Koran & Hadith in plain english?

[SA Huguenot]

We have the original LAST MESSAGE.

Only Muhammad said that. No Christian and Jew believed him and knew he was not a prophet.
Muhammad became a prophet to Arabs when he started to chopp peoples heads of for not believing him.

 

[Sedim Haba]

Only Muhammad said that. No Christian and Jew believed him and knew he was not a prophet.
Muhammad became a prophet to Arabs when he started to chopp peoples heads of for not believing him.

That's kinda harsh.

G-d gave Muhammad to Ishmael, as children of Abraham, to guide them.
Or do you value G-d's blessings to Abraham and his descendants so little, Esau?

 

[firedragon]

Why does quoting scholarly sources while explicitly acknowledging that theirs' is simply one view and that it is also possible variants just reflect scribal or other areas "posing as an expert"?

Just vague. Read a bit. Posing as an expert is because you dont read what other people say, dont understand it, and dont ask a question when you dont understand it. I said all of this already.

The only person who presents themselves as an expert is you, and your interactions are primarily about signaling your purported expertise rather than good faith engagement with other posters and what they said.

I think you are projecting your own stance onto others.

I have given you some things to ponder over. You have not even tried to engage with them. Just put some hand signals.

Lets say I asked you some questions about Dan Brubakers methodology. You cut and pasted directly from him. You have not understood him, and you didnt understand my post either. So you ignored it.

Can you go back, read, and respond. If you dont understand, you can clarify.

 

[firedragon]

Hence someone like Tabari frequently notes multiple contradictory explanations of verses, no one understands the mysterious letters, etc.

Not relevant to Sabians right? Lost if you really wish to engage in a fruitful discussion, engage with the post rather than moving to another point.

 

[firedragon]

Only Muhammad said that. No Christian and Jew believed him and knew he was not a prophet.
Muhammad became a prophet to Arabs when he started to chopp peoples heads of for not believing him.

Nope. Not only Muhammed said that. We say that today. People say that today. Just like Christians, Jews and Hindus say similar things today.

So one with a sincere mind has to analyse what people say and make an informed decision. Not just say "only Muhammed said that, or that Only Jews said that, or that only Paul said that" etc etc.

Rather, examine the claim, listen and respond after analysis.

Anyway as a person who shares pornographic gif images in an Internet forum which you are I doubt you intend to do any of that analysis. Its just a humble request hoping even someone as hateful as you are will have the humility to actually analyse rather than spread hatred towards Islam day in, day out.

 

[muhammad_isa]

1. The Christians never went and burned the Bible manuscripts like the Muslims did to the Qurans when they burned Muhammad's and Ali's etc.

This just shows how little you know about the history of Christianity.
For example:-

Emperor Justinian ordered for all of Origen's writings to be burned. In the west, the Decretum Gelasianum, which was written sometime between 519 and 553, listed Origen as an author whose writings were to be categorically banned.
Origenist Crises - Wikipedia

There are many other examples.
The orthodox creed was established by force.
..although Constantine engineered the council of Nicea in 325CE, he later had a so-called Arian bishop to baptise him before he died.

I'm sure that there is a lot you don't know. You have inherited a creed established by political means.
While you deem it as "orthodox" and anything else as heresy, it is not based on scholistic study, but purely on tradition established in the centuries after Jesus' ascension.

 

[SA Huguenot]

That's kinda harsh.

G-d gave Muhammad to Ishmael, as children of Abraham, to guide them.
Or do you value G-d's blessings to Abraham and his descendants so little, Esau?

Ishmail's not even mentioned as Abraham's son in the Quran.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Nope. Not only Muhammed said that. We say that today. People say that today. Just like Christians, Jews and Hindus say similar things today.

So one with a sincere mind has to analyse what people say and make an informed decision. Not just say "only Muhammed said that, or that Only Jews said that, or that only Paul said that" etc etc.

Rather, examine the claim, listen and respond after analysis.

Anyway as a person who shares pornographic gif images in an Internet forum which you are I doubt you intend to do any of that analysis. Its just a humble request hoping even someone as hateful as you are will have the humility to actually analyse rather than spread hatred towards Islam day in, day out.

 

[SA Huguenot]

This just shows how little you know about the history of Christianity.
For example:-

Emperor Justinian ordered for all of Origen's writings to be burned. In the west, the Decretum Gelasianum, which was written sometime between 519 and 553, listed Origen as an author whose writings were to be categorically banned.
Origenist Crises - Wikipedia

There are many other examples.
The orthodox creed was established by force.
..although Constantine engineered the council of Nicea in 325CE, he later had a so-called Arian bishop to baptise him before he died.

