hand around SchiZo - and welcome to CR.

[banjo]

Hi schizo,

If someone has some evidence from the Quran itself, as to the evidence requirement for a case of rape, please do bring it to my attention, and I will render my opinion on it.

The word "rape" itself does not appear in the quran but the word zina does. Zina covers all non-marital sexual relations. The quran says:

And do not go near fornication [zina] as it is immoral and an evil way (Qur’an 17:32).

Later, the Qur’an more specifically sets out actual legal prescriptions criminalising illegal sexual relations:

The adulteress and adulterer should be flogged a hundred lashes each, and no pity for them should deter you from the law of God, if you believe in God and the last day; and the punishment should be witnessed by a body of believers (Qur’an 24:2).

Following this definition of the offence, the quran gives strict evidentiary rules for the proof of such a crime:

Those who defame chaste women and do not bring four witnesses should be punished with eighty lashes, and their testimony should not be accepted afterwards, for they are profligates (Qur’an 24:4).

The upshot of all this is that four witnesses are required to prove a charge of sexual misconduct. This is how it is justified in Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan, Iran and other places where the four witnesses rule is used.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Moshin,

thank you for the reply.

Originally Posted by Mohsin

Regards Vajradhara

Professor Keith Moore had written a book - ' The Developing Human'… and in his new edition, the 3rd edition, he has incorporated the new things which he found from the Qur'an and the Hadith - for which he got an award for the best medical book written in that year by any single author. You should check that out if you can. About Galen, he was a scientist, devoted his entire life to it, but still, he failed to touch many points that Qur'an did and Qur'an is not a book of science.

you do know, Moshin, that there are two versions of this text book? one called "The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embrology" and another one called "The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embrology with Islamic Additions."

which one do you suppose is the one that is used by Islamic folks and which one by non-Muslims?

I am not going to argue with this that many, almost 85% or even more of the discoveries of scientific valued verses are made after the actual discoveries made by science. For one point, the Qur'an says… in Surah Najm, Ch. No. 53, Verse No. 45 and 46, that… ‘We have created the human beings and made them into male and female through minute quantity of liquid which is ejaculated’.
Qur'an thus says it is the male which is responsible for the sex of the child.

last time i checked, gamates/chromosones determine the sex of the child via a combination of genetic material contributed by mother and father. though, of course, you can have a child without the contribution of the fathers sperm. parthenogenesis is the name of this "virginal" birth miracle.

Moshin, please don't misconstrue my points... as a religious text, Al Qur'an is without dispute.... as a science book, however, it is seriously lacking.

[SchiZo]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

You're welcome to hand around SchiZo - and welcome to CR.

hello Brian, thanks for your warm welcome.

I look forward to engaging with you in dialogue, that may be of interest.

[SchiZo]

Originally Posted by banjo

Hi schizo,
The word "rape" itself does not appear in the quran but the word zina does. Zina covers all non-marital sexual relations. The quran says:

Later, the Qur’an more specifically sets out actual legal prescriptions criminalising illegal sexual relations:

Following this definition of the offence, the quran gives strict evidentiary rules for the proof of such a crime:

The upshot of all this is that four witnesses are required to prove a charge of sexual misconduct. This is how it is justified in Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan, Iran and other places where the four witnesses rule is used.

Like i said, I don't care how certain countries practice their law. In my view, there is no Islamic country on the face of this earth that has implemented the Sharia (islamic law) properly.

Your definition of Zina is inaccurate. Here are them verses again;

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. 024.002

And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;- 024.004

Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. 024.005

You stated that Zina covers "all non-marital sexual relations." . This is not entirely correct. Fornication and Adultery fall under this term, however, Zina is basically an unlawful/immoral sexual act (intercourse), which is undertaken by two parties... intentionally and willingly.

The reason for having a requirement of 4 witnesses is simple; 2 people that have sex with each other, willingly, with disregard to the consequences, are not going to report it to the authorities. that's obvious right? because no one would commit an act which they know is against the law of the land, and then report it to the police. Well for most times atleast.

So who is going to bring the charges forward? Yes, its the local people of the land, who did not actually take part in the act itself.

People would wrongly accuse women of indecency, to ruin their reputation of purity, punish them etc.. it would be an easy way of getting at them. So for that reason, the requirement of 4 witnesses was laid down, to protect the women from these assaults.

If 3 people gave identical and sound testimony, but the 4th one err'ed, then the whole case would go out the window. While those who brought the charges forward, would risk getting punished themselves. Islamic laws are mainly to act as a deterrant. There is no joy in punishment for such matters. If forgiveness is sought, then they should be forgiven and pardoned from the punishment.

There is no way that them verses refer to cases of rape. It quite clearly states "The woman and man guilty of (Zina):- flog each of them.". Does a woman who has been taken against her will, deserve to be flogged also, for something which was out of her control?

If you disagree, show me the flaw in my reasoning. Simple.

Cheers.

[banjo]

Schizo,

I also like things to be simple. I hate it when people overcomplicate things - there's rarely any need.

Your definition of zina is great but you need to understand the problem. Instead of merely looking inwards to what you believe and ignoring the rest of the world, look outwards to what other countries are doing. Try and understand why they are doing it and also why they are wrong.

What I am saying is you need to ask yourself the question:

Why are these muslim countries using this law?

The answer is that rape is not specifically mentioned in the quran so the crime of rape has to find a home somewhere, under some other general heading. There are two contenders for the title of General Heading Under Which Rape Can Fall.

The first one is zina, which we have talked about and both defined. The drawback with zina is that you need four witnesses. Which is obviously inappropriate for rape.

The second contender is hiraba. Hiraba is generally defined as armed robbery but you could class rape as a form of armed robbery in that a rapist is taking away someone's sexual autonomy by force. The advantage of classing rape under hiraba is that hiraba doesn't require four witnesses. This is the verse from the quran on which hiraba is based:

The punishment for those who wage war [yuharibuna] against God and His Prophet, and perpetrate disorders in the land is: kill or hang them, or have a hand on one side and a foot on the other cut off or banish them from the land (Qur’an 5:33).

But the problem is that it's a bit of a clumsy fit - putting rape under armed robbery rather than under the sexual misconduct clauses. Those countries which use the four witnesses rule have decided that rape fits more naturally under the zina heading than the hiraba heading.

The problem is that it has to fit under one of them. Those are the only two choices. You can't invent a new category because islam doesn't allow for that - deriving law from a source other than the quran, sunna etc. So you have to pick one or the other.

You have to put the crime of rape into one of two categories:

Sexual misconduct or armed robbery.

Which one looks the more appropriate? Exactly. That's why these countries do it. Read this article to get up to speed. It's written from an islamic perspective and is critical of the laws in Pakistan.

So your reasoning is good. There is nothing wrong with your reasoning except for the fact that you forget that if you're not going to fit rape into zina then you have to fit it somewhere else. The only other choice you've got is armed robbery.

You are arguing that zina refers only to adultery and not to rape. Well great, but then you have to say which heading rape does belong under. Armed Robbery?

I actually spotted about five or six other problems with trying to fit rape into hiraba. Quick Quiz: Read the article I cited above and see if you can spot any of the potential problems that I spotted.