[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by King-Panther)
http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/s...otational.html

So, how would that help determining whether or not a shape is prolate or oblate?

The whole crux of islams argument that the quran is a source of science hinges on ....? -

...the shape of eggs.

This is why islam isnt taken seriously, regardless of its content, muslims without the cranial capacity to have a valid debate

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Well look. You say the verse is talking about the origin of the human species. I think the verse applies to each individual, not just Adam. You're not going to convince me otherwise just by asserting it, for the fourth time or the four hundredth time. Regardless of what you think the verse means, you haven't demonstrated a conflict between the Qur'an and evolution, because there are other ways a person can understand the verse besides the interpretation you are championing so valiantly.

All you're doing is disproving a belief that I don't even hold. It's a pointless exercise.

Can we jsut clarify your assertion then, that you are now discrediting the belief that Adam was the first human being, as claimed by the quran?
Im talking about islam here, If you are denying that, you are denying a quranic principle.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

Unjustified assertion about "copying".
Pagan religions are partially true, not entirely false.

How do you know what part is false and what is true - perhaps you have it the wrong way round - isnt there a possibilty of that?

(Original post by tazarooni89)

The reasoning is that God is the author of the Qur'an, and knows the details mroe accurately than anyone who may have heard the story before. The Qur'an's idea of Jesus is different to that of the Bible. But it is reasoned in the Qur'an that Jesus isn't the son of God, not just arbitrarily stated.

Yes but thats not what i asked, you claime the enua elish was also a divine revaltion for 'islam' despite being form a poleyeithist religion (and even though i know muslims and islam apart from yoursef dont beleive that) Both it and the quran had to be written by men, where has your reasoining come from that the EE was altered by man, but the quran not?

(Original post by tazarooni89)

It only sounds far-fetched to you because you don't believe the stories are true. If two people write the same fictional story, it's pretty likely one copied from the other. But if two people write the same true story, then it's not so likely.

If both stories are true, why change the names of the protaganists that existed for 2000+ years, to names that happen to be more current to the time of the wirtings of ot/bible/quran etc?

(Original post by tazarooni89)
No, incorrect. Any variant copy of the full Qur'an was purely a case of variant pronunciation arising from ambiguous spelling. Whoever has told you this stuff about the Qur'an commanding different prayer directions has just made it up.

The hadeeths state muslims had versions of the quran post mohammed that had verses that didnt exist in other copies, then they were all destroyed, but one- so islam is telling me that, are you saying islam is making things up now?

(Original post by tazarooni89)

Humans who understand Arabic spelling can tell you which Qur'an's words are spelt correctly and which one's aren't. No authority or power or scholarship is needed for that.

arabic spelling was created for the purpose of writing the qurans, it didnt exist before that. Equally over 1300 years, there is various dialects of arabic that have evolved, so simply knowing 'arabic' doesnt mean by any stretch can understand the quran. The established translations of picthall, marmaduke, yusuf etc all prodce different wordings for various verses.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

Well they are wrong then. In the entire Qur'an there is not one single verse which "abrogates" another. Any Muslim who has gone through the Qur'an knows this.

Are you denying now aborgation the in quran didnt ever occur?

(Original post by tazarooni89)

What "evidential scripture" might this be?
Also - just because other Muslims accept something means I have to accept it too? That's just ridiculous.

The whole principle of islam is ridiculous i not going ot argue with that, but that preciusley is what makes islam - if you didnt have any scholars and caliphs ever to make up rules, how would you as a muslim know how many times to pray a day, that you cant drink beer but can drink coffee, to get circumcision as a child etc??

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
Can we jsut clarify your assertion then, that you are now discrediting the belief that Adam was the first human being, as claimed by the quran?
Im talking about islam here, If you are denying that, you are denying a quranic principle.

No. I'm saying that the Qur'an describes Adam correctly. But you describe the Qur'an's description of Adam incorrectly.

How do you know what part is false and what is true - perhaps you have it the wrong way round - isnt there a possibilty of that?

I don't know what part is false and what part is true - God is the one who knows that.

Yes but thats not what i asked, you claime the enua elish was also a divine revaltion for 'islam' despite being form a poleyeithist religion (and even though i know muslims and islam apart from yoursef dont beleive that) Both it and the quran had to be written by men, where has your reasoining come from that the EE was altered by man, but the quran not?

I'm not claiming anything about the enuma elish. I have no idea where it actually came from. I've just given you several examples of where it could have come from, which are consistent with Islam.

e.g. Written by God, altered by man
or: Written by man with influence from other things that God has revealed
or: Simply written by man.

The enuma elish creation account is nothing like the Islamic one anyway. So the third option is pretty feasible.

If both stories are true, why change the names of the protaganists that existed for 2000+ years, to names that happen to be more current to the time of the wirtings of ot/bible/quran etc?

In some cases, it's for the same reason that Christians call their central figure "Jesus", instead of "Yeshua", which is what his mother would have called him. It's just a Romanisation of the name - in effect, a translation into the language the entire book is being read in.

In other cases, as with any detail, the Qur'an is correcting the previous narrative on something that it had got wrong (due to human influence on the text).

Why do you think the names of some of the people in the various narratives are different?

The hadeeths state muslims had versions of the quran post mohammed that had verses that didnt exist in other copies, then they were all destroyed, but one- so islam is telling me that, are you saying islam is making things up now?

Which hadiths are you referring to, exactly?
And yes, some Hadiths are inaccurate and/or fabricated.

arabic spelling was created for the purpose of writing the qurans, it didnt exist before that. Equally over 1300 years, there is various dialects of arabic that have evolved, so simply knowing 'arabic' doesnt mean by any stretch can understand the quran. The established translations of picthall, marmaduke, yusuf etc all prodce different wordings for various verses.

This is all irrelevant. I know that some Arabic words and phrases have more than one possible English equivalent. I know that there are now various dialects of Arabic.

The point is, the Qur'an was revealed in the Arabic dialect of the Quraysh tribe. So anyone who knew this form of Arabic would be able to tell "That person is pronouncing the words incorrectly", and insert diacritical marks into the text to make the pronunciation less ambiguous to the reader who is unfamiliar with this language.

Are you denying now aborgation the in quran didnt ever occur?

Yes. If by "abrogation", you mean that some verses were altered, or that some verses are contradicted by others, and the more recent one supersedes the older one - then yes, I am denying that. There is no such thing found in the Qur'an.

The whole principle of islam is ridiculous i not going ot argue with that, but that preciusley is what makes islam - if you didnt have any scholars and caliphs ever to make up rules, how would you as a muslim know how many times to pray a day, that you cant drink beer but can drink coffee, to get circumcision as a child etc??

By reading the Qur'an, and authentic Hadith?

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
No. I'm saying that the Qur'an describes Adam correctly. But you describe the Qur'an's description of Adam incorrectly.

You agree quran describes creation of adam from moulded clay and mud. You also agree quran states adam was the first human created - therefore story of adam IS the Qurans story of human creation. Your pedantry in refusing to admit this fact then is baffling and illogical.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

I don't know what part is false and what part is true - God is the one who knows that.

I'm not claiming anything about the enuma elish. I have no idea where it actually came from. I've just given you several examples of where it could have come from, which are consistent with Islam.

e.g. Written by God, altered by man
or: Written by man with influence from other things that God has revealed
or: Simply written by man.

