Authenticity of Religious Books

[Tao_Equus]

Thank you Muslimwoman,

I am happy and grateful to engage with you in these questions as it is a rare muslim who can get past the defensiveness our times foster. I have read some of your other posts and the way that you justify your faith is very noble in that you always hold true to the justice within the Quran and condemn the perverions of it. This is very sadly uncommon amongst those that are passionate enough either way to join a forum like this. And i dont limit that to muslims.

I think I will precede my reply by first hanging my colours from the post, so that you are clear where my thought processes begin. I have no religion that I follow. My name here, Tao_Equus, is a name I have used for a long time before I came here and means 'way of the horse'. I am not a Taoist tho, which is not strictly a religion anyway. I do like Taoist 'go with flow' philosophy tho.
I like the ideas of Gaia theory tho again dont see it as a religion. And I believe that this sense of God we all have is our sense of feeling a part of Gaia, or the collective of all life on what is the organism Earth.
I apply what I hope is the scientific method to every question of both science and theology. That of course is 'best idea' to fit the 'available' information. I am unbaptised and was reared without religious influences, and so each time I have been to church, mosque, krishna meeting etc it has been at my own enquiry. I try to remain at all times free of bias, and yes I am sceptical of all written works that claim to be other than the thoughts of man and man alone.

Apologies to everyone that it is such a long post but it is a contiuation of a discussion, that started this thread.

[/size][/size]



Where did you get “that the Quran is not the Word of God” by reading this article? The article discusses the written version of the Quran and we all know and accept that the Quran was originally memorised and passed verbally (as indeed all scriptures were).

As for you saying that the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) did not write the Quran down, I can easily explain this – the Prophet could not read or write. Some people translate the first words of the Angel Gabriel to Mohammad as being “read, Mohammad read” but the Arabic actually translates to “recite Mohammad recite”. The Quran was revealed to the Prophet over 23 years and he was required to memorise each verse as it was revealed to him. So to say the Prophet left his “political allies” to do seems to be suggesting a dark meaning. Less than 5% of the population, in that time in history, could read or write, so everyone (rulers, businessmen, clerics, etc) used scribes.

I got it my interpretation from reading it.

First off it is important to bare in mind that Mohammad himself was from a leading wealthy merchant family, a 5%ter, that was a part of the political ruling class in Mecca at that time. It is argued by some scholars that coming from such a background it is extremely unlikely he was unable to read and write. Literacy was the norm for his his class at that time. It is possible he was dyslexic or for some reason he was never schooled but that would not be normal.
Mohammad is said to have got his visitations from Gabrial, (he would immediately be labled schizophrenic if he were to claim this today), during fits or seizures. Afterward he would tell them to a scribe, there were around 60 in total, who would write them down on parchment, palm leaves or whatever was available. Often these visions would include changes or additions to previous revelations.
Suppose for a moment that Mohammad was literate and up until he was 40 had spent much time reading the different scriptures circulating at that time. (even this is not required however, he could have been read them or listened to them from a number of sources). Then there is very little in what he later claimed that cannot be found in the Christian and Jewish holy books. Infact much of it could be called plagarism.

Ok first, Abu Bakr Siddiq was one of the closest companions of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and was the first Caliph (he took over the care of the ummah (Mulsim people) on the death of Prophet in the year 632, by unanimous election. He only held this position for 2 years before his death.

Yes I know they were close, Muhammad married one of his daughters so they were family. But he was also a judge and a highly placed member in the power structure of the day. Factionalism led to him and Mohammad to flee Mecca, for Medina, where they built an army. They were both warlords toying for power and influence at any means. A very important part of effective powerplay then, as now, was control of a mans soul. You can look on it they were powerful warlords who employed the claim of divinity and I do.

Please read the article again. You will see that it refers to the

huffadh of Qur’an, these were a people that had memorized the whole Quran and they were dying in battle. Umar (who later became the 2nd Caliph) was concerned that the Quran must be preserved, so he and Abu Bakr charged that it be written into a complete book (the Quran that we read today). The task was given to Zayd ibn Thabit, as he had been a scribe for the Prophet during his life (the Prophet is referred to in this part of the article not by name but as RasoolAllah – meaning Messenger of G-d).

Zayd then went around collecting any knowledge of the Quran and the life of the Prophet. Everyone that had memorized the Quran repeated it for Zayd, these could obviously be compared to each other to ensure they were the same. This is how the Quran came to be set out as it is, it was not revealed to the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in the order we now read it. The Quran was compiled in order of subject matter, I think anyone faced with such a charge would do the same thing – compile everything to do with a given topic together.

