ISLAM Q&A

Djinn is like gin and that's evil spirits which can easily get up there, if you're not careful.

Smile

0 Replies

Is that why I have been sent some in a bottle shaped like a soldier?

0 Replies

Good stuff, intit? Smile

But not Islamic. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it here.

Anyway, for the record, I think all religion is bunkum, but very complicated bunkum.

0 Replies

Excellent, once you are brave enough to take the soldier's hat off Smile

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

...I think all religion is bunkum...

Are you a true believer in The Great Bunkum?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

muslim1, isn't equivocating djinns with devils an oversimplification? Aren't there, in your religion, djinns that fear, respect and in some way work for Allah?

You're absolutely right Wolf. I didn't find an equivalent in English for the Arabic word "jinn", that's why I put devils between brackets, just to have a closer meaning.
But you're right, there are jinns who believe in God (Allah):
"Say: It has been revealed to me that a company of Jinns listened (to the Qur'an). They said, 'We have really heard a wonderful Recital!
'It gives guidance to the Right, and we have believed therein: we shall not join (in worship) any (gods) with our Lord. " [Glorious Qur'an 72:1-2]
and
"Behold, We turned towards thee a company of Jinns (quietly) listening to the Qur'an: when they stood in the presence thereof, they said, "Listen in silence!" When the (reading) was finished, they returned to their people, to warn (them of their sins). "[Glorious Qur'an 46:29]

0 Replies

So getting back into the spirit of things here, what is Jinn good for

And what bad for? If you are feeling low, could a Jinn put a tonic in your life?

0 Replies

Steve,

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

It may be that I am particularly dense and ignorant about Islam

I think you have a better understanding of my religion now in comparison with our old discussions (when I first joined the forum).

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

If Uthman borrowed the original Koran from Hafsa as you say, did he give it back? And if not, why not?

The word "borrowed" is used here to show that this process happened with the approval of the mother of believers, Hafsa (May Allah be pleased with her). Uthman (May Allah be pleased with him) took the original Qur'an because he was the leader of Muslims and the responsible for the preservation of the Holy Book.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

What happened to the original? And where is it now?

"Uthman's Qur'an" (which has EXACTLY the same content as the revealed verses) can be found in the Topkapi Museum of Istanbul, Turkey.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Surely in the whole of Islam, the original Koran as handled by the Prophet himself MUST be the most important holy relic.

I appreciate your advice to more than a billion Muslims on earth.
May I, in my turn, advice you? Would you mind carefully studying Islam without pre-established ideas, by reading the Holy Qur'an and the authentic teachings of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him)?

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

One might have thought the Caliph would take more care over the original manuscript which was the key founding document of the very religion over which he presided. And its not good enough to say well its the content of the Koran which is important, and now we have copies, the original can be discarded. Apart from being surprizingly disrespectful how can anyone say for sure that it would never be necessary to refer to the ORIGINAL?

I explained a number of times why "Uthman's Qur'an" contains exactly the same revealed verses.
If the verses have remained on separate pieces, scrapes of leather, thin flat stones, leaflets, palm branches, shoulder blades... there would have been many people who would pretend detaining the word of God. So the idea was to gather all that material in one single and unique book. And as I said before, it is the content of the word of God which is important.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Put yourself in the position of Uthman. You borrow the holiest book in Islam from the Prophet's wife (no less). You yourself are the Caliph. Your religion and your position depend on that book. Yet you manage to lose it.

He (may Allah be pleased with him) did not lose it, it can be found in the Topkapi Museum of Istanbul. You can compare its content with the Arabic Qur'an we use today: you'll find them letter-by-letter identical.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

So getting back into the spirit of things here, what is Jinn good for
And what bad for? If you are feeling low, could a Jinn put a tonic in your life?

For details about the Jinns according to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah: Jinns in Islam

The Jinns were created to worship God, just like humans, but they have their own world. "I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve (worship) Me."[Glorious Qur'an 51:56]

Your questions Steve are most welcome.