The enuma elish creation account is nothing like the Islamic one anyway. So the third option is pretty feasible.

If you "dont know which part is false and which is true", how can you be sure you are following it all the right way round?

The EE contains a great deal of what is stated in quran, including the precursors of rudimentary embryology that quran goes on about. Other Sumerian scripture also demonstrates various other quranic stories have copied from sumerians and their successors, the babylonians. In terms of science, its clear the quran copies many ancient greek works.
How can man change a divine revalation, surely a normal man doesnt have the power to get away with this?
Besides who do you think it was that physically wrote down the words of the quran on paper for you read, and the hadiths? Is it not men ? SO how can you be sure that these are not interferred with of the original revalation as you put, but are so sure that the EE and related ancient scriptures were not in their original revealed state in the first place? Seems illogical

(Original post by tazarooni89)

Which hadiths are you referring to, exactly?
And yes, some Hadiths are inaccurate and/or fabricated.

This is all irrelevant. I know that some Arabic words and phrases have more than one possible English equivalent. I know that there are now various dialects of Arabic.

The point is, the Qur'an was revealed in the Arabic dialect of the Quraysh tribe. So anyone who knew this form of Arabic would be able to tell "That person is pronouncing the words incorrectly", and insert diacritical marks into the text to make the pronunciation less ambiguous to the reader who is unfamiliar with this language.

Even though it was said to be revelaed in Quraysh, islamic scholars accpet there are 7 or even 10 differnet versions even today, no? That could not have come about without human intervention in writing of the quran. Although you call it simply "That person is pronouncing the words incorrectly" - the facts are the differences are mar more marked and significant hence why differences in meanings in verses such as

" (9:3)
That God and his apostle dissolve obligations with the pagans

That God dissolves obligations with the pagans and the apostle. "




We also know in various record there were well over 70 compilers of the original qurans (s) who couldnt have all produced the exact same version of the quran (which we know they didnt - hnece why uthman demanding there be a single version used and al others destroyed).
And the sanaa Yemeini version that has discovered to be the oldest existing partial version of the quran was shown to have difference to the standard uthmanic quran mulims use to today.

in terms of which hadith you queried -

Sahih Bukhari. Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510, the story about Muslim soldiers arguing about different versions of the Qur’an reads as follows:

"Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur'an, so he asked 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Qur’an as Jews and the Christians did before."

showing there were different qurans going around post mohammed. How do you know the version you have right now is the 100% correct one. As far as we know there was only one version of the Enma Elish ever, so that in itself lends more to its credibilty than the altered stories in the quran.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

Yes. If by "abrogation", you mean that some verses were altered, or that some verses are contradicted by others, and the more recent one supersedes the older one - then yes, I am denying that. There is no such thing found in the Qur'an.

I think you are going round in circles - fine, what is it you understand by the abrogation under taken on the quran?

(Original post by tazarooni89)
By reading the Qur'an, and authentic Hadith?

Again, who wrote the hadith, was it not the scholars and caliphs themselves? Who commissed the writing of the version of the quran you currently read - was it not he first caliph?

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
You agree quran describes creation of adam from moulded clay and mud. You also agree quran states adam was the first human created - therefore story of adam IS the Qurans story of human creation. Your pedantry in refusing to admit this fact then is baffling and illogical.

No, I agree with what the Qur'an actually says. I just don't agree with the meaning that you're putting on it. For example, I agree with the description of Adam being created of moulded clay/earth, but I don't agree with your inference that this means that he had no ancestors.

If you "dont know which part is false and which is true", how can you be sure you are following it all the right way round?

Because its author is someone who does know which part is false and which part is true. It's like saying "if you don't know much about physics and then you read a physics textbook, how do you know what it is telling you is true?"

You read the book to find out what is true and what is false. You're not expected to know from beforehand. Otherwise what is the point in having the book?

The EE contains a great deal of what is stated in quran, including the precursors of rudimentary embryology that quran goes on about. Other Sumerian scripture also demonstrates various other quranic stories have copied from sumerians and their successors, the babylonians. In terms of science, its clear the quran copies many ancient greek works.

Can you show me?

How can man change a divine revalation, surely a normal man doesnt have the power to get away with this?

Why wouldn't they? Take a revelation, take out some of the words and write in your own. It's not that difficult.

Besides who do you think it was that physically wrote down the words of the quran on paper for you read, and the hadiths? Is it not men ? SO how can you be sure that these are not interferred with of the original revalation as you put, but are so sure that the EE and related ancient scriptures were not in their original revealed state in the first place? Seems illogical

With regards to the EE, as I said, I'm not sure about anything. I've just given you examples. I have no belief as to what its origin might be.

As for the Qur'an, yes, men put it onto paper originally. But before it was on paper, it still existed in everyone's memories. People used to memorise it. Muhammad knew the entire thing off by heart, and supervised the original transcriptions. So if someone was changing it or making mistakes, they would have been easy to spot.

Even though it was said to be revelaed in Quraysh, islamic scholars accpet there are 7 or even 10 differnet versions even today, no?

No

Although you call it simply "That person is pronouncing the words incorrectly" - the facts are the differences are mar more marked and significant hence why differences in meanings in verses such as

" (9:3)
That God and his apostle dissolve obligations with the pagans

That God dissolves obligations with the pagans and the apostle. "

These are two alternative translations of a single Arabic verse - not two different Arabic verses.

We also know in various record there were well over 70 compilers of the original qurans (s) who couldnt have all produced the exact same version of the quran (which we know they didnt - hnece why uthman demanding there be a single version used and al others destroyed).
And the sanaa Yemeini version that has discovered to be the oldest existing partial version of the quran was shown to have difference to the standard uthmanic quran mulims use to today.

in terms of which hadith you queried -

Sahih Bukhari. Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510, the story about Muslim soldiers arguing about different versions of the Qur’an reads as follows:

"Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur'an, so he asked 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Qur’an as Jews and the Christians did before."

showing there were different qurans going around post mohammed. How do you know the version you have right now is the 100% correct one. As far as we know there was only one version of the Enma Elish ever, so that in itself lends more to its credibilty than the altered stories in the quran.

It says different "recitations" of the Qur'an. Not different "versions".
A different recitation is when two people pronounce the same word differently - not when two people are reading two different words. This is nothing other than what I've already told you about.

The only difference between copies of the Qur'an were diacritical marks, to clarify the correct pronunciation of each word.

I think you are going round in circles - fine, what is it you understand by the abrogation under taken on the quran?

I don't believe there has been any such thing as "abrogation" in the Qur'an.

What has happened in the Qur'an though, is that some commandments are more specific than others. For example, an early commandment was "don't pray while drunk". A later commandment was "don't drink". The first commandment hasn't been abrogated, as such. It's just included in the second one now.

Abrogation in the sense of changing commandments, making what used to be prohibited in the Qur'an permissible (and vice versa) doesn't exist. You can see that easily just by looking through the whole thing.

Again, who wrote the hadith, was it not the scholars and caliphs themselves? Who commissed the writing of the version of the quran you currently read - was it not he first caliph?

Yes, men wrote the Hadiths, which is why I don't take anything you quote from the Hadith as gospel truth.
No, the first Caliph didn't commission the writing of the Qur'an - Muhammad himself did.

