on one hand we say that we r a puppet being controlled by God....
on the other hand we say that if commit sins then we will go to hell
But if we r puppets being controlled by God then why will we go to hell 4 he is the one who is controlling our strings and making us do wrong????
wat say ppl???
nope. nothing after life.
God knows what you will do, but he doesn't make you do it. There's a difference. Simple as that.
^what is your take about "GOD making Pharoah's heart hard" when Moses was negotiating for the Hebrew's freedom?
| manav wrote: |
on one hand we say that we r a puppet being controlled by God....
on the other hand we say that if commit sins then we will go to hell
But if we r puppets being controlled by God then why will we go to hell 4 he is the one who is controlling our strings and making us do wrong????
wat say ppl??? |
I think that there is no heaven nor hell. Its only a tool to control people and their life. | redace wrote: |
| manav wrote: | on one hand we say that we r a puppet being controlled by God....
on the other hand we say that if commit sins then we will go to hell
But if we r puppets being controlled by God then why will we go to hell 4 he is the one who is controlling our strings and making us do wrong????
wat say ppl??? |
I think that there is no heaven nor hell. Its only a tool to control people and their life. |
I agree on the nonexistence of a heaven or hell. Hell is there to simply place fear in people's heart when really all there is to fear is fear itself.If you want to create a hell for yourself in the afterlife - then simply do it! but there is no need - just a waste of energy...
The third hand says: there is no heaven or hell, no puppetmaster but just the master...
| manav wrote: |
on one hand we say that we r a puppet being controlled by God....
on the other hand we say that if commit sins then we will go to hell
But if we r puppets being controlled by God then why will we go to hell 4 he is the one who is controlling our strings and making us do wrong????
wat say ppl??? |
I'd say you're more debating the existence of free will. The notion of an afterlife is a distinct belief, although only rational if free will exists. So you may want to either assume free will, or debate free will itself. Actually, it looks like people are just misinterpretting this as an question of the existence of an afterlife and trying to understand the post. As it is quite hard to understand as written.
As far as that goes... If you believe in the typical Christian deity, then look back at Genesis. Free will was derived from the eating from the tree of knowledge. A person is not controlled by God, although they *could be,* as God is believed to be omnipotent. Where do you get this notion of a puppet controlled by God, or are you referencing another religion? Please explain. | wombatrpgs wrote: |
I'd say you're more debating the existence of free will. The notion of an afterlife is a distinct belief, although only rational if free will exists. So you may want to either assume free will, or debate free will itself. Actually, it looks like people are just misinterpretting this as an question of the existence of an afterlife and trying to understand the post. As it is quite hard to understand as written.
|
In what sense is the notion of an afterlife rational? Even accepting that freewill exists (and this is refuted in another thread in this forum), there is no rational basis for an afterlife - it is entirely a matter of faith. | Bikerman wrote: |
| wombatrpgs wrote: | I'd say you're more debating the existence of free will. The notion of an afterlife is a distinct belief, although only rational if free will exists. So you may want to either assume free will, or debate free will itself. Actually, it looks like people are just misinterpretting this as an question of the existence of an afterlife and trying to understand the post. As it is quite hard to understand as written.
|
In what sense is the notion of an afterlife rational? Even accepting that freewill exists (and this is refuted in another thread in this forum), there is no rational basis for an afterlife - it is entirely a matter of faith. |
There is no rational afterlife, true. The whole concept of an afterlife becomes completely illogical when you remove free will. What I'm trying to say is that you cannot use free will as an argument against an afterlife, as an afterlife is dependant upon that concept. If you say there is no free will than obviously there is no afterlife, (or at least not one determined by morality in life, at any rate. But that's something completely different) | wombatrpgs wrote: |
| There is no rational afterlife, true. The whole concept of an afterlife becomes completely illogical when you remove free will. What I'm trying to say is that you cannot use free will as an argument against an afterlife, as an afterlife is dependant upon that concept. If you say there is no free will than obviously there is no afterlife, (or at least not one determined by morality in life, at any rate. But that's something completely different) |
But you have surely done exactly that - ie used free-will (or the lack of it) as an argument against the afterlife.
We could debate the concept of morality in association with free-will. If we agree that free-will does not exist then does it follow that morality also does not exist? That depends on how morality is defined. If it is defined as a set of rules which are generally agreed, then free-will is clearly not necessary - we could say that some people simply behave in an immoral fashion - their lack of choice is not germaine.
The issue then, as you allude to, is the 'fairness' of judging people on that morality. Clearly it would seem unfair to judge someone for being an immoral person if, in fact, that lack of morality was not a conscious choice.
The concept of an afterlife itself is, I think, an irrational one. There is no reason to suppose that such a thing exists. That means that any attempt to rationalise it (ie what it would consist of, how you would qualify for it, how it would depend on your 'morality') is simply an attempt to rationalise the irrational and is therefore doomed to failure. | Bikerman wrote: |
| But you have surely done exactly that - ie used free-will (or the lack of it) as an argument against the afterlife. |
I have stated a lack of free will cannot be used as an argument against a moral/immoral split in the afterlife, as the whole split is based off of free will. One is built upon the other; if there is no free will, there is no split afterlife. I'd say that's pretty definite, agree? (Unless some controlling god has a whacked sense of humor...)
This is quite interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination Maybe that isn't as straightforward as I thought.
If predestination is correct, in the sense that the power that determines heaven or hell knows our destiny, it really comes down to whether that was a conscious choice by the creator, (no free will), or the creator had no choice over that destiny but was omniscient and only knew of it, (free will). Or predestination is incorrect and the whole thing is a moot point. But in that case, I suppose a omnipotent deity could still choose our actions without knowing them in advance.
| Bikerman wrote: |
We could debate the concept of morality in association with free-will. If we agree that free-will does not exist then does it follow that morality also does not exist? That depends on how morality is defined. If it is defined as a set of rules which are generally agreed, then free-will is clearly not necessary - we could say that some people simply behave in an immoral fashion - their lack of choice is not germaine.