And Allah knows best.

0 Replies

We are going round in circles here Muslim1. I am not refering to the copies that Uthman made, but the original from which they were copied. You can clarify things straight away if you can just tell me if the Koran which is in the Topkapi Museum of Istanbul, Turkey, is the same as the one that Uthman borrowed, the one you refer to here...

muslim1 wrote:

The third Caliph of Islam, Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) borrowed the original manuscript of the Qur'an, which was authorized by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), from Hafsa (may Allah be pleased with her), the Prophet's wife.

If it is, fine they must have dated it. How old is it? If its not then what happened to the original manuscript to which you refer?

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

We are going round in circles here Muslim1. I am not refering to the copies that Uthman made, but the original from which they were copied. You can clarify things straight away if you can just tell me if the Koran which is in the Topkapi Museum of Istanbul, Turkey, is the same as the one that Uthman borrowed, the one you refer to here...

muslim1 wrote:
The third Caliph of Islam, Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) borrowed the original manuscript of the Qur'an, which was authorized by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), from Hafsa (may Allah be pleased with her), the Prophet's wife.

If it is, fine they must have dated it. How old is it? If its not then what happened to the original manuscript to which you refer?

What about that chap in Salt Lake City who carelessly lost the gold tablets he was given by an angel or something?
That was a shame, that could have cleared a lot of stuff up.

0 Replies

Yeah Brigham Young I think his name was. It was the Word of God again, this time written on gold plates which only good old Brighham could read (of course) with his Special Crystal Spectacles. Can you believe he lost both the tablets and the specs? And they were GOLD. That had real scrap value.

Meanwhile back at the Lancashire Council of Mosques, a little light on what happened to the early copies of the Koran..

"At the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632 CE, it is quite certain that there was no firm written text of the Qur'an that bore the Prophets stamp of approval. However, it is almost equally certain that there were written collections of the Qur'anic material that the Prophet had a part in dictating and ordering.

Historical tradition records that a variety of individual these people were given instructions by him to include specific portions of revelations in the Surah bearing such and worked in the capacity of scribes for the prophet and that such a name. Not only does this kind of report indicate a concern for seeing the Qur'anic revelations in written form, but it also indicates that the structure and chapters and their names had been determined while Muhammad was still living and that he used them to make an ordered record of the revelation.

The nature of the revelations necessitated that the Prophet repeated them constantly to his Companions and continually revised the form which the collections of fragments had to take. It is common belief among Muslims that the Prophet recited every year in the month of Ramadan (9th month of the Islamic calendar), in the presence of Gabriel, that the portion of the Qur'an which had been revealed up until that year. The Prophet also held public recitations, sometimes in congregation at night (tarawih), so that private copies could be corrected.

After the Prophets death, the Caliph Abu Bakr (632-634) felt the urgency of codifying the Qur'an, upon observing that Companions who knew the Qur'an by heart had been killed in battles, he charged Zaid b. Thabit, the Prophets chief amanuensis for taking dictation of newly received revelation, with the task of preparing a fair copy of the entire text in the form of a book.

The fair copy thus prepared was called the Mushaf (bound leaves), which was kept in the Caliphs own custody and, after him, by his successor 'Umar (634-644). During this time the Islamic domain stretched from Tripoli (Libya) to Balkh (Afghanistan) and from Armenia to Sindh (Pakistan) and Gujarat (India). 'Umar realised the need of sending authentic copies of the text to the provincial centres, to avoid deviations; but it was left to his successor 'Uthman (644-656) to accomplish this task. One of the lieutenants, returning from Armenia, reported that he had found conflicting copies of the Qur'an, which created many problems. 'Uthman immediately entrusted the copy prepared for Abu Bakr to a commission presided over by Zaid, for preparing an authoritative version. On completion it was read before the experts (among the Companions) present in the capital. A copy of this Qur'an was sent to different centres of the Islamic world with orders that henceforth all copies should be based only on the authentic copy.