[Nightstar-27]

That's not Islam specifically, it says in the bible and Torah that the world was made in 6 days.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
No, I agree with what the Qur'an actually says. I just don't agree with the meaning that you're putting on it. For example, I agree with the description of Adam being created of moulded clay/earth, but I don't agree with your inference that this means that he had no ancestors.

You accept all that but are trying to refute the islamic belief that Adam was the first human created ? - therefore symbolising the quranic theory of human creation/evolution. Youve gone back to strawmen.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Because its author is someone who does know which part is false and which part is true. It's like saying "if you don't know much about physics and then you read a physics textbook, how do you know what it is telling you is true?"

You read the book to find out what is true and what is false. You're not expected to know from beforehand. Otherwise what is the point in having the book?

A physics book is proven both scientifically and empirically – hence why its used to teach students (like you ) I schools all over the world. If it isnt then it isnt a valid scientific source. Show me where the quran has been proven as such. SO far all we know is that the quran took the bulk of its writings from scripture of earlier civilisations

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Can you show me?

Show you what? Didnt I already refer to the quranic stories of cane & abel, Adam, the great flood, abrhamas sacrifice etc etc that had all had origins in sumerian polyethist religious scripture? And the re-writing of greek sciences?

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Why wouldn't they? Take a revelation, take out some of the words and write in your own. It's not that difficult.

If it isnt difficult, why couldnt that have happened to mohammeds 'revalation' ? Isnt that exactly what Uthman did ( regardless of stated motives)

The Cambridge History of Islam:

"Uthman was accused of religious innovation: he authorized an official version of the Qur'an and had all other copies burned. As the Qur'an reciters had enormous influence over the masses, this action helped to assert the hegemony of the caliphate in religious affairs and to further the unification of the empire."

(Original post by tazarooni89)
With regards to the EE, as I said, I'm not sure about anything. I've just given you examples. I have no belief as to what its origin might be.

As for the Qur'an, yes, men put it onto paper originally. But before it was on paper, it still existed in everyone's memories. People used to memorise it. Muhammad knew the entire thing off by heart, and supervised the original transcriptions. So if someone was changing it or making mistakes, they would have been easy to spot.

Why would it? The quran wasnt actually written till many decades after mohammeds death, who exactly would be spotting amendments? We also know at least 70 different people were writing qurans based on his narrations – who was spot checking their work?

(Original post by tazarooni89)
No

So now you have moved on to refute the 7 (or 10 ) different transmissions of the quran – which are shown to have been the only way the quran has been carried through to modern times ?
The example I gave of two different quranic verses were due to the use of different transmissions

(Original post by tazarooni89)
These are two alternative translations of a single Arabic verse - not two different Arabic verses.

It says different "recitations" of the Qur'an. Not different "versions".
A different recitation is when two people pronounce the same word differently - not when two people are reading two different words. This is nothing other than what I've already told you about.

The only difference between copies of the Qur'an were diacritical marks, to clarify the correct pronunciation of each word.

Different recitations create different versions. The example I showed showed two different meanings of the same verse, both in books calling themselves the quran. Different verses cumulate to different chapters, rules, practices, beleifs etc . Clealry having different versions want accpetable to uthman, which is why he chose one particualr version to standardise islam by. but that in itslef applied his human atleration ot the practice of islam did it not.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

I don't believe there has been any such thing as "abrogation" in the Qur'an.

What has happened in the Qur'an though, is that some commandments are more specific than others. For example, an early commandment was "don't pray while drunk". A later commandment was "don't drink". The first commandment hasn't been abrogated, as such. It's just included in the second one now.

Abrogation in the sense of changing commandments, making what used to be prohibited in the Qur'an permissible (and vice versa) doesn't exist. You can see that easily just by looking through the whole thing.

Yeh, what you just described there is actually called abrogation. For a commandment to be changed or superceeded from “don't pray while drunk" to "don't drink" can only have been dome by action of a man, 'scholar' caliph or whoever – clearly not mohammed, precisely the people that you said you didnt follow.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Yes, men wrote the Hadiths, which is why I don't take anything you quote from the Hadith as gospel truth.
No, the first Caliph didn't commission the writing of the Qur'an - Muhammad himself did.

If you dont hadith take as gospel, why follow its stated ritual for prayer, circumcision and about a thousand other islamic practices and beliefs that arnt referred to in the quran i Accpet those that rely on hadiths are relying on 3rd person statment of opinion- but that is what islam is all about as i stated before - only if mohammed had survived 1300 years, you could be confident about what he said.

Mohammed didnt commission writing of any quran- hence why one wasbt written till decades after he was gone. The fact you have a quran today is entirely due to the chain of events influenced and overseen by various, perhaps hundreds of men, whereas we understand that the was only ever one version of the EE, epic of gilgamesh etc, which you say the quran was trying to correct. Which quran?

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
You accept all that but are trying to refute the islamic belief that Adam was the first human created ? - therefore symbolising the quranic theory of human creation/evolution. Youve gone back to strawmen.

How is that a strawman?

Show you what? Didnt I already refer to the quranic stories of cane & abel, Adam, the great flood, abrhamas sacrifice etc etc that had all had origins in sumerian polyethist religious scripture? And the re-writing of greek sciences?

Yes, you've told me about it, but you haven't shown me. For example, I looked at the enuma elish creation, and it's nothing like the Islamic one. I want to see these greek scientific works and stories about the great flood that you're talking about - to see whether it really is feasible that the Qur'an "copies" from them, or if they're just totally different things.

If it isnt difficult, why couldnt that have happened to mohammeds 'revalation' ? Isnt that exactly what Uthman did ( regardless of stated motives)

The Cambridge History of Islam:

"Uthman was accused of religious innovation: he authorized an official version of the Qur'an and had all other copies burned. As the Qur'an reciters had enormous influence over the masses, this action helped to assert the hegemony of the caliphate in religious affairs and to further the unification of the empire."

I'm sure he was accused of religious innovation. That doesn't mean he was actually guilty of it.

Why would it? The quran wasnt actually written till many decades after mohammeds death, who exactly would be spotting amendments? We also know at least 70 different people were writing qurans based on his narrations – who was spot checking their work?

No, the first transcriptions of the Qur'an were done under Muhammad's own supervision - not decades after his death.

So now you have moved on to refute the 7 (or 10 ) different transmissions of the quran – which are shown to have been the only way the quran has been carried through to modern times ?
The example I gave of two different quranic verses were due to the use of different transmissions

Different translations*

Yeh, what you just described there is actually called abrogation. For a commandment to be changed or superceeded from “don't pray while drunk" to "don't drink" can only have been dome by action of a man, 'scholar' caliph or whoever – clearly not mohammed, precisely the people that you said you didnt follow.

No, it was done by God himself.
What I describes isn't called "abrogation". Abrogation involves a commandment which used to be applicable no longer being applicable. A law is actually changed, rather than merely added to.
It is still sinful to pray while drunk. But in addition, it is also sinful to drink.

If you dont hadith take as gospel, why follow its stated ritual for prayer, circumcision and about a thousand other islamic practices and beliefs that arnt referred to in the quran i Accpet those that rely on hadiths are relying on 3rd person statment of opinion- but that is what islam is all about as i stated before - only if mohammed had survived 1300 years, you could be confident about what he said.

I follow the Hadith's stated ritual for prayer because there is no other more reliable source of information about exactly how to pray.