The issue then, as you allude to, is the 'fairness' of judging people on that morality. Clearly it would seem unfair to judge someone for being an immoral person if, in fact, that lack of morality was not a conscious choice. |
If free will does not exist, then I am not willingly judging anyone on their morality, because I am fated to do so. Looking at it that way, the whole concept of no free will really starts behaving oddly. Morality becomes irrelevant, since it isn't something you can control adherence to, or judge others upon. It becomes pointless.
Or then again you could be the only one with a free will and I am simply following God's puppet, following his direct commands, to test you in your faith. Which would be really strange. I hope I am not such a mindless minion, but I guess you can't help it.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The concept of an afterlife itself is, I think, an irrational one. There is no reason to suppose that such a thing exists. That means that any attempt to rationalise it (ie what it would consist of, how you would qualify for it, how it would depend on your 'morality') is simply an attempt to rationalise the irrational and is therefore doomed to failure. |
Agreed. However, I'm not trying to rationalize the afterlife, merely its moral split. If the concept is too wrapped up with the other, then I suppose the discussion is meaningless. It's rather like card stacking. Take out religion, afterlife, morality, or free will, and the entire heaven/hell concept collapses. | spinout wrote: |
If you want to create a hell for yourself in the afterlife - then simply do it! but there is no need - just a waste of energy...
The third hand says: there is no heaven or hell, no puppetmaster but just the master... |
Well, when you're old, and your heart stops, your brain will cause you to go into a sort of "death dream", as illustrated by those who have had near death experiences (usually dreaming that they are floating atop from their bodies). If you believe in a religion you'll probably see "heaven" or "hell". If you don't, then you'll probably see absolutely nothing. In the end, what you believe in will come "true".I believe there is a heaven and a hell out there somewhere...So believe in God and be near to God and be away from your sins...
"wombatrpgs wrote:
There is no rational afterlife, true. The whole concept of an afterlife becomes completely illogical when you remove free will. What I'm trying to say is that you cannot use free will as an argument against an afterlife, as an afterlife is dependant upon that concept. If you say there is no free will than obviously there is no afterlife, (or at least not one determined by morality in life, at any rate. But that's something completely different)
But you have surely done exactly that - ie used free-will (or the lack of it) as an argument against the afterlife.
We could debate the concept of morality in association with free-will. If we agree that free-will does not exist then does it follow that morality also does not exist? That depends on how morality is defined. If it is defined as a set of rules which are generally agreed, then free-will is clearly not necessary - we could say that some people simply behave in an immoral fashion - their lack of choice is not germaine.
The issue then, as you allude to, is the 'fairness' of judging people on that morality. Clearly it would seem unfair to judge someone for being an immoral person if, in fact, that lack of morality was not a conscious choice.
The concept of an afterlife itself is, I think, an irrational one. There is no reason to suppose that such a thing exists. That means that any attempt to rationalise it (ie what it would consist of, how you would qualify for it, how it would depend on your 'morality') is simply an attempt to rationalise the irrational and is therefore doomed to failure."
I agree. You have to be really ignorant of the wish of humans to live forever to think that an afterlife actually exists. see how many times it has been used by rules in history to give hope for the peasents, and make them accept their pathetic lives. its wishful thinking, some people believe that there is an afterlife because they dont want to die, but they know it is inevitable.
Well, the theory is, that we've got free will, but god being omniscient can see where our free will ultimately takes us. Our choices are shaped by the events throughout our lives and who we are. God knowing this, knows the outcome.
So it's not so much that strings are being pulled so much as God set the ball rolling knowing the pros and cons of doing so.
Do I believe that to be true? No.
Free will? Since when did God want us to have a free will? It doesn't seem like that if you read anything of the bible or the Quran'.
| w0ngie wrote: |
| nope. nothing after life. |
way to offer up evidence to support your claims...
| Sillyman wrote: |
| God knows what you will do, but he doesn't make you do it. There's a difference. Simple as that. |
I have a little something for you to read... took me a while to find it in one of my old textbooks but I did...
| Quote: |
| ... In the mind of God, there is no "before" or "after"; there is only a "now." In "God's Experience" all events occur simultaneously. To put it another way, all the past and all the future (that is, our past and future) exist together in God's present. Thus, when Augustine elaborates on the doctrine that God foresaw the Fall of Man, God really didn't foresee anything, as though he were peering ahead through time (as we would have to) and saw what had not yet transpired. In God's all-inclusive present "future" events are taking place now. God didn't Foresee; he merely saw. Likewise he doesn't foreordain an event; he merely ordains (causes) what he sees happening. |
Hopefully that helps you understand a little bit of the random babble you're spewing with no evidence. In addition, there is general nothing to suggest in any text that God cannot or will not influence you. If you have free will, keep in mind that nearly all human choices are based on a series of influence. Even if you choose against the influences at times the above fact remains. Therefore, God being all-powerful and all, whats to say he couldn't cause an influence so overwhelming that you "chose" to go along with it. Yeah that's right, "forced" choices and free will intertwined, contemplate that for a while. 
| Aredon wrote: |
I have a little something for you to read... took me a while to find it in one of my old textbooks but I did...
| Quote: | | ... In the mind of God, there is no "before" or "after"; there is only a "now." In "God's Experience" all events occur simultaneously. To put it another way, all the past and all the future (that is, our past and future) exist together in God's present. Thus, when Augustine elaborates on the doctrine that God foresaw the Fall of Man, God really didn't foresee anything, as though he were peering ahead through time (as we would have to) and saw what had not yet transpired. In God's all-inclusive present "future" events are taking place now. God didn't Foresee; he merely saw. Likewise he doesn't foreordain an event; he merely ordains (causes) what he sees happening. |
Hopefully that helps you understand a little bit of the random babble you're spewing with no evidence. |
Whereas you, of course, have produced some evidence to support your babble? (No offence intended, but let's keep it civil eh?).
In order for God to have a view of events such as described above he/she/it would need to stand outside spacetime. In such a case he/she/it would not have influence on events.
For God to 'ordain' something means that he/she/it causes it to happen - not simply that he/she/it saw it happen (in such a case we would say that God 'saw' it happen, not 'ordained' it). To 'ordain' means to establish by decree or law. That, in turn, means you have control over circumstance.