The copies of the Qur'an sent by 'Uthman to provincial centres gradually disappeared in the succeeding centuries; one of them is at present in the Topkapi Museum, Istanbul; another incomplete one id in Tashkent, Uzbekistan."

According to the Oxford School of Oriental and African Studies (a source I trust more than the Lancashire Council of Mosques), the Koran was certainly compiled and most probably written well after the death of Mohammed in 623 CE. Textual analysis reveals a link to the Jewish Talmud, and there are parallel stories between Mohammed and prophets from the Jewish bible. My own view is that to claim it to be the final perfect and unchanging word of God is preposterous. There is of course no evidence whatever to support such a claim. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence to show that the Koran is not perfect (nor even consistant) and that there have indeed been changes to the script between the earliest known Koranic texts, and that accepted today. But of course I am only interested in facts not faith.

0 Replies

Muslim1,

Asalamu alauikum sister, I believe. Just wanted to say you have been doing a great job in answering all these questions. May Allah SWT reward you for that. I havent visited this forum for a while until recently.

Steve,

Let me come at your question in a different angle. Living in the western standards we all grew up in, we are used to documenting everything. Maybe because our brains lack memory skills and therefore everything must be written down inorder to be considered true. This is the standard nowadays. So a written document is the primary way of verifying things. This is the way we think and are used to. But around the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the primary way of verifying things was NOT in writing, rather it was by memory. The primary way of documenting the Quran was NOT in the written book format, rather in the minds of the Muslims. The Quran was preserved primarily in the minds of the Muslims. So there was no worry that the Quran would be lost. Because it would always be in the memory. But still the Sahabas (companions of the Prophet), thought about the future generations and decided to compile the Quran in written format which Muslim1 explained. This written compilation, which so many orientilists try to attack, was the secondary way of preserving the Quran, because there was no worry that it would be lost in the memories of the Muslims.

So how can we know its the SAME EXACT WORD FOR WORD Quran as the one revealed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) in its original language of arabic ofcourse? Well if there were different versions of Quran, then there would exist people all over the world reciting the Quran differently right? But there isnt any. If you go to any country in the entire world, each people will recite the Quran the same exact way as everyone else, not one word will be different from any verse. The word "Quran" does not mean book, rather it means "recitation", something you recite. Being that we grew up in a western society I know its hard to imagine that one can memorize that much stuff. Well its really not, I know of many personal friends by the age of 19 who already memorized the entire Quran in Arabic, and they are not even arabs.

Hope this cleared up some questions.

0 Replies

Assalamu Alaykum brother QKid.
Welcome back to the forum and may Allah reward you for your brilliant answer.

0 Replies

QKid wrote:

Living in the western standards we all grew up in, we are used to documenting everything. Maybe because our brains lack memory skills and therefore everything must be written down inorder to be considered true.

its because we have learnt that memories are fallible. If its written evidence its more likely to be valid, but written material is not by definition true.

... But around the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), the primary way of verifying things was NOT in writing, rather it was by memory. The primary way of documenting the Quran was NOT in the written book format, rather in the minds of the Muslims.

Writing was the primary means of documenting things from the time writing came into use. Its probably why it came into use. But of course very few people could write, so they employed scribes, a bit like we use accountants and trades people today.

The Quran was preserved primarily in the minds of the Muslims. So there was no worry that the Quran would be lost. Because it would always be in the memory.

but you said our brains lack memory skills. Or are you saying there has been a rapid deterioration in man's ability to memorise since the time of Mohammed? Your comment later that several of your friends have memorised the Koran would suggest otherwise

But still the Sahabas (companions of the Prophet), thought about the future generations...

presumably anticipating their future inability to remember...

and decided to compile the Quran in written format which Muslim1 explained. This written compilation, which so many orientilists try to attack, was the secondary way of preserving the Quran, because there was no worry that it would be lost in the memories of the Muslims.

historians and anthropologists interested in the middle east are generally called Orientalists. They do not "try to attack" the compilation which became the Koran. They study it dispassionately and place it in its historical context. That their conclusions are uncomfortable for some Muslims is unfortunate but cannot be helped. Their objective is research and knowledge, not destruction of faith. Its pretty clear to me that the Koran and story of its origin is based on myth and legend and only codeified by the generations after Mohammed. Nevertheless this does not invalidate it as the basis of faith, if thats what you want to believe, but it tells us absolutely nothing about the historical record.