So all of Muhammads visions had not been collected and assembled in any order by the time of his death. (But I have read that in his last visions he recieved instruction on how they should be ordered.) Also by this time and after several bloody battles they, the Muslims headed now by Abu Bakr, had killed their way to the top. I believe this was also the time that the Shia/Sunni schizm took place and happened because Abu Bakr took control, with not inconsiderable violence, of both the written legacy of Muhammad's visions and that part of Arabia. Abu Bakr commanded that anything that he did not like should be destroyed, all disenters killed. His new right hand man Umar, another father in law of Muhammad and who succeeded to power after Abu Bakr's death, carried on this quest and with the expansionist philosophies espoused, the Muslims went on to conquer the whole region.

It is also to be noted that history is written by the conquerors, and if this is their version how much darker is the whole truth.

The Quran offers such amazing rights to women but then the scholars bring in the hadiths and they are another matter, that is where the oppression of women comes into being.

Offers? Amazing? With the utmost respect I feel more like you try to convince yourself here than me.

It is my personal opinion that whilst some authentic hadiths still exist, many have been misinterpreted/changed by men since the 8th century (look at my posts on the Islam board, the thread is called Discussing Taqlid (meaning blind imitation). I discuss here an event in history called ‘the closing of the gates’. It was this period of time and these misinterpreted/changed hadiths that have gone against the teaching of the Quran and fallen in line with the traditions of marginalising/oppressing women. One example, find a single verse in the Quran that refers to stoning men or women as punishment for fornication - I'll save you some reading, you can't find it because there isn't one. Yet men and women are still, in 2007, stoned to death based on hadiths. Ever played chinese whispers? Scholars do try very hard to authenticate hadiths but all it took some centuries ago was a group of men that decided a, b or c was the way to go and hey presto an authentic hadith was born - it must be authentic because so many men repeated the same thing - see where I am going with this? It is specculation on my part but does explain how 800 years of Islamic rights for women disappeared over the space of a century or so.

I have read most of the Quran, the only book I ever read from the last page back, but did not make notes on it. My lasting impression tho is that it is as a whole condescending, manipulative and controlling. Not all of it of course, but a significant enough of it to leave that impression with me. As for the Hadiths, well I can only call them political tools.
Your referrence to chinese whispers tho, have you ever applied that logic to the 60+ scribes who were working for political master with an undisputable agenda.?

Can I leave you with some inspiring (to me) words of a 7th century Islamic philosopher/economist/sociologist/historiographer:

“All records, by their very nature, are liable to error…”

“the first of these is partisanship towards a creed or opinion…..

the second factor….is over-confidence in one’s sources….

the third is the failure to understand what is intended….

the fourth is a mistaken belief in the truth….

the fifth is the inability to place an event in its real context….

the sixth is the common desire to gain favour of those of high ranks, by praising them, by spreading their fame….

the seventh, and the most important, is the ignorance of the laws governing the transformations of human society

Ibn Khaldun in The Muqadimmah (known as the Father of historiography (the study of the writing of history))

Now there was a clever man. Hands up anyone who is not guilty of at least one of these!!!!

Salaam

Very sage words indeed. May I be so arrogant to say that they are all a part of the way I approach things? Well I do try but after all I am only human.
In what I have said above I present an evaluation of the history I can deduce from written records written by victors, Muslims themselves. I do not think it any more unreasonable an interpretation than that of Islams adherants. But neither do I know it to be the truth. Just the best guess of sceptic me.


Kind regards

TE

 

[cyberpi]

One aspect of the Bible and the Qur'an that I see... and this does not go over very well with some alleged Christians or Muslims. But, God never refers to his written words as HOLY. Not even the 10 commandments written on stone which Moses dropped. Not in the Gospels. (Paul did once). Not in the Torah. Not in the Qur'an. (Comes close by calling scripture pure, but No)... the Qur'an refers the Qur'an a number of times, Torah, Injeel, and 'the book' a number of times, but does NOT call any one of them Holy. In neither the Bible or Qur'an do I see God / Allah (swt) refer to his words, commandments, or a book as Holy.

So what is called Holy? I see there is the Holy Spirit, God's name, a day, places, some individuals, garments, or special items... it is as if the requirement were that it could not be copied or made unclean. I find that extremely instructive. Language changes. It warps. No matter how well something is put into words, it is out of control. No one person can fix the definition of a word. The meaning of words become twisted to distort the words.

But you just know that MAN would. Sure he would. How many Bibles and Qur'ans are stamped HOLY on the outside of them even though on the inside God / Allah (swt) passed up every opportunity to call them or any part of them Holy?

Dauer, in Jewish books or oral tradition are the words, scriptures, laws, or books ever called Holy?

 

[cyberpi]

I realize that I posted that among people who may not believe in one or the other books. I view it as a bit of evidence that both are authentic in being from God / Allah (swt) in part. It is just that people, language and culture influence anything written. I consider it evidence that a person must be a thinker and to pull some definitions from text rather than from a dictionary. To look inside, in relationships, and to keep a sabbath and/or pray regularly for guidance, etc... A book alone does not do it.

