Satanic Verses

[NickAdams]

Taken from wikipedia:

Satanic Verses is an expression coined by the historian Sir William Muir in reference to a few verses delivered by Muhammad as part of the Qur'an and later retracted.

Basic narrative

There are numerous reports on the incident, which differ in the construction and detail of the narrative, but they may be broadly collated to produce a basic account. In its essential form, the story reports that Muhammad longed to convert his kinsmen and neighbors of Mecca to Islam. As he was reciting Sūra an-Najm, considered a revelation by the angel Gabriel, Satan tempted him to utter the following lines after verses 19 and 20 ("Have you considered Allāt and al-'Uzzā / and Manāt, the other third?")
These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for.
Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshipped by the Meccans. Discerning the meaning of "gharāniq" is difficult as it is a word found only in one place. Commentators wrote that it meant the Numidian cranes, which fly at great heights[citation needed]. The Arabic word does generally mean a "crane" - appearing in the singular as ghirnīq, ghurnūq, ghirnawq and ghurnayq, and the word has cousin forms in other words for birds, including "raven, crow" and "eagle".
The subtext to this allegation is that Muhammad was backing away from his otherwise uncompromising monotheism by saying that these goddesses were real and their intercession effective. The Meccans were overjoyed to hear this and joined Muhammad in ritual prostration at the end of the sūrah. The Muslim refugees who had fled to Abyssinia heard of the end of persecution and started to return home. Islamic tradition holds that Gabriel chastised Muhammad for adulterating the revelation, at which point [Qur'an 22:52] is revealed to comfort him,
We have sent no messenger or apostle before you
with whose recitations Satan did not tamper.
Yet God abrogates what Satan interpolates;
then He confirms His revelations,
for God is all-knowing and all-wise.
Muhammad took back his words and the persecution by the Meccans resumed. Verses [Qur'an 53:21] were given, in which the goddesses are belittled. The passage in question reads:
Have you thought of Allāt and al-'Uzzā
and Manāt, the other third?
Are there sons for you, and daughters for Him?
This is certainly an unjust apportioning.
These are only names which you and your fathers have invented. No authority was sent down by God for them. They only follow conjecture and wish-fulfillment, even though guidance had come to them already from their Lord.
In early Islam