Mohammed didnt commission writing of any quran- hence why one wasbt written till decades after he was gone. The fact you have a quran today is entirely due to the chain of events influenced and overseen by various, perhaps hundreds of men, whereas we understand that the was only ever one version of the EE, epic of gilgamesh etc, which you say the quran was trying to correct. Which quran?

This is just false.
Initially, transcriptions of the Qur'an were written under Muhammad's own supervision, not decades after he was gone. And though Qur'ans with incorrect diacritical marks have existed, it has never been unclear as to which were correct and which weren't. Just like, if someone produces a copy of the Qur'an today but makes a mistake, we'd know they had made a mistake as soon as we saw it. We have the correct Qur'an to compare it against. There has only ever been one universally accepted Qur'an.


I must say, it is very difficult to discuss this with you when so many of your points are just based on false/made up information.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
How is that a strawman? .

Becuase you are now trying to denying the quranic statment that adam was suppossedly the first human, that point has been repated to you on this thread and each time you have avoided commenting on that fact, whcih shows the islamic view on evolution of man. It is the action of the ostrich sticking its head in the sand.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
I'm sure he was accused of religious innovation. That doesn't mean he was actually guilty of it. .

SO why do you think ealrier civilisations were guilty of 'religious innovation' but no muslims has been re the quran (uthman for example) when there is far more eividence and comment to suggest he for example, was.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
No, the first transcriptions of the Qur'an were done under Muhammad's own supervision - not decades after his death. .

Nope, his followers either memorised or wrote parts of what he said in a non arabic language on animal bones and skins . they werent trasncript of the quran, the quran didnt exist till long after mohammed had gone.

And i see you have ignored half the points of my last post - the fact that there are still versionsof the quran that say different things - liek the verse i gave you in a example.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
No, it was done by God himself.
What I describes isn't called "abrogation". Abrogation involves a commandment which used to be applicable no longer being applicable. A law is actually changed, rather than merely added to.
It is still sinful to pray while drunk. But in addition, it is also sinful to drink. .

The law was changed- orginally you can drink, as long as you dont get drubnk for prayer. I was changed to a full ban on drink.
Why not just say it is sinful to drink full stop - why you you need then to refer to being drunk when in prayer? Ridiculous assertion that there would be this mistake made by any high power other than a normal man, that changed the writings at some later stage.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

I follow the Hadith's stated ritual for prayer because there is no other more reliable source of information about exactly how to pray. .

Then why were you circumcised?

(Original post by tazarooni89)
This is just false.
Initially, transcriptions of the Qur'an were written under Muhammad's own supervision, not decades after he was gone. And though Qur'ans with incorrect diacritical marks have existed, it has never been unclear as to which were correct and which weren't. Just like, if someone produces a copy of the Qur'an today but makes a mistake, we'd know they had made a mistake as soon as we saw it. We have the correct Qur'an to compare it against. There has only ever been one universally accepted Qur'an. .

Then where did the earlier quranic scripts found in Yemen come from - still no answer on this? It doesn not fully agree with your current "universal quran" I agree uthman tried to create a univeral quran, of his own choosing, but only by destroying the original qurans written from those under " mohammeds supervision" Only uthman and later caliphs were invloved in alter publication of the quran and hadiths.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

I must say, it is very difficult to discuss this with you when so many of your points are just based on false information.

I was going to say the same about you, conversely you have provided zero evidence that there was only 1 unique quran, and that it has not been copied from ealrier sources, or that no one has later made amendments.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
Becuase you are now trying to denying the quranic statment that adam was suppossedly the first human, that point has been repated to you on this thread and each time you have avoided commenting on that fact, whcih shows the islamic view on evolution of man. It is the action of the ostrich sticking its head in the sand.

That's not what a "strawman" is.
The point has been repeated to me, but it isn't true. What else is there to comment on?

SO why do you think ealrier civilisations were guilty of 'religious innovation' but no muslims has been re the quran (uthman for example) when there is far more eividence and comment to suggest he for example, was.

Because the evidence you've provided to suggest that he was isn't sufficient.
Given the Islamic attitude of Qur'anic memorisation and preservation, it would have been impossible to innovate a new one. (As you can see, with Qur'ans being strictly destroyed for incorrect spelling).

Nope, his followers either memorised or wrote parts of what he said in a non arabic language on animal bones and skins . they werent trasncript of the quran, the quran didnt exist till long after mohammed had gone.

Like I said, this isn't true.

And i see you have ignored half the points of my last post - the fact that there are still versionsof the quran that say different things - liek the verse i gave you in a example.

I haven't ignored it. I replied to you - there are translations of the Qur'an which say different things. One Arabic phrase can have two english translations, for example. There is only one version of the actual Qur'an. Try finding two Arabic Qur'ans with different words in them.

The law was changed- orginally you can drink, as long as you dont get drubnk for prayer. I was changed to a full ban on drink.
Why not just say it is sinful to drink full stop - why you you need then to refer to being drunk when in prayer? Ridiculous assertion that there would be this mistake made by any high power other than a normal man, that changed the writings at some later stage.

No, the law was never "you can drink". The Qur'an never says anywhere that people are allowed to drink.

Then why were you circumcised?

It wasn't my decision.

Then where did the earlier quranic scripts found in Yemen come from - still no answer on this? It doesn not fully agree with your current "universal quran" I agree uthman tried to create a univeral quran, of his own choosing, but only by destroying the original qurans written from those under " mohammeds supervision" Only uthman and later caliphs were invloved in alter publication of the quran and hadiths.

Which earlier Qur'anic scripts found in Yemen?
He didn't destroy anything written under Muhammad's supervision. He destroyed copies of the Qur'an which had incorrect diacritical marks added in, and created a Qur'an with the correct diacritical marks, which agreed with that which was written under Muhammad's supervision.

I was going to say the same about you, conversely you have provided zero evidence that there was only 1 unique quran, and that it has not been copied from ealrier sources, or that no one has later made amendments.

I'm just saying that only one correct Qur'an has ever been known of - the same as what you're saying about the enuma elish. If you dispute that, it's up to you to find variant Qur'ans. What you have found isn't sufficient.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
That's not what a "strawman" is.
The point has been repeated to me, but it isn't true. What else is there to comment on? .

You strawman was to extend your theory to embyology etc, you are using the ostrich method (and embarrassing yourself doing so)- now you are claiming that islam doesnt state adam was the first human- that is complete falsehood is it not- youve yet to directly answer that..

[QUOTE=tazarooni89;37157274]

SO why do you think ealrier civilisations were guilty of 'religious innovation' but no muslims has been re the quran (uthman for example) when there is far more evidence and comment to suggest he for example, was.
Like I said, this isn't true.

.

Again, by what evidence?

(Original post by tazarooni89)
I haven't ignored it. I replied to you - there are translations of the Qur'an which say different things. One Arabic phrase can have two english translations, for example. There is only one version of the actual Qur'an. Try finding two Arabic Qur'ans with different words in them.
.

SO how do you know which is the one that mohammed meant? The facts are you dont.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

No, the law was never "you can drink". The Qur'an never says anywhere that people are allowed to drink.
.

Orignally The quran never said you cant drink alchohol, it only ever refers to wine . It was abrogation that prohibitted all drinking.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

It wasn't my decision. .

It was an islamic decsion - how many muslims dont practice circumcision?