 

[dauer]

cyber,

I'm not literate enough to give a listing from all Jewish religious literature. I mean if we're speaking generally about sacred Jewish texts absolutely we find phrases abound like holy torah and holy mitzvot (commandments.) Hebrew itself is called lashon kodesh, the holy tongue. If you go to, for example, leviticus 19 it says, "2. Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them, You shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy."

and goes on to list a number of commandments, at the end being a commandment to observe all of God's statutes and ordinances.

When you drew my attention to this in pm I thought you might be getting at the nature of the word holy in Hebrew, which doesn't at this moment seem related, but since it's on my tongue I'll mention anyway that holiness implies a degree of separation, distinction. Like the kohanim.

We also have statements for example, like that the Torah is black fire on white fire, that it is the blueprint of the world, that she is a tree of life for those who hold fast to her. Ben Bag Bag says in Avot, "Turn it [The Torah] and turn it over and over again and again, for everything is in it, study it thoroughly, grow old and gray in its study, do not stir from it for you can have no better measure than this." I just opened up a book of quotes I have and am looking under Torah, this is just a sampling:

"His soul is guarded who guards the Torah." Menahot, 99

"Why are men like fish? As fish die out of water,so men die without hte Torah and mitzvot" avodah zarah, 3

"Only Torah serves to purify a man." zohar, iii, 80b

"Of the seven things which were created before the creation of the world, Torah is first and repentance is the second." pesahim 54b

That is from The Talmudic Anthology edited by Louis I. Newman

Also, you mention God's name is holy, yes, and sometimes the words of Torah are seen as a name of God.

However, that said, Judaism has never limited the words of Torah to one single meaning. And there are examples in Jewish literature of Torah for different people being different, like moses and akiva. Here's the quote:

"When Moses ascended into heaven, he saw God occupied in making little crowns for the letters of the Torah. Upon his inquiry as to what these might be for, he received the answer, "There will come a man, named Akiba ben Joseph, who will deduce Halakot from every little curve and crown of the letters of the Law." Moses' request to be allowed to see this man was granted; but he became much dismayed as he listened to Akiba's teaching; for he could not understand it" (Men. 29b)."

Akiba ben Joseph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And one of the interesting things about this is, even if the Torah did exist in Moses' time in a complete form -- not my personal view of the matter -- the crowns still did not. The Hebrew aleph bet wasn't even the same as the one today's Torahs are made of, that is the characters were different. So it's really taking an extreme example of finding meaning and relevance where before no meaning was found.

Dauer

 

[Dondi]

Dauer,

Would you say that you have a decidely different view from orthodox Judaism in regard to the Torah, as far as the historic content and interpretation? I wonder how different the responses you gave me would be from responses from, say, a person like bb. Does he not take a more literal approach?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Dauer,

Would you say that you have a decidely different view from orthodox Judaism in regard to the Torah, as far as the historic content and interpretation? I wonder how different the responses you gave me would be from responses from, say, a person like bb. Does he not take a more literal approach?

I wondered the same.

 

[dauer]

Would you say that you have a decidely different view from orthodox Judaism in regard to the Torah, as far as the historic content and interpretation? I wonder how different the responses you gave me would be from responses from, say, a person like bb. Does he not take a more literal approach?

Absolutely my views are not Orthodox. In the Orthodox view both the written and oral Torahs go back to Sinai, although from person to person that can be understood a little differently. However Orthodox Jews are generally not literalist in the same way that the more orthodox members of other religions can be because Judaism is by nature a religion of interpretation. They'll just stick more to the methods of interpreting that are more traditional, which includes drash -- along with the stipulation that the plain meaning (note that doesn't mean literal meaning) is key -- and understand what has been written in more traditional ways. For example, in context, "The Torah speaks in the language of man." which is a statement from the gemara at its plain level is most likely referring to a specific statement made by a human being in the Tanach. It has come to be understood as referring to the nature of the language used in the Torah, particularly all the anthropomorphic language attached to God. As the more progressive kind of Jew I am, I wouldn't reject the later view at all, and on a spiritual level that's more important for me, but I would also acknowledge what I see as the more likely historical meaning. I'm not really concerned with supporting that my views are ancient -- I love innovation -- so even when what I see as the historical goes against how I understand things on a spiritual level, it's not such a big deal to me.

For Orthodoxy there are basically 13 statements that everyone agrees on, and that is only when they are removed from their original, fleshed out context. They are:

Hashem exists
Hashem is one and unique
Hashem is incorporeal
Hashem is eternal
Prayer is to be directed to Hashem alone and to no other
The words of the prophets are true
Moses's prophecy is better than any other prophet's
The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses
There will be no other Torah
Hashem knows the thoughts and deeds of men
Hashem will reward the good and punish the wicked
The Messiah will come
The dead will be resurrected

The ideas were formulated fairly late by Rambam, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, or Maimonides, possibly as a response to the really faith-based traditions of Islam and Christianity. And it was a while later still that they became integrated into the siddur, and finally became a sort of way to say, "this is what unites Jews in belief." But really there have been people who have disagreed with him anyway who lived before and after he did, like Rabad, Moses ben Hasdai Taku, Ibn Ezra, Nissim Gerondi, Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Nachmanides, Gershonides, Rashba, Moses Sofer, Hillel, and you can read about their disagreements as well as those of others here:

MyJewishLearning.com - Ideas & Belief: The Thirteen Principles of Faith

And like I said earlier, the only people who really take more literally are the ultra-orthodox. It's a literalism that developed more recently as a response to the changing world. And even with them you'd still have a hard time finding someone to say, "The world was created in 7 literal days." in part because there are simply already interpretations that have become part of the Jewish corpus that interpret it in much different terms.