The Satanic Verses incident is reported in the tafsir and the sira-maghazi literature dating from the first two centuries of Islam, and is reported in the respective tafsīr corpuses transmitted from almost every Qur'anic commentator of note in the first two centuries of the hijra. It seems to have constituted a standard element in the memory of the early Muslim community about the life of Muhammad. The earliest biography of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq (761-767) is lost but his collection of traditions survives mainly in two sources: Ibn Hisham (833) and al-Tabari (915). The story appears in al-Tabari, who includes Ibn Ishaq in the chain of transmission, but not in Ibn Hisham. Ibn Sa'd and Al-Waqidi, two other early biographers of Muhammad relate the story. Scholars such as Uri Rubin and Shahab Ahmed and Guillaume hold that the report was in Ibn Ishaq, while Alford T. Welch holds the report has not been presumably present in the Ibn Ishaq.
Transmission of the narrative
The tradition of the Satanic Verses never made it into any of the canonical hadith compilations (though see below for possible truncated versions of the incident that did). The temporary control taken by Satan over Muhammad made such traditions unacceptable to the compilers. This is a unique case in which a group of traditions are rejected only after being subject to Qur'anic models, and as a direct result of this adjustment. The reference and exegesis about the Verses appear in early histories. In addition to appearing in Tabarī's Tafsīr, it is used in the tafsīrs of Muqātil, ‘Abdu r-Razzāq and Ibn Kathir as well as the naskh of Abu Ja‘far an-Nahhās, the asbāb collection of Wāhidī and even the late-medieval as-Suyūtī's compilation al-Durr al-Manthūr fil-Tafsīr bil-Mathūr.
Objections to the incident were raised as early as the fourth Islamic century, such as in the work of an-Nahhās and continued to be raised throughout later generations by scholars such as Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 1157), Fakhr ad-Din Razi (1220) as well as al-Qurtubi (1285). The most comprehensive argument presented against the factuality of the incident came in Qadi Iyad's ash-Shifa‘.[1] The incident was discounted on two main bases. The first was that the incident contradicted the doctrine of isma‘, divine protection of Muhammad from mistakes. The second was that the descriptions of the chain of transmission extant since that period are not complete and sound (sahih). Ibn Kathir points out in his commentary that the various isnads available to him by which the story was transmitted were almost all mursal, or without a companion of Muhammad in their chain. There exists a complete version of the isnad continuing to ibn ‘Abbās, but this only survives in a few sources. Uri Rubin states that the name of ibn ‘Abbās must have been part of the original isnad, and was removed so that the incident could be deprived of its sahih isnad and discredited.
Those scholars who acknowledged the historicity of the incident apparently had a different method for the assessment of reports than that which has become standard Islamic methodology. For example, Ibn Taymiyya took the position that since tafsir and sira-maghazi reports were commonly transmitted by incomplete isnads, these reports should not be assessed according to the completeness of the chains but rather on the basis of recurrent transmission of common meaning between reports.
‘Urtubī (al-Jāmi' li ahkām al-Qur'ān) dismisses all these variants in favor of the explanation that once Sūra al-Najm was safely revealed the basic events of the incident (or rumors of them) "were now permitted to occur to identify those of his followers who would accept Muhammad's explanation of the blasphemous imposture" (JSS 15, pp. 254-255).
By the time of Qurtubī (d. 1272), a series of ever more elaborate exculpations had accrued to the basic narrative. These variously claimed that:
The entire incident is nothing more than a rumor started by Meccans.
Muhammad uttered the Satanic Verses unaware.
Satan deceived Muhammad into reciting the verses by delivering them in the guise of the angel Gabriel; this would cast all other revelations from Gabriel in doubt.
Satan, while invisible, projected his voice so that the verses seemed to emanate from Muhammad.[citation needed]
Some enemy of Muhammad (either satanic or human) recited the verses in Muhammad's voice to discredit him.

[planet earth]

Yes Nick

We are aware of this event, of course. I just wanted to know your comments about it.

I would rather write my comment after you tell us your impression about knowing this story of these three satanic verses.

[NickAdams]

I apologize for not putting my goal for this thread in the first post, I will correct that, but I would like to know more about it. I'm not interested with authenticity, I just like collecting small amounts of information before reading a text and since I plan on reading the Quran within the next month or two, I figured I'd get the ball rolling. I am skeptical of wikipedia, so I posted it hear to see what people had to say about, what references they may produce and just different view points.

[Nightshade]

Humm I have never heard of the satanic verses ( other than the Rushdie book which I have yet to get around to reading and as its about number 400 on my list it will be a while I guess before I do get round to it!) , but it is intresting there are a few things Id like to add but I need to double check them first, and I guess Im going to have to digg out a copy of Tafseer al tabiri to look at too...:D But wiki is really quite far from the most reliable of sources so any other refferance would also be intresting :D

[Saladin]

Yeah. I know also about this myth.

For instance its not surprising that Tabari is one of the most used sources of Muir.

By the way Nightshade. Good luck with finding an english translation of Tabari. I dont think there is one. There is Ibn Kathir (most used tafseer in the muslim world) in english. But Ibn Kathir and most of the other tafsir doesn`t mention these socalled "satanic" verses which Tabari is mentioning. Tafseer = commentary of the Quran, ergo tafseer is not actually holy scripture.

[planet earth]

Well, according to what I know, these verses are not verses in Al-Najm chapter, whehter they were before or not.

In fact the three verses in their place totally reject the idea of polytheism and intercession through "lumps of stone" or any other thing of course.

whether the event truly occured or not therefore does not truly matter, but if it did then, I would say that this is a good point for Muhammad. There is nothing to hide, and when he wrongly recited them, he had the courage to correct what he had heard.

Of course Nick you don't have to apologize.

I wanted to ask you something, relating to the closed thread. I wanted to know what would you expect the word of God to be. I was thinking about that for a while, and I wondered what are you expecting?

