- 549
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2010
Where u going to school?
I'm at NYU...
And are you a pre-med student?
::Official ask a Muslim vol. Salaam::
I'm at NYU...
And are you a pre-med student?
- 549
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2010
Where u going to school?
I'm at NYU...
And are you a pre-med student?
- 3,130
- 10
- Joined
- May 21, 2005
Quest4Glory
This is quite of a long reply, so I am fitting into 2 posts.
I have read up on the “purity of the Qur’an
This is quite of a long reply, so I am fitting into 2 posts.
I have read up on the “purity of the Qur’an
- 3,130
- 10
- Joined
- May 21, 2005
Quest4Glory
This is quite of a long reply, so I am fitting into 2 posts.
I have read up on the “purity of the Qur’an
This is quite of a long reply, so I am fitting into 2 posts.
I have read up on the “purity of the Qur’an
- 3,130
- 10
- Joined
- May 21, 2005
...
Let me get back to the political process of the collation of the Qur’an. There was quite a bit of quarrel and opposition to Uthman’s standardized codexed Qur’an. You had quite a few who memorized the entire Qur’an who were strongly opposed to the Recension of Uthman. He fought with the al-Qurra. They were a class of men in Medina who lived near the Prophet and had a fairly complete knowledge of the revelations and the rules of life.Then you had the Shi’ites, who are known to be an Islamic minority but the second-largest Islamic sect in the world, that claimed at the time that the Caliph Uthman intentionally eliminated many passages from the Qur’an which related to Ali and the succession of leadership which was to occur after Muhammad’s death. You also had the other division, the Kharajites, who opposed to many verses which they said were omitted. There was a bunch of sectarian controversies surrounding its collation by Uthman. The Uthmanic recension was undertaken for political rather than religious motives. Uthman ordered one single version and official text is to defend his leadership which was threatened. Uthman also branded anyone who recited the Qur’an differently from his copy or used different written variations as a heretic.
There were variations and different codices that were made by different scholars (i.e. Ibn Masud, Ubai ibn Kaab, Ali, Abu Bakr, al Aswad,etc.) That is what you are completely ignoring and dismissing. Uthman even threatened anyone with death if they did not turn in their versions Qur’an to him, so that he could burn them and re-issue the new standardized version of Qur’an. Uthman tried to destroy these rival codices, but some of these variant versions survived. In these different variations, if you compare them, there are different wordings, some verses added or missing from different copies,etc. some early copies were not turned in, and this is what is used as evidence of some of the changes that were made. For example, Ubai had several Suras in his Qur’an that Uthman took out from the standardized text. Like I mentioned, a few very interesting variant copies did survive and some can be found in the Azhyar Library in Cairo.
So, it is not a problem of just dialect. Standardization of the Qur’an was not achieved until the 10th century due to the influence of Ibn Mujahid (he claimed there were 14 different versions of the Qur’an). Therefore, these are not merely just differences in recitation and dialect, but actual WRITTEN variations. Even if you read Bukhari, there are quite a few sections describing the cancellation and omission of verses.
But then again, you will dismiss all of this because you see the truth from what the mainstream Muslim scholars write down as the history despite how all this is quite known even from primary Islamic historical sources but just never put out there in plain view for the Muslim public. No different than the history of the compilation and alterations of the Torah and the Bible.
On that note, Eid Mubarak to all the Muslims on NT and wishing you endless blessings throughout the year.
Let me get back to the political process of the collation of the Qur’an. There was quite a bit of quarrel and opposition to Uthman’s standardized codexed Qur’an. You had quite a few who memorized the entire Qur’an who were strongly opposed to the Recension of Uthman. He fought with the al-Qurra. They were a class of men in Medina who lived near the Prophet and had a fairly complete knowledge of the revelations and the rules of life.Then you had the Shi’ites, who are known to be an Islamic minority but the second-largest Islamic sect in the world, that claimed at the time that the Caliph Uthman intentionally eliminated many passages from the Qur’an which related to Ali and the succession of leadership which was to occur after Muhammad’s death. You also had the other division, the Kharajites, who opposed to many verses which they said were omitted. There was a bunch of sectarian controversies surrounding its collation by Uthman. The Uthmanic recension was undertaken for political rather than religious motives. Uthman ordered one single version and official text is to defend his leadership which was threatened. Uthman also branded anyone who recited the Qur’an differently from his copy or used different written variations as a heretic.