Dauer

 

[Tao_Equus]

Its high time I took a closer look at Jewish beliefs, thx for that link.

TE

 

[cyberpi]

Thank you Dauer. I recognize the word holy is primarily used and taught in the Torah and I have not read the Zohar or other texts. I do not mean to degrade the value of any book or commandment... I simply find it instructive or educating to recognize just how easy it would have been for Moses or Man to call the commandments or scripture Holy. A problem is that words can be made unclean so easily by the alteration of language. There is a challenge to keep language clean. Without judging what is authentic, I would say that some books distinguish themselves from others which might claim that some revealing or scripture is Holy or sacred... keeping in mind that it was a man who compiled and stamped the outside of some popular books. If ever there was a good opportunity within the Torah to call Holy or sacred the words from God I would think the stone tablets with Moses would have been it, but they weren't and they were even dropped and crumbled.

To me with Leviticus 19 it could be inferred that being Holy requires adhering to the commandments. But it is verses like Exodus 30:22-38 that really draw my attention with a Holy anointing oil and incense. Unlike words whose composition is external, the composition or ingredients to an oil are more easily kept clean.

I notice in the NIV translation of the bible in the last century that the word 'Holy' often became 'sacred'. A single word was split into two different words in different context. I suggest that is a good example of how a message is degraded or altered.

 

[dauer]

cyber,

for me, the changing of words doesn't really render something unclean. Perhaps less accurate to the original, but it happens, and if that's what sticks then it's just the natural evolution of religion. But I'm not really enamored to the concept of finite revelation either.

What keeps language clean? What makes language unclean? Is it really unclean to translate kadosh as sacred or simply interpretive? Holy isn't quite accurate to the hebrew either, just like sacrifice doesn't capture the meaning of qorban. Does that really make such a translation unclean?

One of the things that I really don't understand is the tendency by so many folks to see that which is older as somehow superior to that which is newer, like that an older text is naturally better than a newer one. More canonical perhaps, but that in itself is a judgement made by the community that holds it as canon, and becoming canon is something that does take time.

If a text changes over time, if beliefs change, if understandings of the text change, why is that so bad? People change. Civilizations change. Communities change. Is the most historically accurate answer really the best one? I suppose if you do hold to a finite revelation that happened in a certain place and time it makes more sense, but if not, if life is seen as a revelatory process, then I'm not sure what the basis could be at all.

And it's not something that is limited to only a few groups. Most everyone's trying to one-up each other by saying their tradition is older. Jews say Torah is older than dirt, and that includes the oral torah as a basis for what comes later. Muslims say it's not and the quran contains the older traditions. Christians link their claims to Torah, and claim their interpretations as correct. Neo-pagans claim their religion predates all of that. And these are of course generalizations. In any group you'll have people who feel these ways and people who don't.

Dauer

 

[Muslimwoman]

Thank you Muslimwoman,

I am happy and grateful to engage with you in these questions as it is a rare muslim who can get past the defensiveness our times foster. I have read some of your other posts and the way that you justify your faith is very noble in that you always hold true to the justice within the Quran and condemn the perverions of it. This is very sadly uncommon amongst those that are passionate enough either way to join a forum like this. And i dont limit that to muslims.

as salaam aleykum TE

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread, I was suffering from blonde syndrome and didn’t know how to look up threads I posted on – oops.

Thank you for your kind words. I simply and I hope humbly (ok sometimes I throw my teddy out of the pram) try to represent my love and servitude of G-d and the religion I have chosen to follow in the way I believe it was intended. I accept that Islam has a lot to answer for but I truly believe that in many ways it is misrepresented and misinterpreted by some Muslims and the outside world. I too am unbaptised. It was only with advancing years that I began to develop patience and understanding of others views and beliefs.

Thank you for filling me in on your beliefs and thought processes, most interesting. One day we must discuss horses, one of my great passions.

First off it is important to bare in mind that Mohammad himself was from a leading wealthy merchant family, a 5%ter, that was a part of the political ruling class in

Mecca at that time. It is argued by some scholars that coming from such a background it is extremely unlikely he was unable to read and write. Literacy was the norm for his his class at that time. It is possible he was dyslexic or for some reason he was never schooled but that would not be normal.