[Nightshade]

By the way Nightshade. Good luck with finding an english translation of Tabari. I dont think there is one.
It's a good thing I can read arabic then isn't it? :p Also I am fairly certain Ive seen a copy of it Ive just got to rember whose book shelf I saw it on...:D
And yes I do realise tafseer are just inturrpritations and ccommentry , which is why I have yet to really get into them, I am planning on buy the complete Sheik Sharawy tafseer and reading them, for lots of reasons but mainly because he used clear simple languge and I reeeeeeeeeeally like the cover.
I did read something last night though in surrat el imran that made me think about this thread or rather the incedent, or rather it reminded me of the passagages in suurat el baqarrah about the change in quiblah and how things occur in stages.
Im not explaining this right I guess I need to formulate my ideas better :rolleyes: :D

[NickAdams]

I wanted to ask you something, relating to the closed thread. I wanted to know what would you expect the word of God to be. I was thinking about that for a while, and I wondered what are you expecting?

If I believed in a God, I would figure his "word" would be something that could be understood by anyone. Without the difficulty of interpretation. It would be understood by children, adults, the best minds, the deprived minds, every race and creed. If I believed in a God and wanted to know what his word was I would observe people with different mental handicaps and see what moral concepts they had in common. God's word should be understood by those of the lowest comprehension. God's word should not have to be taught. That's what I think about the matter.

[planet earth]

If I believed in a God, I would figure his "word" would be something that could be understood by anyone. Without the difficulty of interpretation. It would be understood by children, adults, the best minds, the deprived minds, every race and creed. If I believed in a God and wanted to know what his word was I would observe people with different mental handicaps and see what moral concepts they had in common. God's word should be understood by those of the lowest comprehension. God's word should not have to be taught. That's what I think about the matter.

Great Nick

Your Reply is wonderful. I think this is the God I worship. I really don't want to go into the trap of preaching so I will not say anything. You will read and judge for yourself

[NickAdams]

Great Nick

Your Reply is wonderful. I think this is the God I worship. I really don't want to go into the trap of preaching so I will not say anything. You will read and judge for yourself

I don't think his word can be found in books, because then God's teachings won't reach the illiterate. It also won't reach tribes dwelling in the depths of the jungle. I will read though. Whether I'm a believer or not, religion is a serious part of peoples lives and I won't be able to understand them without reading these text myself. I'm tired of divisions. I am in search of peace.:)

[planet earth]

I don't think his word can be found in books, because then God's teachings won't reach the illiterate. It also won't reach tribes dwelling in the depths of the jungle. I will read though. Whether I'm a believer or not, religion is a serious part of peoples lives and I won't be able to understand them without reading these text myself. I'm tired of divisions. I am in search of peace.:)

I cannot describe to you how happy I am with your reply and with the way you think. You are one way or another aiding me through.

I am not sure if you are aware that my beloved prophet Muhammad was illiterate.

He it is Who hath sent among the unlettered ones a messenger of their own, to recite unto them His revelations and to make them transcend, and to teach them the Scripture and wisdom, though heretofore they were indeed in error manifest, Quran 62:2

So the Quran was not read before. It descended upon a forty year old unlettered man, in a tribe, called Quraish. So it reached them. Allah is Justice. He would never punish someone he did not Convey the message to. So He did. It was through recitation then that the Quran was told. The very first followers of Islam were illeterate poor men of the tribe. Some of the rich followed too, but some did not because of arrogance and pride of leaving the lumps of stone they worshipped. Later on those who learned it by heart started writing it so it would not be forgotten.

Finally we are all tired of divisions, and if you are looking for peace, I would love to tell you that one of Allah's names is The peace, and Heaven is the Mansion of Peace, and His Message was of Peace, and all His message carriers were men of Peace.

I swear, I am speaking out of my heart and have no intentions other than to tell you what I know and believe.

[The Atheist]

Finally we are all tired of divisions, and if you are looking for peace, I would love to tell you that one of Allah's names is The peace, and Heaven is the Mansion of Peace, and His Message was of Peace, and all His message carriers were men of Peace.