There were variations and different codices that were made by different scholars (i.e. Ibn Masud, Ubai ibn Kaab, Ali, Abu Bakr, al Aswad,etc.) That is what you are completely ignoring and dismissing. Uthman even threatened anyone with death if they did not turn in their versions Qur’an to him, so that he could burn them and re-issue the new standardized version of Qur’an. Uthman tried to destroy these rival codices, but some of these variant versions survived. In these different variations, if you compare them, there are different wordings, some verses added or missing from different copies,etc. some early copies were not turned in, and this is what is used as evidence of some of the changes that were made. For example, Ubai had several Suras in his Qur’an that Uthman took out from the standardized text. Like I mentioned, a few very interesting variant copies did survive and some can be found in the Azhyar Library in Cairo.
So, it is not a problem of just dialect. Standardization of the Qur’an was not achieved until the 10th century due to the influence of Ibn Mujahid (he claimed there were 14 different versions of the Qur’an). Therefore, these are not merely just differences in recitation and dialect, but actual WRITTEN variations. Even if you read Bukhari, there are quite a few sections describing the cancellation and omission of verses.
But then again, you will dismiss all of this because you see the truth from what the mainstream Muslim scholars write down as the history despite how all this is quite known even from primary Islamic historical sources but just never put out there in plain view for the Muslim public. No different than the history of the compilation and alterations of the Torah and the Bible.
On that note, Eid Mubarak to all the Muslims on NT and wishing you endless blessings throughout the year.
- 3,130
- 10
- Joined
- May 21, 2005
...
Let me get back to the political process of the collation of the Qur’an. There was quite a bit of quarrel and opposition to Uthman’s standardized codexed Qur’an. You had quite a few who memorized the entire Qur’an who were strongly opposed to the Recension of Uthman. He fought with the al-Qurra. They were a class of men in Medina who lived near the Prophet and had a fairly complete knowledge of the revelations and the rules of life.Then you had the Shi’ites, who are known to be an Islamic minority but the second-largest Islamic sect in the world, that claimed at the time that the Caliph Uthman intentionally eliminated many passages from the Qur’an which related to Ali and the succession of leadership which was to occur after Muhammad’s death. You also had the other division, the Kharajites, who opposed to many verses which they said were omitted. There was a bunch of sectarian controversies surrounding its collation by Uthman. The Uthmanic recension was undertaken for political rather than religious motives. Uthman ordered one single version and official text is to defend his leadership which was threatened. Uthman also branded anyone who recited the Qur’an differently from his copy or used different written variations as a heretic.
There were variations and different codices that were made by different scholars (i.e. Ibn Masud, Ubai ibn Kaab, Ali, Abu Bakr, al Aswad,etc.) That is what you are completely ignoring and dismissing. Uthman even threatened anyone with death if they did not turn in their versions Qur’an to him, so that he could burn them and re-issue the new standardized version of Qur’an. Uthman tried to destroy these rival codices, but some of these variant versions survived. In these different variations, if you compare them, there are different wordings, some verses added or missing from different copies,etc. some early copies were not turned in, and this is what is used as evidence of some of the changes that were made. For example, Ubai had several Suras in his Qur’an that Uthman took out from the standardized text. Like I mentioned, a few very interesting variant copies did survive and some can be found in the Azhyar Library in Cairo.
So, it is not a problem of just dialect. Standardization of the Qur’an was not achieved until the 10th century due to the influence of Ibn Mujahid (he claimed there were 14 different versions of the Qur’an). Therefore, these are not merely just differences in recitation and dialect, but actual WRITTEN variations. Even if you read Bukhari, there are quite a few sections describing the cancellation and omission of verses.