Oh no TE do I really have to start at the very beginning? Only kidding.

Correct, it would not be normal, however:

570CE Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was born. His father had died a few weeks before his birth. His mother died when he was 6. His grandfather died when he was 8. He then went to live with his paternal uncle Abu Talib, a good but POOR man. Because Abu Talib was a poor man Mohammad had to work from an early age so never learned to read or write. I have yet to read a history book (either Muslim or non-Muslim) that does not agree with this account of his early years. Please let me know if you have. When he was 25 he went to work for Khadija (his first wife, and only wife for 25 years), she was a wealthy businesswoman. This was how he ‘came into money’.

Mohammad is said to have got his visitations from Gabrial, (he would immediately be labled schizophrenic if he were to claim this today), during fits or seizures. Afterward he would tell them to a scribe, there were around 60 in total, who would write them down on parchment, palm leaves or whatever was available. Often these visions would include changes or additions to previous revelations.

Well TE I wasn’t there so can’t comment on how many scribes there were but considering the number of Muslims that went to Medina totalled approximately 70 and less than 5% of the population was literate (remember a vast majority of the ummah were from the poor families) my logic and reasoning suggests 60 is a bit of an overstatement. One of the other problems is that we are discussing a period of 23 years, not a few weeks so much changed during that time. One would imagine that at first there would be 1 or 2 scribes and as time passed this may well have grown considerably in number.

Some of the books I have read on the Prophets life have said he believed himself to be going mad when he started to receive the revelations, as the soothsayers in the town square would go into a trance and babble. I accept as a non believer you cannot accept that his revelations were truly from G-d and that’s fine but when I listen to the Quran in Arabic I have no doubts.

Suppose for a moment that Mohammad was literate and up until he was 40 had spent much time reading the different scriptures circulating at that time. (even this is not required however, he could have been read them or listened to them from a number of sources). Then there is very little in what he later claimed that cannot be found in the Christian and Jewish holy books. Infact much of it could be called plagarism .

I accept as he lived in Mecca he probably had heard both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Is this proof of plagurism or proof G-d continued to send a recurring message to mankind? We also know that he had heard the Christian scriptures through Waraqa ibn Nawfal, a Christian that acknowledged him as a true Prophet.

Of course as a non believer I should think you don’t believe any of the Books are from G-d. My view is that all the Books were from G-d and the common threads running through them are because G-d doesn’t change His mind.

Yes I know they were close, Muhammad married one of his daughters so they were family. But he was also a judge and a highly placed member in the power structure of the day. Factionalism led to him and Mohammad to flee

Mecca, for Medina, where they built an army. They were both warlords toying for power and influence at any means. A very important part of effective powerplay then, as now, was control of a mans soul. You can look on it they were powerful warlords who employed the claim of divinity and I do. .

Factionalism led them to flee? No, no, no. The rift was with the Quaraysh, his own tribe. They had been living happily together until Prophet Mohammad declared there is Only one G-d and accused the Quaraysh of idolatry. Remember here that loyalty to tribe was absolutely paramount at that time. This was not a message he had pushed with the Quaraysh (think that demonstrates his sanity) in the very early days of Islam. Once he made this an issue life became unbearable for Muslims in Mecca, some were tortured and killed, others ridiculed, etc. There were no factions in Islam at that time.

So all of Muhammads visions had not been collected and assembled in any order by the time of his death. (But I have read that in his last visions he recieved instruction on how they should be ordered.) Also by this time and after several bloody battles they, the Muslims headed now by Abu Bakr, had killed their way to the top. I believe this was also the time that the Shia/Sunni schizm took place and happened because Abu Bakr took control, with not inconsiderable violence, of both the written legacy of Muhammad's visions and that part of

Arabia. Abu Bakr commanded that anything that he did not like should be destroyed, all disenters killed. His new right hand man Umar, another father in law of Muhammad and who succeeded to power after Abu Bakr's death, carried on this quest and with the expansionist philosophies espoused, the Muslims went on to conquer the whole region.

Wow we really do read different history books. I try to be honest with myself and read books both by Muslims and non Muslims but my understanding of the history is quite different from yours. Am not saying who’s right or wrong, the truth is invariable in the middle somewhere.

May I quote Karen Armstrong (she was a Catholic nun for 7 years so is hardly an Islamic apologist). This is from her book A History of G-d, looking into the origins of a number of religions.

“Muhammad has often been presented as a warlord, who forced Islam on a reluctant world by force of arms. The reality was quite different. Muhammad was fighting for his life, was evolving a theology of the just war in the Koran with which most Christians would agree, and never forced anybody to convert to his religion.” “Muhammad had political gifts of a very high order.”

This is the Mohammad (pbuh) that I know of. As for those that came after, they are another story.

When Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) died there was a power struggle (no big surprise there really). Even Ali ibn Talib accepted Abu Bakr as the first Caliph but there were mutterings from those who believed the prophet would have wanted Ali to lead the ummah. Over the period of the first three Caliphs these mutterings grew, the rift was political rather than doctrinal. Uthman, then Ali (the 4th Caliph) were assassinated and things got a teeny weeny bit nasty, oh ok all hell broke loose. There were 3 competing groups, those who wanted the Prophets family to retain the caliphate, those that wanted a Caliph elected by the ummah and those, the smallest minority by far, that had political ambition and big swords. The big sword group won (as they tend to do) (it's a good job I don't earn my living writing history books ). So after Ali ibn Talib came Muawiyah from Syria, then his son Yazid. The successionists decided they were having none of it and rebelled under the leadership of Husain (Ali’s son). Yazid slaughtered Husain, his family and all his followers in the battle Karbala in 680. This solidified the rift between Sunni & Shia.


So we can pretty much say that after the first 4 Caliphs it all became about political power. Sorry but from what I read I can’t agree with your portrait of Abu Bakr, the loonies that fit that description come later in history. Maybe we should swap books then have this conversation again.

It is also to be noted that history is written by the conquerors, and if this is their version how much darker is the whole truth.

Absolutely, you get no argument from me there.

 

[Muslimwoman]

I am so so so so sorry this is such a big post. I promise not to say another for 24 hours.

Offers? Amazing? With the utmost respect I feel more like you try to convince yourself here than

me.

I am not talking about the engineered oppression that came later but about the first 800 years of Islam. I in no way delude myself that Islam is now into womens rights, quite the opposite but I know that the original Islam was because it’s there in the Quran. Please think about it for a moment, 1500 years ago women were given rights to choose their own husband, to own property, to inheritance, to divorce, to work, to education, even to abortion where necessary but these rights didn’t come to European women until the 19th century. Doesn’t that just blow your mind a little? Well obviously not but it blows mine.

May we explore for a moment. The Quran states over and over again “tell the believing men and the believing women”. These verses refer to dress, behaviour, mode of life, etc, etc. Let us take a small issue, that of dress. The Quran has not changed yet women are now required to dress as nuns while men largely dress as they please. Why? This is what I try to get across in my posts, the life of many Muslims in 2007 bears little resemblance to the life offered by the true Islam – the Quran. Why? Because of men, they hijacked Islam, only men interpret the Quran, traditions and culture play a major role in the decisions that are made. I am delighted that Islam has grown so far beyond the Middle East because now we have more and more open minded scholars that are not limited by tradition, culture or having the Quran beaten into them from an early age. Hurray. G-d said there should be no compulsion in religion, so why beat 7 year olds to learn the Quran. Would it not make a better Muslim to teach them slowly at their own pace?

I have read most of the Quran, the only book I ever read from the last page back, but did not make notes on it. My lasting impression tho is that it is as a whole condescending, manipulative and controlling. Not all of it of course, but a significant enough of it to leave that impression with me. As for the Hadiths, well I can only call them political tools.

Your referrence to chinese whispers tho, have you ever applied that logic to the 60+ scribes who were working for political master with an undisputable agenda.?

You read it from the last page back. Did you read it in Arabic? I find the English translation rather repetitive so prefer to listen to it recited in Arabic but I love the Quran, I think it is at best the word of G-d at worst, if I am wrong about it, a very noble attempt to create a decent, moral and forward thinking society.

I would have to agree with your assessment of hadiths (they can chop my head off tomorrow but it’s what I believe too).

I have certainly considered the Chinese whispers and the scribes but I decided against it because I would imagine the scribes willing to do this work would be believers and would therefore be afraid to make errors. I have nothing to base that opinion on, just my own thought process and the knowledge that people were much more G-d fearing in those days. There is also the issue of the Arabic, it flows so perfectly, which cannot be achieved in other writings (anti Islamic Arabs have been trying for centuries so they can prove us wrong but have failed so far).

Very sage words indeed. May I be so arrogant to say that they are all a part of the way I approach things? Well I do try but after all I am only human.

In what I have said above I present an evaluation of the history I can deduce from written records written by victors, Muslims themselves. I do not think it any more unreasonable an interpretation than that of Islams adherants. But neither do I know it to be the truth. Just the best guess of sceptic me.

We are all only human. I am glad you liked the sage words. I included them not to annoy my fellow Muslims but because I love the scholars from this period of Islam, they truly studied the world around them and I could cry when I think of the millions of scrolls burnt in Baghdad – that’s another story.

What I find very interesting is when you read Arabic history books, ie the books of the victors, they tend to be full of blood thirsty battles and great victories, yet when you read western history books of Islam a much more timid story is told as far as the beginnings of Islam are concerned. I prefer the western version but as I said above, the truth is often somewhere in the middle.

Hope I haven’t bored you to sleep.
Salaam

 

[Tao_Equus]

Thank you for your replies Muslimwoman,

First, I love reading your replies, you write well. And believe me if I was not such a slow, (2 finger), typist my posts would be a lot longer. Unfortunately my brain works way faster than I am able to put down and this leads to my small concise posts being not always true to my thoughts.