I'm sure that there is a lot you don't know. You have inherited a creed established by political means.
While you deem it as "orthodox" and anything else as heresy, it is not based on scholistic study, but purely on tradition established in the centuries after Jesus' ascension.

Origin's writings are not Biblical Manuscripts pal,

Christians never burned the Biblical manuscripts, The Romans, who killed millions of Christians in the first 3 centuries took the Bible Manuscripts and burned it because Christians refused to worship Cesar!
It is a wonder that there are any Manuscripts of the Old and New testaments in existance today!
All the Christians tried to protect the scriptures, not like the Muslim kalifs who burnt the originals to hide the changes they made.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Origin's writings are not Biblical Manuscripts pal,.

I'm not your "pal"..

Christians never burned the Biblical manuscripts

The Bible consists of "writings" .. you are heavily biased by claiming any other documents are not writings.
The apocrytha are writings too.

All the Christians tried to protect the scriptures, not like the Muslim kalifs who burnt the originals to hide the changes they made.

Demonstrably false.
"Christians" were persecuted by "Christians" for their beliefs.
There were many instances in which "writings" were deemed sectarian heresy and suppressed.
The orthodox creed was established politically.
It too, is sectarian.

 

[firedragon]

Origin's writings are not Biblical Manuscripts pal,

Christians never burned the Biblical manuscripts

Which bible manuscript are you talking about? What is the oldest manuscript of the New Testament found so far? Do you have anything earlier than P52 from the second century, and is as small as two or three stamps in size?

So what are you talking about?

Without deviating to a Tu Quoque which you dont understand, can you address that specifically?

 

[firedragon]

It is a wonder that there are any Manuscripts of the Old and New testaments in existance today!

Can you show the oldest manuscript in the original script? Which one is that?

Again, try to be not vague, with no Tu Quoque, and address it directly?

Lets see how you respond.

 

[firedragon]

All the Christians tried to protect the scriptures, not like the Muslim kalifs who burnt the originals to hide the changes they made.

Your didnt have any early manuscripts and there is no indication to it. You just made this up. I know that you cant upload pornographic gif's anymore so you have to resort to cheap insults showing what kind of character you are, but try again to address what is asked.

Lets see how you respond to this.

You will not find a single manuscript, of any size, and no indication of it, prior to the 2nd century. Zilch. And if you do, today I will record myself a kafir. Is that good?

Lets see how you respond to this as well.

 

[firedragon]

Cute emoji. Purple.

 

[firedragon]

Well, how can you check if Muslims burned Muhammad's coppy?

Because see, though you have never read that hadith, it says that Hafzas copy was taken by Uthman and that was returned to Hafza. That was the standard. And Quran manuscripts are there dated to the early 7th century.

But see, though you will not speak about it because you dont know anything about it, the earliest New Testament manuscript is a small two stamp size manuscript called the P52. It is dated by palaeographical analysis to the second century. But you see, the Quran manuscripts are dated to the 1st century hijri. So of course you have to educate yourself a little. Now dont get angry and share porno like you do.

 

[Augustus]

Just vague. Read a bit. Posing as an expert is because you dont read what other people say, dont understand it, and dont ask a question when you dont understand it. I said all of this already.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a general point and being "vague", hence your obsession with demanding people jump through your arbitrary hoops and spend their time establishing some pointless technical credential instead of actually engaging with what they said. You do it in every thread to pretty much every poster.

Then when people don't dance to your command you think it reflects badly on them rather than you not being particularly interesting to converse with due to the fact 90% of your replies are grandstanding or issuing some tangential challenge about a technicality rather than replying to the general point made.

I think you are projecting your own stance onto others.

I have given you some things to ponder over. You have not even tried to engage with them. Just put some hand signals.

If you think quoting a scholar on an internet forum, while adding minimal commentary and not arguing for any definitive conclusion constitutes "posing as an expert" then knock yourself out. Whatever floats your boat and all that.

You might want to try taking yourself a bit less seriously though, it's a forum: an entertainment medium

Lets say I asked you some questions about Dan Brubakers methodology. You cut and pasted directly from him. You have not understood him, and you didnt understand my post either. So you ignored it.

Can you go back, read, and respond. If you dont understand, you can clarify.