Why does he hate the Jews so much then?

[mazHur]

Taken from wikipedia:

Satanic Verses is an expression coined by the historian Sir William Muir in reference to a few verses delivered by Muhammad as part of the Qur'an and later retracted.

Basic narrative

There are numerous reports on the incident, which differ in the construction and detail of the narrative, but they may be broadly collated to produce a basic account. In its essential form, the story reports that Muhammad longed to convert his kinsmen and neighbors of Mecca to Islam. As he was reciting Sūra an-Najm, considered a revelation by the angel Gabriel, Satan tempted him to utter the following lines after verses 19 and 20 ("Have you considered Allāt and al-'Uzzā / and Manāt, the other third?")
These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for.
Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshipped by the Meccans. Discerning the meaning of "gharāniq" is difficult as it is a word found only in one place. Commentators wrote that it meant the Numidian cranes, which fly at great heights[citation needed]. The Arabic word does generally mean a "crane" - appearing in the singular as ghirnīq, ghurnūq, ghirnawq and ghurnayq, and the word has cousin forms in other words for birds, including "raven, crow" and "eagle".
The subtext to this allegation is that Muhammad was backing away from his otherwise uncompromising monotheism by saying that these goddesses were real and their intercession effective. The Meccans were overjoyed to hear this and joined Muhammad in ritual prostration at the end of the sūrah. The Muslim refugees who had fled to Abyssinia heard of the end of persecution and started to return home. Islamic tradition holds that Gabriel chastised Muhammad for adulterating the revelation, at which point [Qur'an 22:52] is revealed to comfort him,
We have sent no messenger or apostle before you
with whose recitations Satan did not tamper.
Yet God abrogates what Satan interpolates;
then He confirms His revelations,
for God is all-knowing and all-wise.
Muhammad took back his words and the persecution by the Meccans resumed. Verses [Qur'an 53:21] were given, in which the goddesses are belittled. The passage in question reads:
Have you thought of Allāt and al-'Uzzā
and Manāt, the other third?
Are there sons for you, and daughters for Him?
This is certainly an unjust apportioning.
These are only names which you and your fathers have invented. No authority was sent down by God for them. They only follow conjecture and wish-fulfillment, even though guidance had come to them already from their Lord.
In early Islam