(Original post by tazarooni89)


Which earlier Qur'anic scripts found in Yemen?
He didn't destroy anything written under Muhammad's supervision. He destroyed copies of the Qur'an which had incorrect diacritical marks added in, and created a Qur'an with the correct diacritical marks, which agreed with that which was written under Muhammad's supervision. .

Read my earlier post, like i said, instead of ignoring points you cant answer.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

I'm just saying that only one correct Qur'an has ever been known of - the same as what you're saying about the enuma elish. If you dispute that, it's up to you to find variant Qur'ans. What you have found isn't sufficient.

How do you know that, there is no evidence to back that claim up is there? There is more evidence that suggests the opposite- whether you agree with it or not.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
You strawman was to extend your theory to embyology etc, you are using the ostrich method (and embarrassing yourself doing so)- now you are claiming that islam doesnt state adam was the first human- that is complete falsehood is it not- youve yet to directly answer that.

As I said, that's not what a strawman is.
Here's your direct answer: Where does the Qur'an explicitly say "Adam was the first human"?

SO how do you know which is the one that mohammed meant? The facts are you dont.

The one which Muhammad meant is the one in which all the Arabic words were spelt correctly. There has only ever been one of those.

Orignally The quran never said you cant drink alchohol, it only ever refers to wine . It was abrogation that prohibitted all drinking.

Sounds like you haven't read the Qur'an then.

It was an islamic decsion - how many muslims dont practice circumcision?

Lots. It isn't a universally performed practice.

Read my earlier post, like i said, instead of ignoring points you cant answer.

I have read all your posts. I'm asking you - what earlier Qur'anic scripts found in Yemen? Can you show me exactly what words are in these scripts that are not in our modern Qur'ans?

How do you know that, there is no evidence to back that claim up is there? There is more evidence that suggests the opposite- whether you agree with it or not.

If there is evidence that suggests the opposite, you haven't given it.

[Riz10]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
You agree quran describes creation of adam from moulded clay and mud. You also agree quran states adam was the first human created - therefore story of adam IS the Qurans story of human creation. Your pedantry in refusing to admit this fact then is baffling and illogical.





If you "dont know which part is false and which is true", how can you be sure you are following it all the right way round?

The EE contains a great deal of what is stated in quran, including the precursors of rudimentary embryology that quran goes on about. Other Sumerian scripture also demonstrates various other quranic stories have copied from sumerians and their successors, the babylonians. In terms of science, its clear the quran copies many ancient greek works.
How can man change a divine revalation, surely a normal man doesnt have the power to get away with this?
Besides who do you think it was that physically wrote down the words of the quran on paper for you read, and the hadiths? Is it not men ? SO how can you be sure that these are not interferred with of the original revalation as you put, but are so sure that the EE and related ancient scriptures were not in their original revealed state in the first place? Seems illogical






Even though it was said to be revelaed in Quraysh, islamic scholars accpet there are 7 or even 10 differnet versions even today, no? That could not have come about without human intervention in writing of the quran. Although you call it simply "That person is pronouncing the words incorrectly" - the facts are the differences are mar more marked and significant hence why differences in meanings in verses such as

" (9:3)
That God and his apostle dissolve obligations with the pagans

That God dissolves obligations with the pagans and the apostle. "




We also know in various record there were well over 70 compilers of the original qurans (s) who couldnt have all produced the exact same version of the quran (which we know they didnt - hnece why uthman demanding there be a single version used and al others destroyed).
And the sanaa Yemeini version that has discovered to be the oldest existing partial version of the quran was shown to have difference to the standard uthmanic quran mulims use to today.

in terms of which hadith you queried -

Sahih Bukhari. Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510, the story about Muslim soldiers arguing about different versions of the Qur’an reads as follows:

"Hudhaifa was afraid of the different recitations of the Qur'an, so he asked 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Qur’an as Jews and the Christians did before."

showing there were different qurans going around post mohammed. How do you know the version you have right now is the 100% correct one. As far as we know there was only one version of the Enma Elish ever, so that in itself lends more to its credibilty than the altered stories in the quran.






I think you are going round in circles - fine, what is it you understand by the abrogation under taken on the quran?





Again, who wrote the hadith, was it not the scholars and caliphs themselves? Who commissed the writing of the version of the quran you currently read - was it not he first caliph?

You obviously dont know what a hadith is!

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
As I said, that's not what a strawman is.
Here's your direct answer: Where does the Qur'an explicitly say "Adam was the first human"?

.

Where does the quran 'explicity say anything muslims beleive?

doesnt the quran state that man would be created on earth, then adam was created - out of clay?

Again, you are stating now the belief that adam was the first man on earth is now a lie? - interesting you have spent so long avoiding answering that question.


"Having been created, Adam, the first man, is described as having been given domination over all the lower creatures, which he proceeds to name. Adam is seen as a prophet in Islam. When the angels were ordered to bow to Adam one of those present, Satan, the chief of the Djinn, who said "why should I bow to man, I am made of pure fire and he is made of soil", refuses due to his pride, and is summarily banished "

Thats wikis paraphrase of the islamic belief about adam and eve (hawwa)

And even if you disagree with muslims on this, why would you then beleive that a man, later in human evolutionery cycle, can be created out of mud and clay, as stated in the quran?

(Original post by tazarooni89)

The one which Muhammad meant is the one in which all the Arabic words were spelt correctly. There has only ever been one of those.
.

How do you know that arabic words were 'spelt correctly', written arabic didnt exist till after moahmmed death?

(Original post by tazarooni89)

Sounds like you haven't read the Qur'an then. .

Me or you? Show me where the quran uses the word 'alchohol' If you have read it, you would know only wine is referred to specifically in any ayat

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Lots. It isn't a universally performed practice. .

rubbish

(Original post by tazarooni89)
I have read all your posts. I'm asking you - what earlier Qur'anic scripts found in Yemen? Can you show me exactly what words are in these scripts that are not in our modern Qur'ans? .

Read Puins study of the Saana version of the quranic scriptures, in which he identifies various differences, including a different order of the surahs to the uthmanic quran

And i dont see why that should surprise you -

doesnt the quran that your read state- "Any verse (sign or revelation) that We edit or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it."

If you believe this verse, then you surely believe and expect that the quran will be altered on a regular basis over time and not to be suspicious about it, no?

(Original post by tazarooni89)

If there is evidence that suggests the opposite, you haven't given it.

But you dont want to provide any evidence of the oppossite of what i have provided - or is their actually none?

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
No it doesn't. You're just going by what John Ghilchrist, some African lawyer said, which was "100 years" not 160.

There's many evidences of earlier manuscripts here - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/ and http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...ss/ms2165.html

.

Please show me when the earliest complete copy of the quran has been acuratley dated to ...

(Original post by Perseveranze)

This is hilarious. Your using hadith to say "many Qur'ans existed", but you want to reject the hadith that talks about the Uthman scripture?

There are good number of other Qur'ans [such as the ones at St. Petersburg, Istanbul, two in Cairo (al-Hussein mosque and Dār al-Kutub) and Samarqand] having at times turned up in different parts of the Islamic world, almost all purporting to show the traces of the blood of the third caliph ʿUthmān upon certain pages, and thus the genuine ʿUthmānic Qur'an, the imām, which he was reading at the time of his death.

The above are all believed to be Uthmanic Scripture. .