So how can we know its the SAME EXACT WORD FOR WORD Quran as the one revealed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) in its original language of arabic ofcourse? Well if there were different versions of Quran, then there would exist people all over the world reciting the Quran differently right? But there isnt any.

this is a fatuous argument. No written record from the time of Mohammed exists, so we don't know

If you go to any country in the entire world, each people will recite the Quran the same exact way as everyone else, not one word will be different from any verse.

perfectly, from memory, everyone everywhere? Without error? I dont believe this for one moment. I have had to learn lines and I tell you its bloody difficult to get it exactly right. If on the other hand you mean the Koran in written form then all you are talking about is someone's ability to copy. Anyone can do that. And as a matter of fact as I've said several times, early Koranic texts found at Sana'a in Yemen do indeed differ from the modern text. I will supply references if you want to learn more, but I suspect you dont.

Thank you for your answer Qkid and thanks also for disabusing me of the idea that Muslim1 is male, but as for satisfying or clearing up the points I raised, sorry it doesn't.

0 Replies

On TV in Britain, Channel 4, Sunday you can check this

The Root of All Evil?
[subtitles]
The God Delusion
Professor Richard Dawkins, Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and world-renowned evolutionary biologist, is no stranger to controversy. In this contentious two-part series, Dawkins decribes God as the most unpleasant fictional character of all and launches a wholehearted attack on religion as the cause for much of the pain and suffering in the world.

and further

Root of all Evil, The - Documentary & Factual

Professor Richard Dawkins, the world-renowned evolutionary biologist, whose atheism has earned him the nickname of 'Darwin's Rottweiler', takes a personal journey through the world's three great monotheistic religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Dawkins thinks it is time for science to stop sitting on the fence. In the light of overwhelming scientific evidence that, he believes, shows a supreme being cannot exist, and in a world in which religious conflict and bigotry are increasingly centre stage, Dawkins argues that for the good of humanity, religion needs to be challenged and disproved. Never one to shy away from a debate, Dawkins meets leaders from the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions to find out how their beliefs fit with modern science's extraordinary knowledge of our world and the wider universe.

In The Root of All Evil Dawkins accuses the religious establishment of preying on people's desire to believe in a greater being; abusing reason and humanity in the process. Ultimately he asks how they can defend what religion has done, and is doing to us?

0 Replies

Quote:

Dawkins meets leaders from the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions to find out how their beliefs fit with modern science's extraordinary knowledge of our world and the wider universe

As long as Islam is concerned, there is no verse in the Holy Qur'an or in the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings be upon him) which is in conflict with established scientific facts.
The following ebook studies some verses of the Glorious Qur'an in the light of modern science:
Islam and modern science: compatible or incompatible?

Let me be clear: As a muslim, Islam is the first and last criterion for me to judge things, to know the truth from falsehood. But using modern science may convince non-muslims to come to the truth (many scientists reverted to Islam only by reading some verses from the Holy Qur'an). And since Islam is from God, as long as a person is logical he/she will not find a single contradiction or scientific error in Islam.

And Allah knows best.

0 Replies

I taped the programme last night. Mrs Steve (teaches Religious Education) will use it at school.

I thought it was a really excellent, a real breath of fresh air amongst the religious mumbo jumbo.

Muslim1 How can Islam possibly be in accordance with modern science when it rejects evolution?

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Muslim1 How can Islam possibly be in accordance with modern science when it rejects evolution?