We do come at this question from different angles and as I have said I respect and enjoy how you convey your love for Islam. You are right in saying I do not believe any words written down by mankind to be the word of God, that is unless you consider Mankind to be a facet of God.

All the good that is in the various Holy books of the world are basicly moral codes for the peaceful conduct and mutual respect of mankind. No more. No less. But for that alone they have great value.
But these are the product of good and sagacious humans and not some detatched ethereal super being. That many of these people felt a deep spirituality cannot confer the existance of an external entity, to my mind, and my own belief is that this sense of the spirit we all feel is our collective soul. For me that is not limited to mankind either but is the collective of all life here on Earth. And, again, to me we are this super-organisms sentience. The greater organism may also be sentient but acts/thinks on a time frame beyond our comprehension. It is not a God of retribution and judgement, nor of compassion and forgiveness. It is an organism like any other that is concerned with its own survival and reproduction. Anyhow I digress from the point.. The thread "Gaia theory and its relationship to faiths" discussed this subject at length last year should you be interested.

You say that because you believe the Q'uran to be the word of Allah it is impossible to edit out the disagreeable parts of it. I maintain my contention that, at best, the written narrative is the work of Abu Bakr and Usman. There is no extant Q'uran in existance dating even from their time though so we cannot prove it was written in the lifetime of anyone who ever met Mohammad. So you cannot prove it is even authentic to Muhammad let alone Allah. Its a matter of faith alone.

Even if Muhammad did narate every word, was the Shakespeare of his day and had this wonderful talent for giving great poetic justice to his words, that is all it is, great writing. This often cited statement that the Q'uran becomes something of great beauty when rendered in the Arabic tounge does not suprise me. Listening to the everyday conversation of arabic speakers is hypnotic in itself, it is that kind of language. I only understand a few words, the basic pleasantries, but find it a beautiful musical tounge to hear. And thats when they discuss what to have for dinner. If Muhammad, Bakr or (most likely) Usman were a great poet then of course the Q'uran would be special.

As you ellucidated on another thread in a reply to Niranjan, there is no Religion that is not tainted by attrocities carried out in its name. The Islam you love I understand and believe to condem the now countless acts of savagery carried out in its name. And while your Islam may be true and just and compassionate to all, that is not the Islam so often preached either now or historicly. We do live in a world where generalisations form our perceptions and generaly that perception is that Islam foments attrocity. The voice of moderate, peacful Islam is lost in the tearing roar from the blast of a suicide vest.
Even the words of the Q'uran are lost in an endless stream of hate-filled, inflammatory hadiths espoused by self-important insane Imans. Islam is sick. Very very sick. The close to silent majority of peaceful muslims seem powerless to stop the rot and I cannot blame them for they face torture and death not only for them but for their families if they dare raise their voices.

Also, I am fully aware of the debt 'civilisation' owes to the muslim scholars of the middle ages. They alone kept alive the sciences, arts, mathematics etc that europe lost during the dark ages. The world is indebted to them for this. It is a shame that this golden age of Islam is now being so forcefully forgotten by the likes of the Talliban.

I may not have covered every point in your last post and if there is anything particular you would have me clarify please just ask. Unfortunately I am not really a note taker, I have tried but soon they get jumbled and lost, I am not very organised you see I thus sometimes struggle to quote sources but if you really need I will do my utmost to track them down.

Regards

TE

 

[niranjan]

I am not talking about the engineered oppression that came later but about the first 800 years of Islam. I in no way delude myself that Islam is now into womens rights, quite the opposite but I know that the original Islam was because it’s there in the Quran. Please think about it for a moment, 1500 years ago women were given rights to choose their own husband, to own property, to inheritance, to divorce, to work, to education, even to abortion where necessary but these rights didn’t come to European women until the 19th century. Doesn’t that just blow your mind a little? Well obviously not but it blows mine.

Hope you don't mind my asking this. But Islam permits polygamy. Would you like to share your husband with other women ?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Niranjan if you have a look I think you will find that are already 2 or 3 threads dedicated to that subject.

 

[niranjan]

Niranjan if you have a look I think you will find that are already 2 or 3 threads dedicated to that subject.

And which forum and which thread is it ? I am interested.

I am a bit curious because my lover gets visibly annoyed when I even mention about other goodlooking girls, and is very possessive about me.

So I am a bit curious about how muslim women can be very ' self-denying' in this matter .

 

[Muslimwoman]

[/color]

Hope you don't mind my asking this. But Islam permits polygamy. Would you like to share your husband with other women ?

In the context of the Quran I would not mind it at all but only in the context of the Quran. If you read the verse allowing polygamy the first word are "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans". Some Muslims (generally men) interpret this verse as permission to marry 4 wives but the scholars I adhere to state that the verse refers to times in history when women (for reasons of war or major sickness) are left with children to bring up and no husband (because he is dead). If my husband married one of these women, for these reasons and not for love or lust, I would have no problem with it, in fact I would support the decision completely and help her to bring the children up.