You can posit that God set in train events after the Big Bang and saw everything that would happen as a consequence. That, however, is a picture of reality which is determined, and leaves no room for freewill. If freewill exists then God should be observing an infinite number of possible worldlines, rather than one determined outcome. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Whereas you, of course, have produced some evidence to support your babble? (No offence intended, but let's keep it civil eh?). |
The entire quote was from a textbook. It was conveying the common misconception on Augustine's whole idea. I posted it in hopes that the said person would stop with the "one-lined-wonders" I may have been a little harsh. 
| Quote: |
In order for God to have a view of events such as described above he/she/it would need to stand outside spacetime.
|
Exactly it is noted in the paragraph before this one in the textbook. I thought that would be somewhat implied.
| Quote: |
| In such a case he/she/it would not have influence on events. |
Have you been in a seperate time where the past, present, and future of a timeline are all happening at once for you? Then how do you know they would not have influence on events?
| Quote: |
For God to 'ordain' something means that he/she/it causes it to happen - not simply that he/she/it saw it happen (in such a case we would say that God 'saw' it happen, not 'ordained' it). To 'ordain' means to establish by decree or law. That, in turn, means you have control over circumstance.
You can posit that God set in train events after the Big Bang and saw everything that would happen as a consequence. That, however, is a picture of reality which is determined, and leaves no room for freewill. If freewill exists then God should be observing an infinite number of possible worldlines, rather than one determined outcome. |
Although you're arguing with the textbook here; I'll see what I can do.
| Quote: |
For God to 'ordain' something means that he/she/it causes it to happen - not simply that he/she/it saw it happen (in such a case we would say that God 'saw' it happen, not 'ordained' it). To 'ordain' means to establish by decree or law. That, in turn, means you have control over circumstance.
|
uhh
| Quote: |
God didn't Foresee; he merely saw. Likewise he doesn't foreordain an event; he merely ordains (causes) what he sees happening. |
In my opinion this is making more specific reference to the use of "Fore_", and how its wrong to say God caused something to happen in the future because in his time there is no future. (Just drawing a conclusion from the text ) We might also infer that our language might be to limited to describe a timeless circumstance?
| Quote: |
| You can posit that God set in train events after the Big Bang and saw everything that would happen as a consequence. That, however, is a picture of reality which is determined, and leaves no room for freewill. If freewill exists then God should be observing an infinite number of possible worldlines, rather than one determined outcome. |
That's part of the most confusing debate ever. I do remain on my original belief (in another thread), that God sees all possible outcomes at once, and therefore on your "line of witness" he sees the choice(he really sees all, but in perspective to you he's seeing the one.. if that makes any sense) you're going to make. | Aredon wrote: |
| Quote: | | In such a case he/she/it would not have influence on events. |
Have you been in a seperate time where the past, present, and future of a timeline are all happening at once for you? Then how do you know they would not have influence on events? |
Because it's basic. If you exist outside our spacetime then you cannot change events in our spacetime. You have to be manifest in our spacetime to 'cause' things to happen - that is the nature of causality.
| Quote: |
| In my opinion this is making more specific reference to the use of "Fore_", and how its wrong to say God caused something to happen in the future because in his time there is no future. (Just drawing a conclusion from the text ) We might also infer that our language might be to limited to describe a timeless circumstance? |
It is not just a question of time - but also space. Space and time are linked to form spacetime. If God exists outside time then he also exists outside space. If he exists outside spacetime he cannot influence events in spacetime, unless he periodically manifests in our spacetime to 'cause' things to happen. Our language may well be limited when discussing these concepts but we have sufficient terms to discuss this particular issue, I believe. Einstein's notion of spacetime is the currently accepted model of 'reality'. If you are proposing something different then we need a whole new physics, not just different terms...
| Quote: |
| That's part of the most confusing debate ever. I do remain on my original belief (in another thread), that God sees all possible outcomes at once, and therefore on your "line of witness" he sees the choice(he really sees all, but in perspective to you he's seeing the one.. if that makes any sense) you're going to make. |
Well that puts God back in the position of an observer not a 'changer'. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that God 'caused' the Big Bang to happen (though it is not really an 'answer' to anything since Occam's Razor would indicate that God would be superfluous in that case). Having caused the Big Bang, however, God would remain outside our time and space and therefore things would just 'happen' according to the laws of physics. In that sense God may well have computed all the variables and know what will happen throughout time. Our current knowledge of the Universe, however, seems to indicate that the universe is not determined (ie there are random elements which cannot be 'known' ahead of time). | Sillyman wrote: |
| God knows what you will do, but he doesn't make you do it. There's a difference. Simple as that. |
if he knows what we will do then our actions are predeterminedit always cracks me up when i read people quoting god said this and god said that.
isn't god something you either believe in or not?
if you do, it's a matter of faith. faith happnes in your brain and heart - or soul some people would call it. that's a spiritual thing so it's not really something that can be "proven".
so how did all the things god is supposed to have said into these big books??? be they the bible or the quoran or whatever. i think people have put that there - some inspired by their god, some others just heard it third hand. and we take it all for granted as coming from god?
somehow that doesn't fit.
cheers
| icecool wrote: |
it always cracks me up when i read people quoting god said this and god said that.
isn't god something you either believe in or not?
if you do, it's a matter of faith. faith happnes in your brain and heart - or soul some people would call it. that's a spiritual thing so it's not really something that can be "proven".
so how did all the things god is supposed to have said into these big books??? be they the bible or the quoran or whatever. i think people have put that there - some inspired by their god, some others just heard it third hand. and we take it all for granted as coming from god?
somehow that doesn't fit.
cheers |
The NT (Bible) has been edited so much by man that even if it was originally from God (which I believe it WAS), then it isn't any more because of the changes. The Quran hasn't changed since it was given by, as I believe, God. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| The NT (Bible) has been edited so much by man that even if it was originally from God (which I believe it WAS), then it isn't any more because of the changes. The Quran hasn't changed since it was given by, as I believe, God. |
You keep repeating this and yet Indi has already pointed out that it is not true. In case you didn't get Indi's link then try this one;
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Text/index.htmlThat entire site gave me a good hardy laugh. You're an intelligent person; visit the home-page.
