The Original Sin

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

The Saint

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 07 November 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 832

Posted: 06 February 2016 at 5:54am

So much for "declaring the greatness only of your Lord"! Do you still support Nouman Ali Khan's translation of Quran verse 74:3?

You couldn't be serious!? There are at least twenty five prophets mentioned in the Quran. And they are mentioned as prophets.

Let me ask you do you still get confused between God Almighty and Prophets?

Invite [all] to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious

BaruchHaba View Drop Down

Newbie

Joined: 22 November 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 28

Posted: 06 February 2016 at 7:22am

This thread has wandered from its original topic of original sin. Without going thru 45 pages of comments, can someone state/restate the Muslim position on original sin? Do the Sunni and Shia share the same belief on the matter?

The Saint

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 07 November 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 832

Posted: 06 February 2016 at 7:23am

Greetings The Saint,
I answered that question on Jan. 19th, page 40. Smile

I looked at page 40 but couldn't find it. Can you kindly repeat it here. Thanks.

- Born of a virgin. Why?

God Almighty showing how else can a man be created.

- Died and rose from the dead 3 days later, just as He prophesied to do.
'destroy this temple and in 3 days I will raise it up again' (the Word of Yshwe to the Pharisees)

Actually, he never died.

- Performed miracles. Who can perform miracles except with the power of God?

Exactly. By the power of God. Not by himself. He is known to have said, 'by myself I can do nothing'.

- Forgave sins. Who can forgive sins, except God Himself? Why did Yshwe make a point of saying, "your sins are forgiven", and not "you are healed"?

Please give a reference from the Bible?

More soon.

Invite [all] to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious

airmano

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 31 March 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 884

Posted: 07 February 2016 at 7:20am

Ahmad: It [The Quran] was first compiled in the book form during the reign of 1st Caliph Hazrat Abu Bakr.

Airmano: That's not what I understood. I thought it was Uthman. What makes you say so ?

Ahmad: You might want to consult the link I shared... http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/061-sbt.php

Ahmad: Oh, my fault if I missed your reference, however, this particular is about long page of more than eighty ahadith. Bro Airmano, pl do help me if you find any specific hadith which supports your allegation. Till now, I don't find it, I am so lazy.......

Airmano: So your link (see above) you open, to 507 and 510 you go and what I stated you'll find.

Ahmad: Good! But how could you miss 509?

Playing Games ? Pretending that you are lazy upon my question "That's not what I understood. I thought it was Uthman [and not Abu Bakr to compile the Quran] ?",
just to come back one post later with your reference to 509 ?

Well, be it so. Let's have a look at the Hadith 509 which you quote and 510 which I took to support my thought.

Extracted from 509:
Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You [Zaid bin Thabit] are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book). Followed by: Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar..
These sentences do indeed support your claim, but you were "too lazy" to give them to me at the time.

OK, let's compare these sentences with "my claim" from 510:
.... Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies.
it finishes with:
'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

So the following questions arise: Why did Uthman ask Zaid to compile the Quran (again) ? Was the book that was supposed to be "protected by God" (and possessed by Abu Bakr) simply lost ?

Take this sentence from 510:
"so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran)".
Expressing a sentence like this, makes it clear that serious "corruption" was likely to be on its way,

further supported by the sentence:

"...and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt".

This means that "corruption" had already happened and the only way out, was to canonize [a version of] the Quran (and to burn the others).

Modern peer reviewed science thinks along along these lines as well, read i.e. the sentence:
Donner interprets Small's work as showing "that there was a very early attempt to establish a uniform consonantal text of the Qurʾān from what was probably a wider and more varied group of related texts in early transmission. [...] After the creation of this standardized canonical text, earlier authoritative texts were suppressed [!!!], and all extant manuscripts�despite their numerous variants�seem to date to a time after this standard consonantal text was established.".

Tough, isn't it ?

And no, Smith is not the only one thinking along these lines.

Looking at the internationally respected researcher Gerd Puin who analyzed the Sanaa scriptures we find in the above Wiki entry about Puin the interesting sentence:

My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants.

So obviously it is not only my idea.
So, accusing the Christians of "Corrupting the bible" is kind of a joke, that makes me cite Freud: What we criticize the most on others is likely to be our own problem.

To summarize: Nowadays there is indeed a standardized version of the Quran, but "corruption" has taken place [long time] before, just as the bible.

Your turn, Airmano

Edited by airmano - 07 February 2016 at 8:06am

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Caringheart View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 March 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 2991

Posted: 07 February 2016 at 12:20pm

The Saint wrote:

Caringheart wrote:

- Died and rose from the dead 3 days later, just as He prophesied to do.
'destroy this temple and in 3 days I will raise it up again' (the Word of Yshwe to the Pharisees)

Actually, he never died.

Greetings The Saint,
You dispute with the testimony of a great many witnesses... Romans, and others living in Jerusalem, who were witness to His death. The Roman soldiers that saw him laid to rest in a tomb and were told to guard it. Were these Roman guards told to stand guard over the tomb for nothing?

The Saint wrote:

Caringheart wrote:

- Performed miracles. Who can perform miracles except with the power of God?

Exactly. By the power of God. Not by himself. He is known to have said, 'by myself I can do nothing'.