Let's say I asked you to read my posts properly and reply to them based on what I said. Could you do that?

If you didn't insist on dancing around so much you might understand things better and not keep barking up the wrong tree.

Given the post wasn't even addressing you, tell me what point you think I was making, in context, and what you disagree with like normal people do before demanding is I spend my time doing what you want.

There's a good chap.

 

[Augustus]

Not relevant to Sabians right? Lost if you really wish to engage in a fruitful discussion, engage with the post rather than moving to another point.

As I was saying, if you have a point, just make it rather than this pointless dancing. Identify what you agree or disagree with and explain why rather than returning to this tedious routine.

My point: Early exegetes clearly don't seem to know how to understand certain verses on the Quran. This includes things we would assume people once knew, such as the identity of the Sabians. As such there is a good case to be made that some degree of knowledge was lost between the early generations of Muslims (or perhaps proto-Muslims).

Precisely which specific exegete in which specific text is largely irrelevant to the general point, but regardless, yes I do consider what I said relevant.

For example:

The classical Muslim exegetes offer a large number of conflicting suggestions. Some of these are purely abstract, for example, “they are between the Magians and the Jews” (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, ad q 2:62), but a few are more concrete. One account (not mentioned in al-Ṭabarī's Tafsīr but cited by some of the later commentators) identifies the Sabians with a pagan community in Ḥarrān, generally described as star ¶ worshippers (cf. Shahrastānī, Mafātīḥ, i, f. 168b f.; id., Milal, 248-51; Fr. trans. in Livre des religions, ii, 167-72). In fact, the polytheists of Ḥarrān did call themselves ṣābiʾūn, at least when writing in Arabic, but among Muslim authorities the view was widespread that these people had appropriated the qurʾānic name “ Sabians” merely so as to be able to claim the status of “People of the Book” and thus to avoid Muslim persecution (cf. de Blois, Sabians). A few authors claim that the “real Sabians,” i.e. the Sabians of the Qurʾān, are a sect living in the swamps of southern Iraq. Ibn al-Nadīm's (d. ca. 385/995) Fihrist (Eng. trans. of this passage in de Blois, Sabians, 53-60) gives a fairly detailed account of these “Sabians of the swamps,” who, he claims, were “numerous” in his own time (late fourth/tenth century), from which description their identity as a remnant of an early Christian sect, the Elchasaites, emerges. And, at a later date, the name “Sabians” was also applied to a different community in southern Iraq, the non-Christian Mandaeans.

Sabians - Encyclopedia of the Quran


Al-Tabar ̄i’s opening explanation of the Sabians is extensive and varied. Noting the different opinions of the Companions and of the Successors, he summarizes the Sabians as follows.

1. They are the people who do not adhere to any traditional religion, but are monotheists and claim to be the possessors of revelation from Alla ̄h;
2. They are the people known as the followers of Prophet Nu ̄h (Peace Be Upon Him);
3. They are the people who are monotheists and believe in the Psalms of David;
4. They are a group of people belonging to the category of People of the Book;
5. They are a group of people falling in between the Jews and the Christians;
6. They are the people falling in between the Jews and the Zoroastrians;
7. They are the people falling in between the Christians and the Zoroastrians;
8. They are the people who believe in monotheism but they neither belong to the Jewish faith, nor to the Christians, nor to the Zoroastrians, nor do they have any revealed book and specific religious laws;
9. They are the people who are monotheists but worship stars and angels;
10. They are the people who are dualists and do not have any scripture (al-Tabar ̄i 1:252–253).

The Al-Sa ̄biu ̄’n (the Sabians) in the Quran: An Overview from the Quranic Commentators, Theologians, and Jurists - Muhammad A. Sabjan

 

[Link]

Sabians are astrologers and soothsaying type people that may not be polytheistic explicitly. This is what I understand from hadiths of Ahlulbayt (a).

 

[firedragon]

You don't seem to understand the difference between a general point and being "vague", hence your obsession with demanding people jump through your arbitrary hoops and spend their time establishing some pointless technical credential instead of actually engaging with what they said. You do it in every thread to pretty much every poster.

Then when people don't dance to your command you think it reflects badly on them rather than you not being particularly interesting to converse with due to the fact 90% of your replies are grandstanding or issuing some tangential challenge about a technicality rather than replying to the general point made.



If you think quoting a scholar on an internet forum, while adding minimal commentary and not arguing for any definitive conclusion constitutes "posing as an expert" then knock yourself out. Whatever floats your boat and all that.