It's called "Answering Islam.de" yet all I see is "Muslims in [country] blew up..." "Muslims blew up..." "Muslims blew up..."
I say, if you're going to name your site Answering Islam, talk about Islam, not radical people claiming to follow Islam. If you don't want to, name your site AnsweringRadicalExtremists.de 
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
That entire site gave me a good hardy laugh. You're an intelligent person; visit the home-page.
It's called "Answering Islam.de" yet all I see is "Muslims in [country] blew up..." "Muslims blew up..." "Muslims blew up..."
I say, if you're going to name your site Answering Islam, talk about Islam, not radical people claiming to follow Islam. If you don't want to, name your site AnsweringRadicalExtremists.de |
What has that got to do with the link I provided? Whatever it may say in other parts of the site, the link I provided points to specific information and specific claims about the Quran - not extremist or radical propoganda about Muslims blowing things up.
Are you saying that it is not true that the Sahih Muslim Hadiths record an extra Sura that is not in the Qur’an today?
Are you saying that it is not true that ‘Ubai’s early copies of the Qur’an did not contain two Suras that are in the Qur’an today?
You keep making unsubstantiated claims about the editing of the NT (which did happen, but you never provide sources or explanations for YOUR assertion that it did), and then claiming that the Qu'ran is the word of God as received by Muhammed and completely unchanged - which is just not the case. I have provided several links to sources which challenge that view. Indi has also provided a link to a source which challenges that view. To date you have made no substantive answer to either. Simply accusing the site of being anti-Islam does not address the issue...nobody knows, nobody has lived to tell about it 
lol but i believe there is to give me a hope to die | Quote: |
Question and Answer Details
Name of Questioner
Yasmin - Germany
Title
Has the Qur'an Changed?
Date
21/Apr/2003
Question
I noticed one reader on your site asking how we could answer or give someone evidence that the Qur'an has not changed throughout the past thousands of years. I'm also very eager to know a way to prove that our Qur'an HASN'T been altered.
I read through the entire answer but I could only find proper evidence that the BIBLE was corrupted/distorted not that the Qur'an hasn't been. I was expecting an answer that would be more specific, that would make a non-believer be convinced that the Qur’an hasn't been altered.
Even a non-believer can see enough solid proof in the form of scientific miracles in the Qur’an to realize its authenticity, but what they specifically want to know is how can we be sure that the same copy has been around for all these years? Could you please answer my question in a manner that non-Muslims would find convincing. Thank you very much for the time.
Topic
Islamic Creed, Interfaith Issues, Qur'an & Scriptures
Name of Counselor
Reda Bedeir
Answer
Salaam Yasmin.
Thank you for your challenging question.
In fact, there are different ways to prove that the Qur'an is the word of God, which has always been true and has never been subjected to change or distortion. These proofs can be classified into three types: the way the Qur'an was transmitted throughout the centuries, some challenging verses within the Qur'an itself, and the periodic, modern-day discoveries in the universe that were first mentioned in the Qur'an more than fourteen centuries ago.
Unlike the Bible and Old Testament that have been subject to innumerable translations, doubtful and spurious transmissions, and corruptions at the hands of clerics up till now (with the “gender sensitive” versions coming out these days), the Qur'an was transmitted to us in an unprecedented and unique manner according to rigorous rules of transmission. The Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) via the angel Gabriel, and the Prophet subsequently memorized the whole scripture.
Thousands of the Companions of the Prophet learned the Qur'an directly from the Prophet (pbuh). They memorized it and were known in Islamic history as huffaadh (the memorizers and preservers of the Qur'an). Moreover, a number of Companions wrote it down during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and it was compiled in its entirety immediately after his death.
The following generation of Muslims learned the Qur’an directly from the Companions. Thus the chain of teaching and learning through direct contact continued systematically, methodically, and meticulously until the present age.
Additionally, several of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) were appointed as scribes to record the words of the revelation directly from the Prophet himself on parchment, leather, or whatever else was available. The most famous of these scribes was Zayd ibn Thabit, who also memorized the entire Qur’an, and he formed with the others a community of huffaadh that can be compared to academic societies of our present time.
We know the Qur’an was recorded in totality during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) and the different surahs (chapters) personally arranged by him. Many copies of the text were used for study and teaching, even in Mecca before the Hijrah, the migration to Medina.
The entire Qur’an was written down during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, and trusting the fact that many scholars knew it by heart, it was not collected in one volume. It was personally arranged by him, and the Muslims memorized it in the same order. The companion Uthman reported that whenever a new verse was revealed, the Prophet would immediately call a scribe to record it. He would instruct the person to put the specific verse or verses in a particular chapter.
Furthermore, every year during the month of Ramadan, the Prophet would recite the whole Qur’an from beginning to end in its present-day arrangement, and everyday people could hear it from his own lips in the mosque. Its sequence is no mystery. Many of the Companions not only memorized it completely, they also wrote it down and even added commentary (tafseer) on their own personal copies. When the Prophet passed away, the whole Qur’an was already written down, but it was not yet compiled in book form.
During the rule of the first Caliph Abu Bakr, there was a rebellion among some distant Arab tribes that resulted in a series of fierce battles. In one particular battle, a number Companions who had memorized the Qur’an were killed. The Companion Omar worried that the knowledge of the Qur’an was in danger, thus he convinced Abu Bakr that the Qur’an should be compiled into book form as a means of preserving it once and for all.
Zayd bin Thabit was entrusted with this important task. Zayd followed strict methods in his compilation and had dozens of other huffaadh recheck his work to ensure its accuracy. Abu Bakr, who had also committed the entire Qur’an to memory, approved of the final product. After Abu Bakr passed away, the copy was passed to the Caliph ‘Omar, and then Uthman.
However as the Muslim world expanded into lands where the people spoke Arabic as a second language, the new Muslims had a difficult time learning the correct pronunciation of the text. The Caliph Uthman consulted other Companions, and they agreed that official copies of the Qur’an should be inscribed using only the pronunciation of the Quraysh tribe, the Arabic dialect that the Prophet spoke.