The Satanic Verses incident is reported in the tafsir and the sira-maghazi literature dating from the first two centuries of Islam, and is reported in the respective tafsīr corpuses transmitted from almost every Qur'anic commentator of note in the first two centuries of the hijra. It seems to have constituted a standard element in the memory of the early Muslim community about the life of Muhammad. The earliest biography of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq (761-767) is lost but his collection of traditions survives mainly in two sources: Ibn Hisham (833) and al-Tabari (915). The story appears in al-Tabari, who includes Ibn Ishaq in the chain of transmission, but not in Ibn Hisham. Ibn Sa'd and Al-Waqidi, two other early biographers of Muhammad relate the story. Scholars such as Uri Rubin and Shahab Ahmed and Guillaume hold that the report was in Ibn Ishaq, while Alford T. Welch holds the report has not been presumably present in the Ibn Ishaq.
Transmission of the narrative
The tradition of the Satanic Verses never made it into any of the canonical hadith compilations (though see below for possible truncated versions of the incident that did). The temporary control taken by Satan over Muhammad made such traditions unacceptable to the compilers. This is a unique case in which a group of traditions are rejected only after being subject to Qur'anic models, and as a direct result of this adjustment. The reference and exegesis about the Verses appear in early histories. In addition to appearing in Tabarī's Tafsīr, it is used in the tafsīrs of Muqātil, ‘Abdu r-Razzāq and Ibn Kathir as well as the naskh of Abu Ja‘far an-Nahhās, the asbāb collection of Wāhidī and even the late-medieval as-Suyūtī's compilation al-Durr al-Manthūr fil-Tafsīr bil-Mathūr.
Objections to the incident were raised as early as the fourth Islamic century, such as in the work of an-Nahhās and continued to be raised throughout later generations by scholars such as Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 1157), Fakhr ad-Din Razi (1220) as well as al-Qurtubi (1285). The most comprehensive argument presented against the factuality of the incident came in Qadi Iyad's ash-Shifa‘.[1] The incident was discounted on two main bases. The first was that the incident contradicted the doctrine of isma‘, divine protection of Muhammad from mistakes. The second was that the descriptions of the chain of transmission extant since that period are not complete and sound (sahih). Ibn Kathir points out in his commentary that the various isnads available to him by which the story was transmitted were almost all mursal, or without a companion of Muhammad in their chain. There exists a complete version of the isnad continuing to ibn ‘Abbās, but this only survives in a few sources. Uri Rubin states that the name of ibn ‘Abbās must have been part of the original isnad, and was removed so that the incident could be deprived of its sahih isnad and discredited.
Those scholars who acknowledged the historicity of the incident apparently had a different method for the assessment of reports than that which has become standard Islamic methodology. For example, Ibn Taymiyya took the position that since tafsir and sira-maghazi reports were commonly transmitted by incomplete isnads, these reports should not be assessed according to the completeness of the chains but rather on the basis of recurrent transmission of common meaning between reports.
‘Urtubī (al-Jāmi' li ahkām al-Qur'ān) dismisses all these variants in favor of the explanation that once Sūra al-Najm was safely revealed the basic events of the incident (or rumors of them) "were now permitted to occur to identify those of his followers who would accept Muhammad's explanation of the blasphemous imposture" (JSS 15, pp. 254-255).
By the time of Qurtubī (d. 1272), a series of ever more elaborate exculpations had accrued to the basic narrative. These variously claimed that:
The entire incident is nothing more than a rumor started by Meccans.
Muhammad uttered the Satanic Verses unaware.
Satan deceived Muhammad into reciting the verses by delivering them in the guise of the angel Gabriel; this would cast all other revelations from Gabriel in doubt.
Satan, while invisible, projected his voice so that the verses seemed to emanate from Muhammad.[citation needed]
Some enemy of Muhammad (either satanic or human) recited the verses in Muhammad's voice to discredit him.

this is sheer nonsense concocted by none other than some sects of Muslims, particularly the Shias (Kharijees). Tabari and Kathir are not recognized by sunnis as authentic traditionalists.
Quran was compiled almost 80 years after the death of holy prophet and that too by Khalif Umar so that Quranic verses and traditions dont get mixed up. In those days many muslims knew quran by heart and so did the Caliphs. Traditions were screened out from the Quranic verses and stress marks were placed on its words for uniform understanding. Quran collected in this way was sent to the rulers of all Muslim empires of that time and this is the reason no one finds any difference in any edition of Quran. It was only disputed by the Shias, who claimed inheritance of prophethood for Ali and his progeny, and here all the trouble in the Muslim world started. The shias accused the Caliphs of destroying some chapters of the holy Quran as well as inducting some chapters of their own. This controversy exists till this day ,,,,and there is no way to sort it out. On top of this the hypocrites also took advantage of the rift between different sects of Islam and invented certain traditions and stories to malign Islam and the holy prophet.

Even a child of common intelligence will note that a Prophet like ours wouldn't err in terming idols of laat o manaat with reverence when infact he believed in the sunnah of Ibrahim who destroyed idols and spoke of one God!

[planet earth]

Why does he hate the Jews so much then?

Who is he?
Do you mean Allah?
Allah does not hate anyone. How will he hate those whom He created?
Allah did not even use the word hate about Himself to someone in the Quran.
And when the word "hate", Arabic "kariha" he said not he hated them, but hated their deeds.

There is a huge difference between hating someone and hating the bad doings he does. I love my daughters but I hate their nagging for example. I love my daughters but if they do something wrong I am upset with them. I love my daughters but I will punish them if they do something wrong. My daughters may then think that I hate them, because simply they are not aware I am doing this for their sake, because I really want them to be better.