Not rejecting anything- only stating the fact that islamic hadith state that there were originally musltiple versionsof the quran, which is why Uthman ordered a purge by fire of all of them (apart from his own version) - which in itslef is an illogical practice for a genuine muslim that deems the quran a perfect book.

This opinion would back up the numerous other proofs that show variations in subsequent versions of the quran and the fact that like the saana scripture, perhaps the oldest partial quran, is not the same as the 21st centruy uthmaic quran you can get from your local mosque.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
All this is prettry irrelevant though, when you look at the evidences of the preservation of the Qur'an, there's a consensus both by east and western scholarship that the Qur'an we have today is the same Qur'an that came out of the words of the prophet Muhammad(pbuh).

.

No there isnt.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

Lmao, how desperate are you. Bent on the bullcrap that the likes of Crone and Cook bring out, only discrediting themselves.

.

Yes, and King and other propagandists you like to quote who made a fortune from middle eastern islamic 'benfactors' are far more reliable than these historians

(Original post by Perseveranze)

So this is the story -

Small, defiant, and largely discredited group of Orientalists have argued that the early mosques were not oriented toward Makkah, but somewhere in northern Arabia or even Jerusalem.

This has been debunked so many times, even by Non-Muslim Academics themselves.

For example;


[INDENT][INDENT] The first mosque to be built in Egypt was built facing winter sunrise, and it was this direction which remained the most popular throughout the medieval period amongst the religious authorities. Likewise some of the earliest mosques in Iraq were built facing winter sunset. Only recently has it become known that astronomical alignments were used for the Qiblah, so that some modern historians (sic!) have mistakenly inferred from the orientations of the early mosques in Egypt and Iraq that they were not built to face the Kaaba at all, but rather to face some other sacred site. Now, however, we even know why such astronomical alignments were used.^{[8] --} D. A. King, "The Sacred Direction In Islam: A Study Of Interaction Of Religion & Science In The Middle Ages", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1985, Vol. 10, p. 319.

.

So the fact that early mosques didnt face correctly for qibla, even though islam is suppossed to be 100% accurate and unchanged from day 1, is not a concern for you? Seems a strange inconsistency, even for you.
If islamic astronomical alignments were used for the Qiblah back then, why arnt they still used now ? - Are you explaning that islam and the quran was wrong back in the 8th century, but now corrected today?

(Original post by Perseveranze)

You gotta come up with more intellectually stimulating stuff. Also, when you make a claim, actually back it up with proof. I don't have time to google the crap you randomly picked up from Anti-Islam sites.
.

Anti- islam sites oh you mean wikipedia and googling archeological record? Yes those pesky archeologists are all well known anti islamists arnt they
So no then, you cant answer the points. Didnt think so

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
Where does the quran 'explicity say anything muslims believe?

Pretty much everywhere?

doesnt the quran state that man would be created on earth, then adam was created - out of clay?

Yes. That doesn't automatically make Adam the "first man", because the same is true of every man - created on earth, and made of the same stuff as Adam.

Again, you are stating now the belief that adam was the first man on earth is now a lie? - interesting you have spent so long avoiding answering that question.

I didn't say it was a lie. I said it doesn't appear in the Qur'an.

"Having been created, Adam, the first man, is described as having been given domination over all the lower creatures, which he proceeds to name. Adam is seen as a prophet in Islam. When the angels were ordered to bow to Adam one of those present, Satan, the chief of the Djinn, who said "why should I bow to man, I am made of pure fire and he is made of soil", refuses due to his pride, and is summarily banished "

Thats wikis paraphrase of the islamic belief about adam and eve (hawwa)

The Qur'an is the source of Islamic doctrine, not Wikipedia.

And even if you disagree with muslims on this, why would you then beleive that a man, later in human evolutionery cycle, can be created out of mud and clay, as stated in the quran?

Because what something is made of and the process by which something is made aren't the same thing. Already answered this.

How do you know that arabic words were 'spelt correctly', written arabic didnt exist till after moahmmed death?

Because it actually existed while Muhammad was alive, and the idea that it didn't exist until after his death is something you've just invented.

Me or you? Show me where the quran uses the word 'alchohol' If you have read it, you would know only wine is referred to specifically in any ayat

It doesn't use the word "alcohol". And it doesn't use the word "wine" either, in its prohibition of drinking. It uses the word "Khamr", which is any intoxicant or mind-altering substance (roughly translated).

Read Puins study of the Saana version of the quranic scriptures, in which he identifies various differences, including a different order of the surahs to the uthmanic quran

The order of the surahs in the Qur'an is arbitrary. You can have the surahs in any order, it's still the Qur'an. At the moment, they're roughly ordered starting with the longest and ending with the shortest. They're not chronological, nor intended to follow on from each other. Any order is fine.

What other differences have been identified?

And i dont see why that should surprise you -

doesnt the quran that your read state- "Any verse (sign or revelation) that We edit or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it."

If you believe this verse, then you surely believe and expect that the quran will be altered on a regular basis over time and not to be suspicious about it, no?

No - the Qur'an is not altered. Verses and revelations that were edited or forgotten were previous scriptures, such as the Torah, Injeel, Zabur etc. Each time one of these were edited, or parts of it lost, it was replaced with a similar revelation. The Qur'an is an example of such a replacement. But since it has neither been edited nor forgotten, it doesn't need replacing.

But you dont want to provide any evidence of the oppossite of what i have provided - or is their actually none?

The evidence contrary to the things you have said are all in the Qur'an itself. Just read the verse on alcohol prohibition for example. Read the context of the verse regarding replacement of verses and signs. Read any two copies of the Qur'an and note the lack of differences in content - try in vain to find two that are different. The fact that there is no particular order in which the surahs need to be presented in is again obvious from just reading the Qur'an.

Most of your arguments come from simply not knowing what is in the Qur'an and what isn't - but it's something you can easily look up.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Pretty much everywhere? .

Oh yes? evidence pls


Yes. That doesn't automatically make Adam the "first man", because the same is true of every man - created on earth, and made of the same stuff as Adam.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
I didn't say it was a lie. I said it doesn't appear in the Qur'an. .

But islamic belief is that adam was the first man - so you think that belief is false as you have already stated numerous times on this thread - ergo, by your thinking, all those muslims (on tsr too) that have the islamic belief that adam was the first man, have false beliefs - yes
Interestingly, you would be in the tiny minority of muslims that would think this, perhaps the minority of one.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

The Qur'an is the source of Islamic doctrine, not Wikipedia. .

So are you saying wikipedia is now also wrong about this?

The quran, in the quote given, refers to the story of angels referring to "man" as a race or species, in the form of adam, having been told to bow before him.

it also says adam lived in paradise after his creation, before being sent down to live on earth as the first man on earth.

So i guess you are now also discrediting this story too

equally why would the quran mention in the story of creation the first formation of the earth, skies etc, but not the first human? Seems like a mistake ?

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Because what something is made of and the process by which something is made aren't the same thing. Already answered this. .

The quran states man is made of mud and clay, the djinn inthe quran refers to man as made from dirt. all of that is false as science has proven.

quran also describes the process by which man was made (mouled form the ground and breathed life into) why are you trying to pig-headedly deny it doesnt say this - seems illogical?

(Original post by tazarooni89)

;Because it actually existed while Muhammad was alive, and the idea that it didn't exist until after his death is something you've just invented. .