 

[Muslimwoman]

And which forum and which thread is it ? I am interested.

I am a bit curious because my lover gets visibly annoyed when I even mention about other goodlooking girls, and is very possessive about me.

So I am a bit curious about how muslim women can be very ' self-denying' in this matter .

The Muslim women that adhere to this do it because they believe they are commanded by Allah to accept this and they will receive their reward in heaven. That does not stop them being jealous, I have had women hysterical with jealousy in my home because their husband wants to take a second wife (usually because the second woman has money I hasten to add).

I don't get jealous if my husband has a quick look, he has blood in his veins after all but I do get jealous if he comments or stares like he's in a trance. Well, I am only human. The problem Niranjan is that woman want to be the only one that you love, they want you to believe that they are the most beautiful woman in the world - our self esteem and confidence relies on it. So please just glance and keep your girlfriend happy.

 

[Muslimwoman]

You say that because you believe the Q'uran to be the word of Allah it is impossible to edit out the disagreeable parts of it. I maintain my contention that, at best, the written narrative is the work of Abu Bakr and Usman. There is no extant Q'uran in existance dating even from their time though so we cannot prove it was written in the lifetime of anyone who ever met Mohammad. So you cannot prove it is even authentic to Muhammad let alone Allah. Its a matter of faith alone.

As salaam aleykum TE

Everything is a matter of faith. If you don't believe in G-d then we (the ones that do) are in need of therapy, I accept that. However, I do believe in G-d and He said in the Quran that He would protect it throughout the ages. Now, your argument is Abu Bakr could have written this. My argument is he couldn't, many Arabic non-muslims over centuries have tried to produce something anything like the Quran to prove it cannot be from G-d and all, thus far, have failed. Why? To be honest I accept it on faith because my Arabic is not good enough to understand the difference but many scholars Muslim and non-muslim have spoken of the unusual beauty of the Quran when recited. It simply cannot be reproduced (meaning something similar).

I only understand a few words, the basic pleasantries, but find it a beautiful musical tounge to hear. And thats when they discuss what to have for dinner. If Muhammad, Bakr or (most likely) Usman were a great poet then of course the Q'uran would be special.

Are you joking? I listen to Arabic everyday and it is full of spitting, some of the music is really good though. As I said above, for this to be true then they would have to a poet to a degree that has never been seen since - how likely is that really? (ok I am leaving myself open to you saying how likely is G-d - VERY).

As you ellucidated on another thread in a reply to Niranjan, there is no Religion that is not tainted by attrocities carried out in its name. The Islam you love I understand and believe to condem the now countless acts of savagery carried out in its name. And while your Islam may be true and just and compassionate to all, that is not the Islam so often preached either now or historicly. We do live in a world where generalisations form our perceptions and generaly that perception is that Islam foments attrocity. The voice of moderate, peacful Islam is lost in the tearing roar from the blast of a suicide vest.

So should I just give up my belief? Of course not, Islam is changing, slowly but still changing, look at the reaction of the Sheikhs in Saudi after 9/11 - even the head guy came out and said it was totally against Islam. Ok so that sounds like a small thing in comparison to what happened but things are starting to change. More and more Muslims are turning to the more moderate scholars. More and more hard line scholars are speaking out about terrorism. I must stick to my faith and trust my faith to return to its roots.

Even the words of the Q'uran are lost in an endless stream of hate-filled, inflammatory hadiths espoused by self-important insane Imans. Islam is sick. Very very sick. The close to silent majority of peaceful muslims seem powerless to stop the rot and I cannot blame them for they face torture and death not only for them but for their families if they dare raise their voices.

There are sick people in every walk of life, religious and none religious but it is the people that are sick not the religion itself. Look at the country I live in and trust me, the wheels of change are slowly grinding into motion.

Also, I am fully aware of the debt 'civilisation' owes to the muslim scholars of the middle ages. They alone kept alive the sciences, arts, mathematics etc that europe lost during the dark ages. The world is indebted to them for this. It is a shame that this golden age of Islam is now being so forcefully forgotten by the likes of the Talliban.

I could not have said it better myself. Really it makes me weep.

I am much happier just reading your thoughts, we can all quote books and articles but I find it much nicer and more interesting to read peoples own thoughts.

Best wishes

Salaam

 

[Francis king]

well, thanks for enlightening me again, all, but especially dauer and muslimwoman... quite jealous that I do not know my faith so well... lol

...as has been said, authenticity is a difficult subject to prove, and it makes me think of all the elements of christianity that have changed over the years... jesus as man, now God, mary's role as the mother of jesus, deciding which books of the bible were legitimate and worth keeping, all decided by the whims of a few powerful men...

just hope we all don't throw the baby away with the bathwater, though...