You might want to try taking yourself a bit less seriously though, it's a forum: an entertainment medium



Let's say I asked you to read my posts properly and reply to them based on what I said. Could you do that?

If you didn't insist on dancing around so much you might understand things better and not keep barking up the wrong tree.

Given the post wasn't even addressing you, tell me what point you think I was making, in context, and what you disagree with like normal people do before demanding is I spend my time doing what you want.

There's a good chap.

So did you understand what I said about the Madhwaajib in arabic and how that makes a recital (since you mentioned recital). ?

 

[firedragon]

As I was saying, if you have a point, just make it rather than this pointless dancing. Identify what you agree or disagree with and explain why rather than returning to this tedious routine.

My point: Early exegetes clearly don't seem to know how to understand certain verses on the Quran. This includes things we would assume people once knew, such as the identity of the Sabians. As such there is a good case to be made that some degree of knowledge was lost between the early generations of Muslims (or perhaps proto-Muslims).

Precisely which specific exegete in which specific text is largely irrelevant to the general point, but regardless, yes I do consider what I said relevant.

For example:

The classical Muslim exegetes offer a large number of conflicting suggestions. Some of these are purely abstract, for example, “they are between the Magians and the Jews” (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, ad q 2:62), but a few are more concrete. One account (not mentioned in al-Ṭabarī's Tafsīr but cited by some of the later commentators) identifies the Sabians with a pagan community in Ḥarrān, generally described as star ¶ worshippers (cf. Shahrastānī, Mafātīḥ, i, f. 168b f.; id., Milal, 248-51; Fr. trans. in Livre des religions, ii, 167-72). In fact, the polytheists of Ḥarrān did call themselves ṣābiʾūn, at least when writing in Arabic, but among Muslim authorities the view was widespread that these people had appropriated the qurʾānic name “ Sabians” merely so as to be able to claim the status of “People of the Book” and thus to avoid Muslim persecution (cf. de Blois, Sabians). A few authors claim that the “real Sabians,” i.e. the Sabians of the Qurʾān, are a sect living in the swamps of southern Iraq. Ibn al-Nadīm's (d. ca. 385/995) Fihrist (Eng. trans. of this passage in de Blois, Sabians, 53-60) gives a fairly detailed account of these “Sabians of the swamps,” who, he claims, were “numerous” in his own time (late fourth/tenth century), from which description their identity as a remnant of an early Christian sect, the Elchasaites, emerges. And, at a later date, the name “Sabians” was also applied to a different community in southern Iraq, the non-Christian Mandaeans.

Sabians - Encyclopedia of the Quran


Al-Tabar ̄i’s opening explanation of the Sabians is extensive and varied. Noting the different opinions of the Companions and of the Successors, he summarizes the Sabians as follows.

1. They are the people who do not adhere to any traditional religion, but are monotheists and claim to be the possessors of revelation from Alla ̄h;
2. They are the people known as the followers of Prophet Nu ̄h (Peace Be Upon Him);
3. They are the people who are monotheists and believe in the Psalms of David;
4. They are a group of people belonging to the category of People of the Book;
5. They are a group of people falling in between the Jews and the Christians;
6. They are the people falling in between the Jews and the Zoroastrians;
7. They are the people falling in between the Christians and the Zoroastrians;
8. They are the people who believe in monotheism but they neither belong to the Jewish faith, nor to the Christians, nor to the Zoroastrians, nor do they have any revealed book and specific religious laws;
9. They are the people who are monotheists but worship stars and angels;
10. They are the people who are dualists and do not have any scripture (al-Tabar ̄i 1:252–253).

The Al-Sa ̄biu ̄’n (the Sabians) in the Quran: An Overview from the Quranic Commentators, Theologians, and Jurists - Muhammad A. Sabjan

So again, let me cut and paste my response and maybe you could respond to the response.

Anyway, its true that the meaning of Sabians has been one of discussion as far as anyone knows. This is a theological question, and it was always deemed that the Qur'an has some verses which is Muthasaabih which means dual or the primary true meaning is unknown yet to the reader. But it also says that there will be some who use these words to delve on and drag everything down. So I dont know of any mufassireens who took one of these words and went haywire with it. How we understand it is that if there are words that we are not knowing which is called Thaweel its not going to matter theologically, and we will know the meaning one day. Thaweel al masaari.

Do you understand?