Aren't the Jews, children of Israel? Then I would just introduce a few verses containg what He said about them

And verily we gave the Children of Israel the Scripture and the Command and the Prophethood, and provided them with good things and favoured them above (all) peoples; 45:16

Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. 2:62

Verily, it is We who bestowed from on high the Torah, wherein there was guidance and light. On `its strength did the prophets, who had surrendered themselves unto God, deliver judgment unto those who followed the Jewish faith; and so did the [early] men of God and the rabbis, inasmuch as some of God's writ had been entrusted to their care; and they [all] bore witness to its truth. Therefore, [O children of Israel,] hold not men in awe, but stand in awe of Me; and do not barter away My messages for a trifling gain: for they who do not judge in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high are, indeed, deniers of the truth! 5:44

And who told you that if the Muslims or Christians did deeds that would upset our beloved Creator he would not set punishments upon them. This would never ever mean He hates us.

[The Atheist]

Who is he?
Do you mean Allah?

That would be the one, yes, since he gave the instructions on what to write, and it contains these bits:


O ye who believe! Take not the jews and the Christians for friends.

Not exactly love thy neighbour, is it?


Lo! many of the (jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah.

Jews (and christians) are avaricious.


Because of the wrongdoing of the jews We forbade them good things which were (before) made lawful unto them, and because of their much hindering from Allah's way,

Jews are wrongdoers who lead people from Allah.


and of the jews: listeners for the sake of falsehood,

Jews eavesdrop and spread lies.

How many more would you like?

Quran quotes taken from here. (http://www.islam.tc/quran/)

[planet earth]

The Atheist,

Did you read any of the verses I placed. They are from the Quran too.
Where is you're comment on them?

But anyway,and despite I know you will ignore the following verses too but I will discuss the matter with you. Allah as I have said before is Justice. Justice is one of His names. For everything He has a cause. If you tell your son not to make friends with someone there is a reason. But first of all you have to tell him that not all people are alike. This is exactly what God said. He said some Jews, and Christians, as well as some Muslims are not good. Don't therefore make friends with those who are not good. Then He clarifies that not all of them are alike saying these beautiful verses:

Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration.They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right. 3:113-115

Then Allah elaborates to explain to us why wouldn't we be friends with those who are not good from them. The reason is simple. It is just because they do not like us while we like them and love them as you were pointing to. THe fact is we love them, sorrowfully they don't as clarified here:

Lo! ye are those who love them though they love you not, and ye believe in all the Scripture. When they fall in with you they say: We believe; but when they go apart they bite their finger-tips at you, for rage. Say: Perish in your rage! Lo! Allah is Aware of what is hidden in (your) breasts. 3-119

THen Dear Allah sums the matter up for people. and very simply tells humanity who does he forbid dealing with and whod does He not.

Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those
who are just 60:8

I really hope this is clear enough. The Quran is not a book of generalizations. It is a book that explains everything to everyone. Finally, there are verses that are very difficult upon Muslims themselves, if they do wrongly. The destiny of wrong doers whether from the Muslims or elsewhere, is the same. Allah's rules are one, they never change. But his mercy embraces everyone. I really hope His mercy reaches us all of.

I know you are one of the good doers. I know you care for other Human Beings, and I think Allah put this mercy in your heart to serve Him with caring for the poor and needy here in this world. It is just that one is sometimes unaware that he is serving right in this world, while this is why we were created.

[The Atheist]

The Atheist,

Did you read any of the verses I placed. They are from the Quran too.
Where is you're comment on them?

They just describe the fact that the three sects share a common god. Which is kind of a necessity, since the quran draws on the torah.

That the book is contradictory is just another problem with the quran, it doesn't negate any other part of it.


But anyway,and despite I know you will ignore the following verses too but I will discuss the matter with you.

It's not a question of ignoring, the premises are exactly the same no matter which religion it is - it's all in the interpretation.

My only point was to show where the anti-semitic bits were. Without getting too close to politics, you'd have to admit that radical islam has mis-used those parts of the book to stir hatred just as christians used the bible to stir hatred of heretics in the past. To some degree, bible literalists still do this.

I'm not questioning your interpretation, as it seems moderate and reasonable, but the passages exist.


I really hope this is clear enough. The Quran is not a book of generalizations. It is a book that explains everything to everyone.

