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