But then again, you will dismiss all of this because you see the truth from what the mainstream Muslim scholars write down as the history despite how all this is quite known even from primary Islamic historical sources but just never put out there in plain view for the Muslim public. No different than the history of the compilation and alterations of the Torah and the Bible.
On that note, Eid Mubarak to all the Muslims on NT and wishing you endless blessings throughout the year.
Let me get back to the political process of the collation of the Qur’an. There was quite a bit of quarrel and opposition to Uthman’s standardized codexed Qur’an. You had quite a few who memorized the entire Qur’an who were strongly opposed to the Recension of Uthman. He fought with the al-Qurra. They were a class of men in Medina who lived near the Prophet and had a fairly complete knowledge of the revelations and the rules of life.Then you had the Shi’ites, who are known to be an Islamic minority but the second-largest Islamic sect in the world, that claimed at the time that the Caliph Uthman intentionally eliminated many passages from the Qur’an which related to Ali and the succession of leadership which was to occur after Muhammad’s death. You also had the other division, the Kharajites, who opposed to many verses which they said were omitted. There was a bunch of sectarian controversies surrounding its collation by Uthman. The Uthmanic recension was undertaken for political rather than religious motives. Uthman ordered one single version and official text is to defend his leadership which was threatened. Uthman also branded anyone who recited the Qur’an differently from his copy or used different written variations as a heretic.
There were variations and different codices that were made by different scholars (i.e. Ibn Masud, Ubai ibn Kaab, Ali, Abu Bakr, al Aswad,etc.) That is what you are completely ignoring and dismissing. Uthman even threatened anyone with death if they did not turn in their versions Qur’an to him, so that he could burn them and re-issue the new standardized version of Qur’an. Uthman tried to destroy these rival codices, but some of these variant versions survived. In these different variations, if you compare them, there are different wordings, some verses added or missing from different copies,etc. some early copies were not turned in, and this is what is used as evidence of some of the changes that were made. For example, Ubai had several Suras in his Qur’an that Uthman took out from the standardized text. Like I mentioned, a few very interesting variant copies did survive and some can be found in the Azhyar Library in Cairo.
So, it is not a problem of just dialect. Standardization of the Qur’an was not achieved until the 10th century due to the influence of Ibn Mujahid (he claimed there were 14 different versions of the Qur’an). Therefore, these are not merely just differences in recitation and dialect, but actual WRITTEN variations. Even if you read Bukhari, there are quite a few sections describing the cancellation and omission of verses.
But then again, you will dismiss all of this because you see the truth from what the mainstream Muslim scholars write down as the history despite how all this is quite known even from primary Islamic historical sources but just never put out there in plain view for the Muslim public. No different than the history of the compilation and alterations of the Torah and the Bible.
On that note, Eid Mubarak to all the Muslims on NT and wishing you endless blessings throughout the year.
- 3,130
- 10
- Joined
- May 21, 2005
I also wanted to add....The Qur'an and science do not show how it is miraculous. Infact, some of the information of science in the Qur'an is said to be wrong and some of it can be linked to teachings of other Greek philosophers. Not like there is a lot of it anyways. A lot of Greek philosophers and doctors before Islam had scientific discoveries and no way does it mean or signify it is due to revelations from the divine. I do not see how it is impossible from Arab pagans to come in contact with Greek philosophers. A lot of the Islamic philosophy was influenced by Greek philosophy, as were Judaism and Christianity. Afterall, when it came to trade and Islamic conquest, a lot of them came in contact with Greek teachings. Also, if you believe the Qur'an was man made, not a surprise if these scientific teachings were conjured up and added later on and then said to be recited by Prophet Mohammed.