Which is exactly what Jews and christians tell me about their books.


..., and I think Allah put this mercy in your heart to serve Him ....

Well, one of us will be wong!

:)

[planet earth]

The Atheist;

without being biased, I guess the Quran is a book of integrity rather than contradiciton. It is true that I am a Muslim, first by birth, then by belief, and I am proud to be so. But this does not mean that I should cancel the gift of having a mind. Therefore, I have read the Old and new Testaments. The conclusions I reached were that they are from the same source; Allah, but the Quran is more concise.

Islam, as described in the Quran, is a middle, central, balanced religion and that is what should make it differ. As you pointed radicals and fanatics are everywhere not only religion-wise, but ethnic-wise, colour-wise and so on. This has nothing to do with what the religion itself came with.

Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, came with the first peace treaty with the Jews in medina, when a jew died, and the funeral was passing by he stood up in respect to the human soul. He used to borrow money from Jews. And I do not know if you are familiar of the Stolen Shield story, when muslim stole a shield from a muslim, and because he was afraid of being caught he hid the sheild in the garden of a jew, to be found in his garden. When the matter was revealed to Prophet Muhammad, he let go of the Jew, and the muslim was to take his due punishment and the Quran said upon the incident,

O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do. 5:8

Finally, I believe that who wants His way will be guided to it. This is for certain.

[West]

NickAdams, This issue was dealt with on a website called www.islamic-awareness.org.


Here is the link to the article in response to the Alleged Satanic verses:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html



Please let me know if you get to read it and what you think. Take your time as well. And I encourage you to read the article as it will give you an excellent counter argument and refutation to the alleged Satanic verses. You can compare that to what you have already read and decide for yourself then.


PS: You might want to bookmark the website as it is very useful to people like you who are interested to know more about the QURANIC text, its history, how it was compiled, and some other polemics. It is academic and very informative website.

[West]

BTW, can I go off topic and ask my Atheist friend here a question about his Avatar? I am not sure I can just private someone unless they are the Mods and I have some forum questions. I like public communication better :lol:


I don't want this topic to be closed like the one we had going before in case my question derails the topic at hand :D

[The Atheist]

Fire away, the thread doesn't look too lively at this stage.

[West]

Fire away, the thread doesn't look too lively at this stage.



My friend, the question I have has no religious significance(at least to me). The pic you have in your avatar is somewhat connected to my country of Origin during when famine struck and many died of hunger and malnutrition. It can also be that the kid is from a neighbouring country but is of same ethnicity as me(we are spread and live in adjacent countries too), we can tell our own by just looking at their facial features and there is an instant recognition between us. But this is not the main reason I wanted to ask you this question: Why do you have it on? What is your message if there is one, and what were your thoughts exactly when you chose it to be your Avatar? Hope I made sense and I didn't come across as weird or ridiculous by asking this.

Seeing you are an atheist, I had an opinion of mine about the whys you had the pic on, to prove God is not merciful for letting things like that happen, but I don't want to impose my own biased perception on others who almost always happen to have a different take on issues. So, what is your answer? :D

PS: You can't see much but I am the guy in the Avatar.

[The Atheist]

The pic you have in your avatar is somewhat connected to my country of Origin during when famine struck and many died of hunger and malnutrition. It can also be that the kid is from a neighbouring country but is of same ethnicity as me(we are spread and live in adjacent countries too), we can tell our own by just looking at their facial features and there is an instant recognition between us.

That would be right; it's a freely- and widely-available photo used for publicity purposes. You can certainly his facial bone structure.


But this is not the main reason I wanted to ask you this question: Why do you have it on? What is your message if there is one, and what were your thoughts exactly when you chose it to be your Avatar? Hope I made sense and I didn't come across as weird or ridiculous by asking this.

Not at all - I put it there to get people to talk about it. It's actually nothing to do with atheism, but a means of drawing people to the link at the bottom of the page to help feed those kids.

Good on you for asking instead of assuming - that gets a solid 10/10 in my book - people are prone to assume things about atheists. Looking at it as you did never even occurred to me before now. I'll take that as well.