This should indeed confirm for you that the 3 are One. Yshwe by Himself alone would not have the full power of God... could not do the things which He was given to do on earth.

The Saint wrote:

Caringheart wrote:

- Forgave sins. Who can forgive sins, except God Himself? Why did Yshwe make a point of saying, "your sins are forgiven", and not "you are healed"?

Please give a reference from the Bible?

From the book of Luke, chapter 5

¹⁸And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him.

¹⁹And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus.

²⁰And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

²⁴But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.

²⁵And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God.

From the book of Luke, chapter 7

⁴¹There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.

⁴²And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?

⁴³Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.

⁴⁴And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.

⁴⁵Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

⁴⁶My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

⁴⁷Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

⁴⁸And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

⁴⁹And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?

⁵⁰And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

asalaam and may God bless us all with His blessing,

Caringheart

Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis

Caringheart View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 March 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 2991

Posted: 07 February 2016 at 12:25pm

Originally posted by The Saint

I would be very interested to hear from you what you consider to be proofs of the said plurality revealed in your scriptures. Because there is no such thing mentioned in the Quran.

reply on Jan. 19th, reposted:

Caringheart wrote:

Greetings The Saint,
Two of your statements prompted a response from me.

- Is it really so hard to understand One God in three parts?

Yes, He is infinite. How can we even try to limit Him?

Do you really expect God to be one dimensional, or two or even 3 dimensional? a thing simple for the human mind to comprehend?

God is indivisible. He is One and Only. We are not aware of His dimensions. He has chosen not to reveal them to us. Just as so many other things He has chosen not to reveal to us.
Greetings The Saint,
On the one hand you are saying that God can not be limited,
and in the next breath you are saying God is 'indivisible, One only One',
but going on to say 'we are not aware of all His dimensions because He does not reveal all of them'.

So where is the problem with the Trinity concept of God? Knowing the Trinity does not mean there are not other aspects of God that we do not know, or that are not revealed. These three are what have been revealed.

The plural Elohim, "us" and "our", in Genesis 1:26 (just like the We in the qur'an) reveal that God is a plurality. The singular El, "his" and "he", in Genesis 1:27 revealed that this plurality is all a part of one".

Edited by Caringheart - 07 February 2016 at 12:32pm

Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis

AhmadJoyia View Drop Down

Senior Member

Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647

Posted: 08 February 2016 at 8:35pm

airmano wrote:

Playing Games ? Pretending that you are lazy upon my question "That's not what I understood. I thought it was Uthman [and not Abu Bakr to compile the Quran] ?",
just to come back one post later with your reference to 509 ?

Well, be it so. Let's have a look at the Hadith 509 which you quote and 510 which I took to support my thought.

Extracted from 509:
Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You [Zaid bin Thabit] are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book). Followed by: Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar..
These sentences do indeed support your claim, but you were "too lazy" to give them to me at the time.

OK, let's compare these sentences with "my claim" from 510:
.... Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies.
it finishes with:
'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

So the following questions arise: Why did Uthman ask Zaid to compile the Quran (again) ? Was the book that was supposed to be "protected by God" (and possessed by Abu Bakr) simply lost ?

Take this sentence from 510:
"so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran)".
Expressing a sentence like this, makes it clear that serious "corruption" was likely to be on its way,

further supported by the sentence:

"...and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt".

This means that "corruption" had already happened and the only way out, was to canonize [a version of] the Quran (and to burn the others).

Modern peer reviewed science thinks along along these lines as well, read i.e. the sentence:
Donner interprets Small's work as showing "that there was a very early attempt to establish a uniform consonantal text of the Qurʾān from what was probably a wider and more varied group of related texts in early transmission. [...] After the creation of this standardized canonical text, earlier authoritative texts were suppressed [!!!], and all extant manuscripts�despite their numerous variants�seem to date to a time after this standard consonantal text was established.".

Tough, isn't it ?

And no, Smith is not the only one thinking along these lines.

Looking at the internationally respected researcher Gerd Puin who analyzed the Sanaa scriptures we find in the above Wiki entry about Puin the interesting sentence:

My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants.

So obviously it is not only my idea.
So, accusing the Christians of "Corrupting the bible" is kind of a joke, that makes me cite Freud: What we criticize the most on others is likely to be our own problem.
To summarize: Nowadays there is indeed a standardized version of the Quran, but "corruption" has taken place [long time] before, just as the bible.
Your turn, Airmano

Your arguments and witnesses are not supportive of your hypothesis. Here is what you objected when I said Ahmad: It [The Quran] was first compiled in the book form during the reign of 1st Caliph Hazrat Abu Bakr. and you questioned it by saying
Airmano: That's not what I understood. I thought it was Uthman. What makes you say so ? So, in my support I presented you a similar evidence (509) that you presented to support your hypothesis. Since chronologically, 509 is prior to all of your other references, thus your view is not valid.

airmano

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 31 March 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 884

Posted: 08 February 2016 at 11:54pm

Ahmad:
Since chronologically, 509 is prior to all of your other references, thus your view is not valid.

That's a bit like claiming: Islam can't be right because the Bible came first.

So: Could you answer my questions instead of smoking red herrings ?

Airmano

Edited by airmano - 08 February 2016 at 11:55pm

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")