Again if you were ignorant, you would think that - the earliest written arabic record wasnt produced till the mid 7th century, around when historians have stated when the arabic alphabet was first created, ie not during mohammeds lifetime.
So kind of disproves your guesswork.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

It doesn't use the word "alcohol". And it doesn't use the word "wine" either, in its prohibition of drinking. It uses the word "Khamr", which is any intoxicant or mind-altering substance (roughly translated). .

Actually it does use the word wine ,(but not 'alchohol', as i stated to disprove your earlier assertion) the word khamr refers to the collective term for the various tyes of wine that are known to have exisited at the time (Al-Qarqaf Wine, Al-Zalla Al-Safaqa etc) - it is deemd by scholars ( not translators of the quran) .

Al-Rahiq is a wine referred to in specific in the quran.

so wrong again- I think you need to read an actual copy of the quran.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

The order of the surahs in the Qur'an is arbitrary. You can have the surahs in any order, it's still the Qur'an. At the moment, they're roughly ordered starting with the longest and ending with the shortest. They're not chronological, nor intended to follow on from each other. Any order is fine.

What other differences have been identified? .

Various, why dont you read his thesis, it can be found in most historical literary archives. Another point he noted the surahs themselves were different ( differnt wording in most cases) and the nuber of verses in each differed to the corresponding surahs in modern quran.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

No - the Qur'an is not altered. Verses and revelations that were edited or forgotten were previous scriptures, such as the Torah, Injeel, Zabur etc. Each time one of these were edited, or parts of it lost, it was replaced with a similar revelation. The Qur'an is an example of such a replacement. But since it has neither been edited nor forgotten, it doesn't need replacing. .

How do you know it hasnt been or doesnt need further editiing - this verse clealry states all islamic scripture can be amended wherever necessarry and you are not suppoossed to 2nd guess when they are? Could it not happen tommorrow?

(Original post by tazarooni89)

The evidence contrary to the things you have said are all in the Qur'an itself. Just read the verse on alcohol prohibition for example. Read the context of the verse regarding replacement of verses and signs. Read any two copies of the Qur'an and note the lack of differences in content - try in vain to find two that are different. The fact that there is no particular order in which the surahs need to be presented in is again obvious from just reading the Qur'an. .

I think i did all that and provided the evidence to show thedifferences, and the professional historians that identified them. The problem as with most that discuss islam- is that you refuse think about what is put forward.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

Most of your arguments come from simply not knowing what is in the Qur'an and what isn't - but it's something you can easily look up.

regardless, it seems i know more about what is in the quran than you claim to - seeing as you stated so far tha tthe quran doesn not mention anything about the creation of man, that adam was the first man, that wine is referred to in the quran, or that abrogation is permitted by the quran itself.
I mean, are you even a muslim, i had made the assumption that you were, but as you say you got circumcised completly irrelevant to Islam ( a coincidence i guess) ?

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
Oh yes? evidence pls

The evidence that the Qur'an states Islamic beliefs explicitly?
Pick up the Qur'an, and look on any page, and you'll find some explicit statements of Islamic belief. The first page should do.

But islamic belief is that adam was the first man - so you think that belief is false as you have already stated numerous times on this thread - ergo, by your thinking, all those muslims (on tsr too) that have the islamic belief that adam was the first man, have false beliefs - yes
Interestingly, you would be in the tiny minority of muslims that would think this, perhaps the minority of one.

I didn't say it was false. I said it was not in the Qur'an. There is no verse in the Qur'an which said "Adam was the first man".

So are you saying wikipedia is now also wrong about this?

The quran, in the quote given, refers to the story of angels referring to "man" as a race or species, in the form of adam, having been told to bow before him.

it also says adam lived in paradise after his creation, before being sent down to live on earth as the first man on earth.

So i guess you are now also discrediting this story too

equally why would the quran mention in the story of creation the first formation of the earth, skies etc, but not the first human? Seems like a mistake ?

The quran states man is made of mud and clay, the djinn inthe quran refers to man as made from dirt. all of that is false as science has proven.

Where has science proven this is false, exactly?
What are humans made of then, if not of the same constituents as the earth?

quran also describes the process by which man was made (mouled form the ground and breathed life into) why are you trying to pig-headedly deny it doesnt say this - seems illogical?

I'm not denying this. Yes, Islam does say that.
I'm denying your attempt to suggest that this somehow cannot be true at the same time as the theory of evolution.

Again if you were ignorant, you would think that - the earliest written arabic record wasnt produced till the mid 7th century, around when historians have stated when the arabic alphabet was first created, ie not during mohammeds lifetime.
So kind of disproves your guesswork.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...rabic_alphabet

Actually it does use the word wine ,(but not 'alchohol', as i stated to disprove your earlier assertion) the word khamr refers to the collective term for the various tyes of wine that are known to have exisited at the time (Al-Qarqaf Wine, Al-Zalla Al-Safaqa etc) - it is deemd by scholars ( not translators of the quran) .

Al-Rahiq is a wine referred to in specific in the quran.

so wrong again- I think you need to read an actual copy of the quran.

"Khamr" doesn't mean "wine".
It comes from the same root as the word "Khimar", referring to a woman's headscarf. It's the idea of a barrier between the head and the outside world.

For example: Beer is not wine. But beer is still "khamr". LSD is not wine, but it is still "Khamr".

Various, why dont you read his thesis, it can be found in most historical literary archives. Another point he noted the surahs themselves were different ( differnt wording in most cases) and the nuber of verses in each differed to the corresponding surahs in modern quran.

Have you read his thesis?

How do you know it hasnt been or doesnt need further editiing - this verse clealry states all islamic scripture can be amended wherever necessarry and you are not suppoossed to 2nd guess when they are? Could it not happen tomorrow?

The verse doesn't clearly state that all Islamic scripture can be amended where necessary. It states that some of it has been edited or lost (by man) in the past and therefore has needed replacement with similar scripture.

I think i did all that and provided the evidence to show thedifferences, and the professional historians that identified them. The problem as with most that discuss islam- is that you refuse think about what is put forward.

No, you haven't done that. Just telling me that some historian has identified differences doesn't allow me to see what the difference is. I have yet to see a verse taken from two different published versions of the Arabic Qur'an with different wording in each case.

regardless, it seems i know more about what is in the quran than you claim to - seeing as you stated so far tha tthe quran doesn not mention anything about the creation of man, that adam was the first man, that wine is referred to in the quran, or that abrogation is permitted by the quran itself.

I didn't say it mentions nothing about the creation of man.
It doesn't state "Adam was the first man". - Unless you want to show me the verse which says so.
It doesn't say that abrogation of the Qur'an has ever happened. - Unless you want to show me the verse which says so.

I mean, are you even a muslim, i had made the assumption that you were, but as you say you got circumcised completly irrelevant to Islam ( a coincidence i guess) ?

What does it matter?
(I said circumcision wasn't my decision. I didn't say it was irrelevant to Islam).

As a side note, again, most of your arguments come not only from not having read the Qur'an (or if you have, seeming to have forgotten most of what you read), but also from trying to make me say things I didn't say.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
The evidence that the Qur'an states Islamic beliefs explicitly?
Pick up the Qur'an, and look on any page, and you'll find some explicit statements of Islamic belief. The first page should do. .