Cheers!

:D

[NickAdams]

NickAdams, This issue was dealt with on a website called www.islamic-awareness.org.


Here is the link to the article in response to the Alleged Satanic verses:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html



Please let me know if you get to read it and what you think. Take your time as well. And I encourage you to read the article as it will give you an excellent counter argument and refutation to the alleged Satanic verses. You can compare that to what you have already read and decide for yourself then.


PS: You might want to bookmark the website as it is very useful to people like you who are interested to know more about the QURANIC text, its history, how it was compiled, and some other polemics. It is academic and very informative website.

Thanks for the link. I can't say I ever believed in the authenticity of the Satanic Verses, because I don't believe in Satan.;)

The validity of their argument was damaged for me with this statement of personal bias: "These derogatory names were concocted by "love-thy-neighbor", "turn-thy-cheek" Christians ..."

[West]

Thanks for the link. I can't say I ever believed in the authenticity of the Satanic Verses, because I don't believe in Satan.;)

The validity of their argument was damaged for me with this statement of personal bias: "These derogatory names were concocted by "love-thy-neighbor", "turn-thy-cheek" Christians ..."



Would it be wrong to hold christians(and muslims as well) to higher standards based on their beliefs? cause, I see that is what the comment which you quoted is aiming for. It is as if the writer is saying that the men behind these names were a bit hypocritical in engaging something that counters their religious philosophy - saying one thing and doing the opposite :D

[West]

That would be right; it's a freely- and widely-available photo used for publicity purposes. You can certainly his facial bone structure.

Not at all - I put it there to get people to talk about it. It's actually nothing to do with atheism, but a means of drawing people to the link at the bottom of the page to help feed those kids.

Good on you for asking instead of assuming - that gets a solid 10/10 in my book - people are prone to assume things about atheists. Looking at it as you did never even occurred to me before now. I'll take that as well.

Cheers!

:D



That is noble of you. You were not scoring a point with the picture but advocating for a cause which many of us have neglected. Good for you my friend. I thought different but wanted to see if my thoughts matched your reasons for having it. And I totally missed the link you have at the bottom, never paid attention to it.

Have you had any luck with people talking about it? the pic? what stories have you read associated with the pic if any?

Kepe up the good work :thumbs_up

[NickAdams]

Would it be wrong to hold christians(and muslims as well) to higher standards based on their beliefs? cause, I see that is what the comment which you quoted is aiming for. It is as if the writer is saying that the men behind these names were a bit hypocritical in engaging something that counters their religious philosophy - saying one thing and doing the opposite :D

I know what it implies, but it is done very smugly. In a few of the Quran threads that have been posted in the last week it was written that one should not judge all Muslims by the acts of extremist Muslims. If they are not acting in accordance to their religious doctrine then the are not maintaining their belief, this goes for all religions. It is not what I expect from an academic site.

[The Atheist]

Have you had any luck with people talking about it? the pic? what stories have you read associated with the pic if any?

Kepe up the good work :thumbs_up

Cheers!

Yes, a few people have added the link to their own details, so it's working!

[West]

I know what it implies, but it is done very smugly. In a few of the Quran threads that have been posted in the last week it was written that one should not judge all Muslims by the acts of extremist Muslims. If they are not acting in accordance to their religious doctrine then the are not maintaining their belief, this goes for all religions. It is not what I expect from an academic site.

Very true. Generalizations are wrong regardless and the site is actually one of the best I have seen when it comes to Quranic text history and issues relating to it. One thing to note is that the sub-link I provided is part of the polemics section. Rebuttals can get a little heated or too passionate sometimes. The writer was particular in his language about the one group among christians, the ones who were behind the dissemination of unsubstantiated Satanic Verses in the Quran. I would have rephrased few lines to come across dispassionate but would still be singling out the group as dabbling in double standard :D

[0=2]

Anything that particularily attracts you to validating the authenticity of these particular works?

If your interested in Luciferian groundworks, there are many others.

[blazeofglory]

Let all have the freedom to pour out. But to agree or disagree is up to you.