Zayd bin Thabit was again given this assignment, and three other huffaadh were assigned to help him in the task. Together, the four scribes borrowed the original, complete copy of the Qur’an, duplicated it manually many times over, and then distributed them to all of the major Muslim cities within the empire. Two of these copies still exist today: one is in Istanbul and the other in Tashkent.
One must keep in mind that in traditional learning in the Arab world, transmission was based upon an oral tradition as well as a written one; the Arabs (and later all Muslims) excelled in accurately reporting scripture, poetry, aphorisms, etc. through the generations without change. Similarly, the chain of huffaadh was never broken, and thus the Qur'an today has reached us in two forms: the memorized version transmitted through the scholarly chain, and the written version based upon the Companions’ initial recording.
If the Qur’an had been changed, there would be huge discrepancies between these two today, as the Qur’an has reached isolated (and sometimes illiterate) communities through the memorized form of transmission without the written form to correct it. No such discrepancies have ever been recorded or reported. In other words, isolated village A in African Mali and isolated village B in Afghanistan will both produce contemporary huffaadh reciting the same words of the Qur’an, though they did not learn from a similar printing of the scripture nor has there ever been a concerted international effort to rectify would-be discrepancies.
Allah has said in the Qur’an that He alone will protect His book, and indeed He has kept His promise. The Qur’an that we read today contains the same exact words that were revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) over 1400 years ago. This is quite a miracle, especially when you consider that no other group of people can say that their book has not been subject to change by the time it reached the present generation.
Only the Qur’an has survived through the centuries unchanged, and the language in which it was revealed, classical Arabic, still enjoys practical usage around the world. While classic English of the 14th century can be understand by very few native English speakers, the Qur’an can be understood by the vast majority of Arabic-speaking Muslims. When compared to other scriptures, the Qur’an is unique in these two respects.
Furthermore, from the prolific arts that have accompanied Qur’anic learning and transmission, we can learn of the auspiciousness and honor with which the Muslims have traditionally held the Qur’an. The visual arts of calligraphy and binding, and the vocal art of recitation represent examples of such arts, and from them we can see that veracity of transmission would be understood as a fundamental aspect of Qur’anic reverence.
As regards the proofs within the Qur'an itself, they can be found in the following Qur’anic challenges:
Surah 4, verse 82:
*{Do they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.}*
Surah 17, verse 88:
*{Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others.}*
And Surah 2, verse 23:
*{And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.}*
Regarding your reference to the scientific miracles in the Qur’an, they are too numerous to mention in depth. We refer you to the following links for a more detailed..... |
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016020&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamEThere is definitely no "heven" Oh geez. ^_^;
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Quote: | | In fact, there are different ways to prove that the Qur'an is the word of God, which has always been true and has never been subjected to change or distortion. These proofs can be classified into three types: the way the Qur'an was transmitted throughout the centuries, some challenging verses within the Qur'an itself, and the periodic, modern-day discoveries in the universe that were first mentioned in the Qur'an more than fourteen centuries ago. |
|
Problems start right at the beginning.
The question the guy asked was "what they specifically want to know is how can we be sure that the same copy has been around for all these years?"
And the guy who responded says there are three different types of proof:
- The method of transmission.
- "Challenging" verses in it.
- Alleged foreknowledge.
Let's see if that makes any sense at all.
Suppose you received an email from me, and you wanted to be sure that the email you received is exactly what i sent. Do those methods work?
- The method of transmission: Digital transmission is one of the most sophisticated and accurate transmission methods ever developed by humankind - way better than copying texts by hand or transcribing from memory (surely you don't disagree with that ^_^; ). And yet, even digital transmission can sometimes screw up. It's very rare - unless the transmission is extremely noisy - but it does happen, rarely. So even though the method of transmission is very good, you still can't be sure the message hasn't been altered.
Now, even if copying texts or memorization was anywhere near as accurate as digital transmission, 1400 years is a lot of time for a mistake or two to be made. Even if the method of transmission is very high fidelity, you still can't be sure that the transmission has not been altered. So, method 1: fail.
- "Challenging" verses in it: The email you have received has some very "challenging" statements in it. Does that prove that it hasn't been altered? No. ^_^; Not in the least.
Who cares how many "challenging" verses there are, or how "challenging" they may be. They prove nothing about whether it's been tampered with or not. So, method 2: fail.
- Alleged foreknowledge: The email you have received has uncanny foreknowledge of an event that you believe only i should know about. Does that prove that it hasn't been altered? No. ^_^; How? How do you know that the parts that don't have that info aren't all fake? How do you know someone else didn't just guess it? How do you know you aren't just interpreting it a certain way?
Even if the book was full of nothing but perfect predictions... how does that prove it hasn't been altered? How would you know that the wording wasn't changed, or some predictions weren't removed? You can't. So, method 3: fail.
Say what? ^_^; You mean that nothing in that entire response actually answers the question asked?
Well, yes, that's what i do mean. ^_^; The person who wrote this reply wrote a page and a half of crap that has nothing to do with the question asked.
---------------------------
You wanna know how to tell whether the Qur'an was tampered with or not? Simple. You dig up the oldest copy you can find, and compare. Funny enough, that method seems plenty good enough for the Bible... so why not for the Qur'an?
Well, we did that. Doesn't match. Game over. | Indi wrote: |
[list][*]The method of transmission: Digital transmission is one of the most sophisticated and accurate transmission methods ever developed by humankind - |
Oh Jezz.. "Digital transmission" the most accurate one. You have another think coming!
What about transmission by electromagnetic radiation involving selenium, arsenic, and tellurium having photoconducting properties? I think this method is most accurate one every known becuase it produce an exact positive replica of the ( say here quran) material.I don't really think it matters because if the Quran WAS the words of god, then that stupid god can't be a good god.
| catscratches wrote: |
| I don't really think it matters because if the Quran WAS the words of god, then that stupid god can't be a good god. |
Please elaborate. Have you actually read the Quran? It's not a giant book preaching terrorism, murder, hanging homosexuals, beating women, etc. as the Western media would have us believe. I fail to see how one could say the god in the Bible is good (which I don't know if you believe), then say the god in the Quran isn't good. You can't base your opinion of the Quran based on present day radical Islam. The Quran gives no literal justification for these people's actions. The only reason the Quran is caught up in this is because these extremists have taken the words of the Quran and falsely educated people on its meanings and interpretations.