Steve, I have not come across any scientific book which says "Fact of Evolution". All the books say "Theory of Evolution".
When I say that Islam and modern science are compatible, I mean those scientific facts which have been established. Not theories which are based on assumptions and hypothesis, because we know very well that science based on theories and hypothesis often takes U-turns.

And Allah knows best.

0 Replies

muslim1 wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Muslim1 How can Islam possibly be in accordance with modern science when it rejects evolution?

Steve, I have not come across any scientific book which says "Fact of Evolution". All the books say "Theory of Evolution".
When I say that Islam and modern science are compatible, I mean those scientific facts which have been established. Not theories which are based on assumptions and hypothesis, because we know very well that science based on theories and hypothesis often takes U-turns.

And Allah knows best.

Well sorry Muslim1 but here we really do part company. I was hoping you might say that Islam fully supported evolution as God's plan for the universe, and that when the Koran talks of creation in 6 (or is it 7?) days it is meant to be interpreted allegorically. But I'm afraid you don't think that way do you? You believe in the literal truth of the words in the Koran (and the Bible) about God creating the world. I was brought up as a Christian, but I always assumed that Genesis and the creation myth were never meant to be taken literally. It's a beautiful and moving story, but it must be confined strictly within the bounds of religion, not to be confused with reality as we can understand it.

You use the very naive argument that evolution is only a "theory". Creationist Christians do exactly the same. You infer that evolution as a theory of creation has to compete with other ideas, and as a "theory" it has not been proven. (Actually the creationist Christians say it has to compete with ideas such as intelligent design, I fear you just reject evolution as wrong...).

I have no wish to cause mental anguish anymore than I have physical pain. But sometimes the truth hurts. Not all ideas are true, I'm sure you will agree with that. People all over the world believe in the most peculiar ideas. My grandmother used to open the windows in a thunderstorm to let the lightening out should it strike. Now it may not be possible to know everything, that is a very deep philosophical point and takes us into the realms of divinity. But it is possible to know more today than we did yesterday, and it is possible to say well we know better now than we did. After all what is life if its not a learning process? But how can we say we know better now? Simply evidence. Observation and measurement. Hypothesis experimentation and verification. The establishment of a theory which stands up to scrutiny.

Do you reject the theory of gravity because there is no mention of it in the Koran? Isaac Newton's theory was a revelation, a stupendous leap forward in our understanding of how the universe works. But Einstein took it a bit further and was able to account for observed deviations as predicted from Newton's theories. Now we have string theory and quantum gravity. Only a few people on earth can get their heads round those ideas. Do we say they are wrong because we cant or dont want to understand?

Evolution is not "just a theory". It is an established scientific fact. It has been verified by masses and masses of evidence. All the time new evidence is produced which supports that basic premise and goes to fill in the gaps in the jigsaw picture. On the other hand there has been literally NOTHING produced to fundamentally challenge Darwin's ideas. And this is the point, as a scientific theory, evolution is constantly open to be challenged. If it could be shown to be fundamentally wrong it would be the greatest upheaval in the history of science. Anyone who demonstrated Darwin to be fundamentally in error would be acclaimed and rewarded. But it would have to be challenged with evidence based on research, not myths legends and dreams, or indeed guesswork.

This is why I say to you, with all due respect to your religious beliefs, that modern evolutionary ideas are superior to ideas held thousands of years ago. Why? because they are tried and tested. They have not let us down. They explain what happened in the past, and they can help us understand what might happen in future. The creationist ideas of the past were valid in their day, because no one knew better. But NOW we do. We know better than to think of the earth as flat or at the centre of the Universe. If you accept that the holy texts of Islam cannot be taken literally and must be interpreted allegorically then I could accept Islam as a valid religion as Chrisitianity Judaism or Hinduism. But if you reject the evidence of your own eyes and the reasoning of your own intellect in favour of myth and fable then I say ok believe what you will, but do not expect me to take you seriously when it comes to interpreting reality, because I know better than you.

0 Replies

How can you say gravity is a theory? It is proven mathematically to be 9.8m/s

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know