But it doesnt does it. Most current islamic rulings arnt explicitly detailed in the quran, are they.
Your assertion that quran suppossedly doesnt state adam was the first man on earth proves that - but that still is an islamic belief

(Original post by tazarooni89)

I didn't say it was false. I said it was not in the Qur'an. There is no verse in the Qur'an which said "Adam was the first man". .

Either you beleive it to be true (which you do not) or you beleive it to be false - clearly what you have just clamied is all these muslims that do believe adam was the first man have false beliefs - what else can you be saying

The verse in the quran that states man (adam) was created from mud and clay, then told to be bowed to by angels in order to establish the human races place above angels - shows quite clearly that the quran is stating adam was the first example of the human race.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Where has science proven this is false, exactly?
What are humans made of then, if not of the same constituents as the earth? .

Man didnt evolve out of mud, science has shown that.

(Original post by tazarooni89)


I'm not denying this. Yes, Islam does say that.
I'm denying your attempt to suggest that this somehow cannot be true at the same time as the theory of evolution. .

Evolution does not agree with the theory that man was made from mud, sorry to break that to you.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...rabic_alphabet .

Taken from your own above link -
"The Arabic alphabet is first attested in its classical form in the 7th century AD {See PERF 558 for the first surviving Islamic Arabic writing} In the 7th century AD, probably in the early years of Islam while writing down the Qur'an"

(Original post by tazarooni89)
"Khamr" doesn't mean "wine".
It comes from the same root as the word "Khimar", referring to a woman's headscarf. It's the idea of a barrier between the head and the outside world.

For example: Beer is not wine. But beer is still "khamr". LSD is not wine, but it is still "Khamr".
.

Wine, as already mentioned to you is specifically referred to , even by type in the quran, 'alchohol' is not - therefore disproving the opposite assertion you made earlier - so clearly you havent read the quran in completion, otherwise you would have known this.

Equally the quran doesnt mention LSD (or are you pretending also now it does?) Khamr doesnt mean LSD, becuase LSD wasnt known about during the time of the quran, wine was, hence why it and it only is mentioned in the quran.
khamr is the classical arabic word for wine, becuase it causes drunkeness. It is only later 'scholars' who have tried to apply it to various other unrelated substances, not mentioned by the quran. (people that you claimed not to follow previously)

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Have you read his thesis? .

Yes, but about 8 years ago

(Original post by tazarooni89)
The verse doesn't clearly state that all Islamic scripture can be amended where necessary. It states that some of it has been edited or lost (by man) in the past and therefore has needed replacement with similar scripture. .

WHich part of that verse do you claim states " it has been edited or lost (by man) in the past" ??

clealry it only states the quran can be altered when deemd necessarry.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

No, you haven't done that. Just telling me that some historian has identified differences doesn't allow me to see what the difference is. I have yet to see a verse taken from two different published versions of the Arabic Qur'an with different wording in each case. .

Thats becuase you clearly have no genuine interest in investigation of those facts. If indeed all early alternate versions of the quran were not destroyed in the firt place, im sure you would have had many more examples to come accross.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
I didn't say it mentions nothing about the creation of man.
It doesn't state "Adam was the first man". - Unless you want to show me the verse which says so.
It doesn't say that abrogation of the Qur'an has ever happened. - Unless you want to show me the verse which says so. .

See both points re the above i have replied to earlier, and provide a valid response.

(Original post by tazarooni89)

What does it matter?
(I said circumcision wasn't my decision. I didn't say it was irrelevant to Islam). .

It is what you intimated. Else why else did your family insist that your genitals were circumcised, if not for islamic belief?

(Original post by tazarooni89)

As a side note, again, most of your arguments come not only from not having read the Qur'an (or if you have, seeming to have forgotten most of what you read), but also from trying to make me say things I didn't say.

Probably could say the same about yours, given you have already made 2-3 separate statements about the quran that have already been disproved.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
But it doesnt does it. Most current islamic rulings arnt explicitly detailed in the quran, are they.
Your assertion that quran suppossedly doesnt state adam was the first man on earth proves that - but that still is an islamic belief

If they're not explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an, they're not Islamic rulings. They're something that someone has made up. Actual Islamic rulings (e.g. don't eat pork, don't worship idols, fast during ramadan, give charity etc.) are explicitly found in the Qur'an.

Either you beleive it to be true (which you do not) or you beleive it to be false - clearly what you have just clamied is all these muslims that do believe adam was the first man have false beliefs - what else can you be saying

As I said, all I am saying is that "Adam was the first man" is not a sentence you'll find in the Qur'an. I haven't claimed anything about whether it is true or false.

The verse in the quran that states man (adam) was created from mud and clay, then told to be bowed to by angels in order to establish the human races place above angels - shows quite clearly that the quran is stating adam was the first example of the human race.

How is it "quite clearly" stating that he was the first man?
The same could easily be true of the second man, or third man, or any man.

Evolution does not agree with the theory that man was made from mud, sorry to break that to you.

Evolution isn't a theory about what material man is made of. It doesn't confirm or deny it. So far, they are still compatible.

Taken from your own above link -
"The Arabic alphabet is first attested in its classical form in the 7th century AD {See PERF 558 for the first surviving Islamic Arabic writing} In the 7th century AD, probably in the early years of Islam while writing down the Qur'an"

Muhammad was alive during the 7th century. It did not arise after his death, as you claim. (By the way, this is Arabic in its "classical" form, not Arabic writing in general).

Wine, as already mentioned to you is specifically referred to , even by type in the quran, 'alchohol' is not - therefore disproving the opposite assertion you made earlier - so clearly you havent read the quran in completion, otherwise you would have known this.

Equally the quran doesnt mention LSD (or are you pretending also now it does?) Khamr doesnt mean LSD, becuase LSD wasnt known about during the time of the quran, wine was, hence why it and it only is mentioned in the quran.
khamr is the classical arabic word for wine, becuase it causes drunkeness. It is only later 'scholars' who have tried to apply it to various other unrelated substances, not mentioned by the quran. (people that you claimed not to follow previously)

The Qur'an doesn't mention LSD by name. It mentions Khamr. LSD is a type of Khamr. Khamr is any mind altering substance. It isn't just "wine". Things that are not "wine" still come under the category of Khamr.

Yes, but about 8 years ago

Well then surely you'll be able to remember at least one of the differences he pointed out between two Arabic copies of the Qur'an?

WHich part of that verse do you claim states " it has been edited or lost (by man) in the past" ??

That verse in particular doesn't state it. But it can only be referring to past revelations. It cannot be referring to the Qur'an, which survives in its original word-for-word form, and it cannot be referring to future revelations, because there aren't any. By exhaustion, it can only refer to things that have been edited or lost in the past.

Thats becuase you clearly have no genuine interest in investigation of those facts. If indeed all early alternate versions of the quran were not destroyed in the firt place, im sure you would have had many more examples to come accross.

Well if you claim that evidence for such versions of the Qur'an exists, surely you could show it to me. At the moment, you have still only asserted rather than justified.

It is what you intimated. Else why else did your family insist that your genitals were circumcised, if not for islamic belief?

Why does it matter? Their decisions are their decisions. They don't necessarily represent my beliefs.

Probably could say the same about yours, given you have already made 2-3 separate statements about the quran that have already been disproved.

Which you have failed to disprove, rather.