- 3,130
- 10
- Joined
- May 21, 2005
I also wanted to add....The Qur'an and science do not show how it is miraculous. Infact, some of the information of science in the Qur'an is said to be wrong and some of it can be linked to teachings of other Greek philosophers. Not like there is a lot of it anyways. A lot of Greek philosophers and doctors before Islam had scientific discoveries and no way does it mean or signify it is due to revelations from the divine. I do not see how it is impossible from Arab pagans to come in contact with Greek philosophers. A lot of the Islamic philosophy was influenced by Greek philosophy, as were Judaism and Christianity. Afterall, when it came to trade and Islamic conquest, a lot of them came in contact with Greek teachings. Also, if you believe the Qur'an was man made, not a surprise if these scientific teachings were conjured up and added later on and then said to be recited by Prophet Mohammed.
- 6,433
- 15,538
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
Do Muslims wish that they had a more centralized clergy? Do they wish that they had the equivalent of Bishops or even a Pope who could then excommunicate Muslims extremists, present a case on behalf of the Ummah to others and to urge violent ethnic groups like the Pashtuns to behave in a more peaceful, Islamic manner?
The reason I ask this is because it seems like Islam's golden age was literally stamped out when the Mongols sacked Baghdad and trampled the Caliph under the foot of their horses. Not only was the unofficial capital of Islamiya sacked and the Caliphate ended but it shifted the Center of Islam from the cosmopolitan world of The Eastern Mediterranean and up towards the historically violent Turkic World of Central Asia (In addition to the Timurian State in Central Asia, Mongols and their allies ruled two of the great Islamic empires of the last eight centuries. There was the Muhgal Empire in India and Pakistan and there was the Ottoman Empire. There was also a strong Turkic influence in Persian so between those four polities, most of the old Caliphates were ruled by Turko-Mongols).
Before the sacking of Baghdad, Islam was liberal and shaped by Jewish (or I suppose you could phrase it as Judeo-Islamic) concepts of individual rights and dignity, Greek Philosophy and Scientific Inquiry, Arabian commercial spirit and Ancient Persian style state craft and its relatively low levels of corruption and and it tradition of ethnic and religious tolerance and pluralism. After the sack it seems like the values from the Golden Age of Islam became over whelmed by a more conservative Central Asian ethos of violence, disdain for commerce, abundant superstition and rampant tribalism. Islam has a civilizing effect on the societies that adopt it but certain ethnic groups that adopted Islam were so barbaric when they did convert that Islam's civilizing effects could only do so much (especially without a Central religious authority that could bring true Islam and true Sharia Law to the societies that converted after the fall of the Caliphate).
The spectacle of court sanctioned gang rapes in Pashtun lands and clitorectomies (also called "female circumcision") in West Africa and honor killings elsewhere all combine to create the impression, for people in the West, that Islam causes these things to happen when that sort of brutality predates Islam's arrival in that society. Without Islam those same people would probably be more brutal in how they choose to administer their societies. In my view, speaking as someone who defends and admires a great about Islam, Muslims should implore other Muslims to give up their violent tribal practices and in favor of Islam's very liberal, fair and forgiving justice system of Sharia (I tell fellow Westerners that under Sharia law, they will chop off the hand of a thief but first they must meet a burden of proof that is almost impossible to meet and then the thief must be fully and completely recalcitrant and/or unable or unwilling to make restitutions to the person from whom he stole). In the interim in would seem like a good idea to hammer home the point to non Muslims that often times when a Muslim does something vicious in the name of Islamic Law, he is actually violating Islamic law and applying his local, pre Islamic legal system and he is not applying actual Sharia law.
So my question is for Muslims is whether or not you would like their to be more centralized religious leadership, based on the model of the Caliph during the Golden Age?
The reason I ask this is because it seems like Islam's golden age was literally stamped out when the Mongols sacked Baghdad and trampled the Caliph under the foot of their horses. Not only was the unofficial capital of Islamiya sacked and the Caliphate ended but it shifted the Center of Islam from the cosmopolitan world of The Eastern Mediterranean and up towards the historically violent Turkic World of Central Asia (In addition to the Timurian State in Central Asia, Mongols and their allies ruled two of the great Islamic empires of the last eight centuries. There was the Muhgal Empire in India and Pakistan and there was the Ottoman Empire. There was also a strong Turkic influence in Persian so between those four polities, most of the old Caliphates were ruled by Turko-Mongols).