Personally, there is no word of god anywhere lolthe things we are attracted too will determine what kind of habitat we will be in in the afterlife.
at least that is some common team in a lot of books i came across dealing with the topic heaven hell etc.
from a religious point of view, or new age or whatever point of view... just imagen where u will be without thinking any of this. or not thinking about any of this. | liljp617 wrote: |
| catscratches wrote: | | I don't really think it matters because if the Quran WAS the words of god, then that stupid god can't be a good god. |
Please elaborate. Have you actually read the Quran? It's not a giant book preaching terrorism, murder, hanging homosexuals, beating women, etc. as the Western media would have us believe. I fail to see how one could say the god in the Bible is good (which I don't know if you believe), then say the god in the Quran isn't good. You can't base your opinion of the Quran based on present day radical Islam. The Quran gives no literal justification for these people's actions. The only reason the Quran is caught up in this is because these extremists have taken the words of the Quran and falsely educated people on its meanings and interpretations.
Personally, there is no word of god anywhere lol |
I have read parts of the Quran and it DOES say that you should beat up women if they do not obey you. Literally.
I don't claim that the Bible is correct or that the Christian god is good. (I'm not Christian). The Bible is also preaching killing homosexuals and that women are less worth.
EDIT: As soon as I get home and meet my friend (he has it written down) I can tell you exactly where in the Quran and in the Bible it is written. Both thoses texts ARE preaching that women and homosexuals are less worth. Maybe YOU should read the Quran yourself.I'm going to have to agree with all the people who have been saying there is no heaven or hell. The big problem I have with believing there is a heaven or hell is that there is no proof of their existing, and there is no way to verify the existence of either. When you combine this with the fact that heaven and hell is a great way to control other people (through fear), then I have major doubts that either exist.
I guess it just seems to me more likely that heaven and hell are things invented to scare people than actually existing, when it is impossible to prove their existence.
| tennispro9911 wrote: |
I'm going to have to agree with all the people who have been saying there is no heaven or hell. The big problem I have with believing there is a heaven or hell is that there is no proof of their existing, and there is no way to verify the existence of either. When you combine this with the fact that heaven and hell is a great way to control other people (through fear), then I have major doubts that either exist.
I guess it just seems to me more likely that heaven and hell are things invented to scare people than actually existing, when it is impossible to prove their existence. |
I'm not sure whether the big question here is not whether there is an afterlife at all as much as if there is a heaven or hell. Although I was originally looking at it from a perspective of free will, you may have a point about hell being used for fear. There could just be a uniform afterlife that did not take the moral split, and the divide just used as a tool.
But again, there is no conceivable way to prove an afterlife exists, so if we're debating heaven/hell, then there's no point to arguing against the afterlife in general...[quote="wombatrpgs"] | Quote: |
| But again, there is no conceivable way to prove an afterlife exists, so if we're debating heaven/hell, then there's no point to arguing against the afterlife in general... |
if there is no afterlife why debate the established concept of heaven/hell - unless there is the possibility that we humans create this heaven/hell in this life?
cheers | icecool wrote: |
| wombatrpgs wrote: | | But again, there is no conceivable way to prove an afterlife exists, so if we're debating heaven/hell, then there's no point to arguing against the afterlife in general... |
if there is no afterlife why debate the established concept of heaven/hell - unless there is the possibility that we humans create this heaven/hell in this life?
cheers |
I'm not trying to challenge the notion of the afterlife here. Without an afterlife, the debate is meaningless. I didn't say there was or wasn't an afterlife, only that the discussion assumes there is an afterlife. Anyway, I'm sure a lot of people would argue that there is an afterlife, although that's an almost entirely faith-based judgement. And the debate on the established moral split was the point of the topic: If God controls us, how can we be judged based on our actions?In my mind, the idea that we could have an other life in another living forms is pleasant.
So yes, I think there is an afterlife but no heaven or hell
Indi, I think what you may be talking about is finding copies of the Quran in a different dialect of Arabic. Egyptians do not understand Lebanese Arabic, who do not understand Saudi Arabian Arabic (well, some of it), and so you are looking, simply at a different language. We don't claim English versions, or even different dialects of Arabic versions haven't changed; thats just up to interpretation. The original, classical Saudi Arabian Arabic version, however, is what we say hasn't changed. There are many similarities in the different dialects of Arabic, but the differences remain.
Well, I am assuming monotheism (and specifically Christianity).
Here goes.
First, we will assume three truths:
1) There is a God
2) God exists in all planes and dimensions of the universe
3) God is love
If God is love, then it would make sense for there to be a Heaven ... but if Hell exists, than neither can a God that exists in every dimension and plane of existence and is love, because Hell is described by the Bible as a place where people are seperated from God. Ergo, if God is love, there is no Hell.
Heaven, quite possibly.
In what way, may I ask, is God "love"? Not to be for or against that opinion, I'm just curious...
IF the whole God thing would've been true, I certainly would not have seen him as love...
I would think the "God is Love" interpretation is a more modern interpretation... More appealing than a church that claims God hates you... Anyway, it doesn't seem fitting for a loving god to send people to hell anyway, point taken, but it could just be an attempt to find some way to justify your actions... Although that statement could be used for religion in general...
There's a difference between saying "God loves you" and "God is love".
Well, it is. But I can't see hw would send you to hell in any of the meanings...
If you had a child, would you let them do anything? Every household has it's own set of "rules", and say you stop doing what they tell you. Obviously, your parents still love you, but will they let you do anything? No, they punish you (even though they love you).
i just went and came back from "Heven". it does exist...
had a great vacation there... 
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| If you had a child, would you let them do anything? Every household has it's own set of "rules", and say you stop doing what they tell you. Obviously, your parents still love you, but will they let you do anything? No, they punish you (even though they love you). |
Well, maybe in some forms of parenting... I've always thought the intent of punishment was to teach the children. Eternal pain and damnation seem a little harsh to try and teach someone a lesson. It just seems a little, well, vindictive. But then again, the Bible is a bit harsh at times anyway, and not so much in others. The contrast between the old and new testaments is very stark. "Love thy enemy" goes completely against the whole Jews slaughtering their enemies portions... | wombatrpgs wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | If you had a child, would you let them do anything? Every household has it's own set of "rules", and say you stop doing what they tell you. Obviously, your parents still love you, but will they let you do anything? No, they punish you (even though they love you). |
Well, maybe in some forms of parenting... I've always thought the intent of punishment was to teach the children. Eternal pain and damnation seem a little harsh to try and teach someone a lesson. It just seems a little, well, vindictive. But then again, the Bible is a bit harsh at times anyway, and not so much in others. The contrast between the old and new testaments is very stark. "Love thy enemy" goes completely against the whole Jews slaughtering their enemies portions... |
The fact that punishment is eternal makes the whole parental punishment argument bullshit. As you say, punishment is intended to correct the behaviour of children - to bring it into line with some standard. If the punishment was never-ending, then you can't learn anything from it. It's just mean-spirited.
Not to mention that a nice person would try to fit the punishment to the crime more or less. Mouthing off to a parent normally does not warrant the child being tortured by fire, and refusing to clean up the room doesn't result in their hands being chopped off. Giving an eternal punishment would only be fair for an eternal crime... which is impossible. | Indi wrote: |
| The fact that punishment is eternal makes the whole parental punishment argument bullshit. |
I couldn't agree more. Just to restate for the...three trillionth time? I don't go with the Bible or the bullshit the Vatican has done/made up. According to my religion, Hell is not a permanent punishment. Just like a parent's punishment to you depends on what you've done, the amount of time and how fiercely you are in Hell depends too. A drug-dealer, a porn-star, and Hitler will have different punishments. The time in Hell is supposed to be a spiritual purification until one can enter Heaven. After all, that's better than saying "Ok, forget about what you did in life. Come on to Heaven", or "Now you're stuck in Hell forever."
| Indi wrote: |
| Not to mention that a nice person would try to fit the punishment to the crime more or less. |
| wiki wrote: |
Islam
Muslims believe in jahannam (in Arabic: جهنم) (which is related to the Hebrew word gehennim and resembles the versions of Hell in Christianity). In the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam, there are literal descriptions of the condemned in a fiery Hell, as contrasted to the garden-like Paradise (jannah) enjoyed by righteous believers.
In addition, Heaven and Hell are split into many different levels depending on the actions perpetrated in life, where punishment is given depending on the level of evil done in life, and good is separated into other levels depending on how well one followed God while alive.
There is an equal number of mentions of both Hell and paradise in the Qur'an, which is considered by believers to be among the numeric miracles in the Qur'an.[citation needed]
The Islamic concept of Hell is similar to the medieval Christian view of Dante.[citation needed] However, Satan is not viewed as Hell's ruler, merely one of its sufferers. The gate of Hell is guarded by Maalik also known as Zabaaniyah. The Quran states that the fuel of Hellfire is rocks/stones (idols) and human beings.
Names of Hell according to Islamic Tradition based on the Quranic ayah and Hadith:
* Jahim
* Hutamah
* Jahannam
* Ladza
* Hawiah
* Saqor
* Sae'er
* Sijjin
* Zamhareer
Although generally Hell is often portrayed as a hot steaming and tormenting place for sinners there is one Hell pit which is characterized differently from the other Hell in Islamic tradition. Zamhareer is seen as the coldest and the most freezing Hell of all, yet its coldness is not seen as a pleasure or a relief to the sinners who committed crimes against God. The state of the Hell of Zamhareer is a suffering of extreme coldness of blizzards ice and snow which no one on this earth can bear.
The lowest pit of all existing Hells is the Hawiyah which is meant for the Hypocrites and two-faced people who claimed to believe in Allah and His messenger by the tongue but denounced both in their hearts. Hypocrisy is considered to be the most dangerous sin of all (despite the fact that Shirk is the greatest sin viewed by Allah). According to the Qur'an, all non-believers who have received and rejected Islamic teachings for reasons unknown will go to Hell.
The Qur'an also says that those who are damned to Hell are not damned forever, but instead for an indefinite period of time. In any case, there is good reason to believe that punishment in Hell is not meant to actually last eternally, but instead serves as a basis for spiritual rectification.[11]
Even though in Islam, the devil, or shaitan, is created from fire, he suffers in Hell because Hellfire is 70 times hotter than the fire of this world. It was also said that Shaytan is derived from shata, (literally `burned'), because it was created from a smokeless fire.[12] |
Again, thats:
| Quote: |
The Qur'an also says that those who are damned to Hell are not damned forever, but instead for an indefinite period of time. In any case, there is good reason to believe that punishment in Hell is not meant to actually last eternally, but instead serves as a basis for spiritual rectification. |
Behold. 'Tis one of the many reasons Islam makes more sense than Christianity. You think this version makes sense ?
| wiki wrote: |
Islam
The Islamic concept of Hell is similar to the medieval Christian view of Dante.[citation needed] However, Satan is not viewed as Hell's ruler, merely one of its sufferers. The gate of Hell is guarded by Maalik also known as Zabaaniyah. The Quran states that the fuel of Hellfire is rocks/stones (idols) and human beings. |
So hell is fuelled by rocks and humans? When you burn something it oxidises. The humans would therefore oxidise pretty rapidly. How the rocks would burn depends on the temperature. It says later in the passage that the temp is 70 times greater than Earthly fires. Well, a typical oxy-hydrogen flame burns at around 2000 C. That gives a temperature of 140,000 degrees. At that temperature a human body would last for less than a second (that is roughly the temperature at the surface of a medium sized star). The rocks would quickly sublimate into gasseous compounds and you would be left with - super-hot gasses or plasmas.