Before the sacking of Baghdad, Islam was liberal and shaped by Jewish (or I suppose you could phrase it as Judeo-Islamic) concepts of individual rights and dignity, Greek Philosophy and Scientific Inquiry, Arabian commercial spirit and Ancient Persian style state craft and its relatively low levels of corruption and and it tradition of ethnic and religious tolerance and pluralism. After the sack it seems like the values from the Golden Age of Islam became over whelmed by a more conservative Central Asian ethos of violence, disdain for commerce, abundant superstition and rampant tribalism. Islam has a civilizing effect on the societies that adopt it but certain ethnic groups that adopted Islam were so barbaric when they did convert that Islam's civilizing effects could only do so much (especially without a Central religious authority that could bring true Islam and true Sharia Law to the societies that converted after the fall of the Caliphate).
The spectacle of court sanctioned gang rapes in Pashtun lands and clitorectomies (also called "female circumcision") in West Africa and honor killings elsewhere all combine to create the impression, for people in the West, that Islam causes these things to happen when that sort of brutality predates Islam's arrival in that society. Without Islam those same people would probably be more brutal in how they choose to administer their societies. In my view, speaking as someone who defends and admires a great about Islam, Muslims should implore other Muslims to give up their violent tribal practices and in favor of Islam's very liberal, fair and forgiving justice system of Sharia (I tell fellow Westerners that under Sharia law, they will chop off the hand of a thief but first they must meet a burden of proof that is almost impossible to meet and then the thief must be fully and completely recalcitrant and/or unable or unwilling to make restitutions to the person from whom he stole). In the interim in would seem like a good idea to hammer home the point to non Muslims that often times when a Muslim does something vicious in the name of Islamic Law, he is actually violating Islamic law and applying his local, pre Islamic legal system and he is not applying actual Sharia law.
So my question is for Muslims is whether or not you would like their to be more centralized religious leadership, based on the model of the Caliph during the Golden Age?
- 6,433
- 15,538
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
Do Muslims wish that they had a more centralized clergy? Do they wish that they had the equivalent of Bishops or even a Pope who could then excommunicate Muslims extremists, present a case on behalf of the Ummah to others and to urge violent ethnic groups like the Pashtuns to behave in a more peaceful, Islamic manner?
The reason I ask this is because it seems like Islam's golden age was literally stamped out when the Mongols sacked Baghdad and trampled the Caliph under the foot of their horses. Not only was the unofficial capital of Islamiya sacked and the Caliphate ended but it shifted the Center of Islam from the cosmopolitan world of The Eastern Mediterranean and up towards the historically violent Turkic World of Central Asia (In addition to the Timurian State in Central Asia, Mongols and their allies ruled two of the great Islamic empires of the last eight centuries. There was the Muhgal Empire in India and Pakistan and there was the Ottoman Empire. There was also a strong Turkic influence in Persian so between those four polities, most of the old Caliphates were ruled by Turko-Mongols).
Before the sacking of Baghdad, Islam was liberal and shaped by Jewish (or I suppose you could phrase it as Judeo-Islamic) concepts of individual rights and dignity, Greek Philosophy and Scientific Inquiry, Arabian commercial spirit and Ancient Persian style state craft and its relatively low levels of corruption and and it tradition of ethnic and religious tolerance and pluralism. After the sack it seems like the values from the Golden Age of Islam became over whelmed by a more conservative Central Asian ethos of violence, disdain for commerce, abundant superstition and rampant tribalism. Islam has a civilizing effect on the societies that adopt it but certain ethnic groups that adopted Islam were so barbaric when they did convert that Islam's civilizing effects could only do so much (especially without a Central religious authority that could bring true Islam and true Sharia Law to the societies that converted after the fall of the Caliphate).