| Quote: |
| Although generally Hell is often portrayed as a hot steaming and tormenting place for sinners there is one Hell pit which is characterized differently from the other Hell in Islamic tradition. Zamhareer is seen as the coldest and the most freezing Hell of all, yet its coldness is not seen as a pleasure or a relief to the sinners who committed crimes against God. The state of the Hell of Zamhareer is a suffering of extreme coldness of blizzards ice and snow which no one on this earth can bear. |
Now what fuels this reaction I wonder? How do you produce extreme cold - say -50C or so? Certainly you can't use humans and rocks for fuel. | Bikerman wrote: |
You think this version makes sense ?
| wiki wrote: | Islam
The Islamic concept of Hell is similar to the medieval Christian view of Dante.[citation needed] However, Satan is not viewed as Hell's ruler, merely one of its sufferers. The gate of Hell is guarded by Maalik also known as Zabaaniyah. The Quran states that the fuel of Hellfire is rocks/stones (idols) and human beings. |
So hell is fuelled by rocks and humans? When you burn something it oxidises. The humans would therefore oxidise pretty rapidly. How the rocks would burn depends on the temperature. It says later in the passage that the temp is 70 times greater than Earthly fires. Well, a typical oxy-hydrogen flame burns at around 2000 C. That gives a temperature of 140,000 degrees. At that temperature a human body would last for less than a second (that is roughly the temperature at the surface of a medium sized star). The rocks would quickly sublimate into gasseous compounds and you would be left with - super-hot gasses or plasmas.
| Quote: | | Although generally Hell is often portrayed as a hot steaming and tormenting place for sinners there is one Hell pit which is characterized differently from the other Hell in Islamic tradition. Zamhareer is seen as the coldest and the most freezing Hell of all, yet its coldness is not seen as a pleasure or a relief to the sinners who committed crimes against God. The state of the Hell of Zamhareer is a suffering of extreme coldness of blizzards ice and snow which no one on this earth can bear. |
Now what fuels this reaction I wonder? How do you produce extreme cold - say -50C or so? Certainly you can't use humans and rocks for fuel. |
Maybe it's located outside of our universe so that there are no sources of heat! (Just kidding)Hmm..common misconception. In that case there would be no temperature at all (it would neither be hot nor cold).
Bikerman, you yourself said that things in the Holy Books shouldn't be taken literally; to tell people how severe the punishment would be, 70 times hotter than anything found on Earth is just a metaphor. The fact that Hell is 'fueled' by idols and humans doesn't mean fuel in the sense of burning these substances to create energy; it means that's what Hell is defined by, the idol-worshipers and other people. Just like NASA is fueled by astronomers, the NBA is fueled by basketball players, and FIFA is fueled by soccer players, Hell is fueled by sinners and idol-worshippers, among other things.
Fried astronomers and basketball players Yes, I did say that. The trouble is that you don't make clear which parts you take literally and which parts you don't. Why do you not think the whole idea of heaven and hell are metaphors? Why do you think they have a literal existence?
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
Bikerman, you yourself said that things in the Holy Books shouldn't be taken literally; to tell people how severe the punishment would be, 70 times hotter than anything found on Earth is just a metaphor. The fact that Hell is 'fueled' by idols and humans doesn't mean fuel in the sense of burning these substances to create energy; it means that's what Hell is defined by, the idol-worshipers and other people. Just like NASA is fueled by astronomers, the NBA is fueled by basketball players, and FIFA is fueled by soccer players, Hell is fueled by sinners and idol-worshippers, among other things.
Fried astronomers and basketball players |
They shouldn't be taken litteraly? According to the legend, the Quran is the direct words of Allah...The Qur'an is thousands of years old because the prophet Mohamed lived in Mecca from 570 – June 8, 632. At the age of 40 while in a cave he received his first revelations from Allah so at best the Qur'an is 1,398 years old.
Reference link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad When we pluralise a word it normally means two or more. Hence 'eggs' is two or more occurances of the singular 'egg'. Thousands is two or more thousand. The Quran is NOT thousands of years old. Pretty basic English really....
| Bikerman wrote: |
| ... The Quran is NOT thousands of years old. Pretty basic English really.... |
True. Usually when we Englishmen try to say more than one, we do add an 's' to the end of the word. But we do also change the word sometimes to make it plural. Like 'child' becoming 'children' or 'woman' becoming 'women'.
But anyways, that really doesn't apply because as far as I know (and I'm surely not Islamic) the Quran isn't English.
But I could be wrong...
God bless ,
Pampoon | pampoon wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | ... The Quran is NOT thousands of years old. Pretty basic English really.... |
True. Usually when we Englishmen try to say more than one, we do add an 's' to the end of the word. But we do also change the word sometimes to make it plural. Like 'child' becoming 'children' or 'woman' becoming 'women'. |
I didn't say 'add an s', I said 'pluralise'. That would include irregular pluralisations.Wow I am impress by your language skills, I hope this is not your only skill. The fact is English is not my first language I can speak three other languages, let me ask you in you infinate wisdom to answer me in Zulu or Greek please? Then I will be able to comment on your language skills.
The fact is it was only received around 600AD so at best it is +/- 1408 years old, it that better English.
Right now it's about 1400 years old (very rounded). In six hundred years it will be THOUSANDS of years old
Hope that's not an issue any more 
heven? heaven maybe. I should quote a famous Indian poet Tagore in this regard (Although proper translation is not possible with my kind of english)
Where is the heaven? Where is the hell?
Who said they are far away?
Inside human there is heaven-hell
Inside human there is god-demon.
I personaly beleive they reside inside us and every human is rewarded or punished based on their work, in their lifetime itself.
Hell is Heaven for the Villians | Poetsunited wrote: |
| Hell is Heaven for the Villians |
Wtf? | bukaida wrote: |
I should quote a famous Indian poet Tagore in this regard (Although proper translation is not possible with my kind of english)
Where is the heaven? Where is the hell?
Who said they are far away?
Inside human there is heaven-hell
Inside human there is god-demon.
I personaly beleive they reside inside us and every human is rewarded or punished based on their work, in their lifetime itself. |
If they're inside us how will we be punished or rewarded? Are you talking about we're punished/rewarded throughout life based on our actions or we're punished/rewarded after death based on our actions? Either way I see contradiction. What would be the reward/punishment for being a good or bad person if the reward/punishment lies within you?