The spectacle of court sanctioned gang rapes in Pashtun lands and clitorectomies (also called "female circumcision") in West Africa and honor killings elsewhere all combine to create the impression, for people in the West, that Islam causes these things to happen when that sort of brutality predates Islam's arrival in that society. Without Islam those same people would probably be more brutal in how they choose to administer their societies. In my view, speaking as someone who defends and admires a great about Islam, Muslims should implore other Muslims to give up their violent tribal practices and in favor of Islam's very liberal, fair and forgiving justice system of Sharia (I tell fellow Westerners that under Sharia law, they will chop off the hand of a thief but first they must meet a burden of proof that is almost impossible to meet and then the thief must be fully and completely recalcitrant and/or unable or unwilling to make restitutions to the person from whom he stole). In the interim in would seem like a good idea to hammer home the point to non Muslims that often times when a Muslim does something vicious in the name of Islamic Law, he is actually violating Islamic law and applying his local, pre Islamic legal system and he is not applying actual Sharia law.
So my question is for Muslims is whether or not you would like their to be more centralized religious leadership, based on the model of the Caliph during the Golden Age?
The reason I ask this is because it seems like Islam's golden age was literally stamped out when the Mongols sacked Baghdad and trampled the Caliph under the foot of their horses. Not only was the unofficial capital of Islamiya sacked and the Caliphate ended but it shifted the Center of Islam from the cosmopolitan world of The Eastern Mediterranean and up towards the historically violent Turkic World of Central Asia (In addition to the Timurian State in Central Asia, Mongols and their allies ruled two of the great Islamic empires of the last eight centuries. There was the Muhgal Empire in India and Pakistan and there was the Ottoman Empire. There was also a strong Turkic influence in Persian so between those four polities, most of the old Caliphates were ruled by Turko-Mongols).
Before the sacking of Baghdad, Islam was liberal and shaped by Jewish (or I suppose you could phrase it as Judeo-Islamic) concepts of individual rights and dignity, Greek Philosophy and Scientific Inquiry, Arabian commercial spirit and Ancient Persian style state craft and its relatively low levels of corruption and and it tradition of ethnic and religious tolerance and pluralism. After the sack it seems like the values from the Golden Age of Islam became over whelmed by a more conservative Central Asian ethos of violence, disdain for commerce, abundant superstition and rampant tribalism. Islam has a civilizing effect on the societies that adopt it but certain ethnic groups that adopted Islam were so barbaric when they did convert that Islam's civilizing effects could only do so much (especially without a Central religious authority that could bring true Islam and true Sharia Law to the societies that converted after the fall of the Caliphate).
The spectacle of court sanctioned gang rapes in Pashtun lands and clitorectomies (also called "female circumcision") in West Africa and honor killings elsewhere all combine to create the impression, for people in the West, that Islam causes these things to happen when that sort of brutality predates Islam's arrival in that society. Without Islam those same people would probably be more brutal in how they choose to administer their societies. In my view, speaking as someone who defends and admires a great about Islam, Muslims should implore other Muslims to give up their violent tribal practices and in favor of Islam's very liberal, fair and forgiving justice system of Sharia (I tell fellow Westerners that under Sharia law, they will chop off the hand of a thief but first they must meet a burden of proof that is almost impossible to meet and then the thief must be fully and completely recalcitrant and/or unable or unwilling to make restitutions to the person from whom he stole). In the interim in would seem like a good idea to hammer home the point to non Muslims that often times when a Muslim does something vicious in the name of Islamic Law, he is actually violating Islamic law and applying his local, pre Islamic legal system and he is not applying actual Sharia law.
So my question is for Muslims is whether or not you would like their to be more centralized religious leadership, based on the model of the Caliph during the Golden Age?
- 836
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
This video was interesting to me, would like to hear some NT'rs confirm this.
- 836
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
This video was interesting to me, would like to hear some NT'rs confirm this.