Are the Converted Tribals Really Hindu?

HP #390 well said. it is a well recognized fact that with the rapid spread of early islam in its early days, different versions of the Quran were written. this is not surprising - even the Bible had to be standardized (King James version); and a few years ago pre-standard version of the Quran were found in yemen, and per last reports (on NYT) were in the custody of scholars in Germany. This in no way detracts from the core message of the Quran - which is quite simple and commonsensical.

dm #398 Lets be clear: "islam" is not a person or a state or a bunch of bullies that can "allow" or "disallow" anything.

It is you, my friend, along with the reverend pat robertson, who has taken upon himself to pick and chose the most absurd and regressive definition of islam. Fortunately, most muslims dont look towards you or ben laden or pat robertson to define islam for them.

Re: # 387

Hamidm sahib:

"..... do you really think that you will be able to convince people like captain clueless and tahmed that the koran might be a work of fiction edited by a committee of four men and a goat ? ............."

To a non-muslim like me, the above statement makes me ask a question: "Why is it important to convice other believers in Islam?

Dost sahib, and Kaal may present their views on work, philosophy and ritualism in Hinduism and get over it.

Why in Islam this obsession to convince the others is important? Isn't there a contradiction?

On one hand the believers tell that in Islam there is no middle man to interpret and that there is a direct relationship (whatever that means) with God. Then on the other hand believers take it to themselves to tell others why they are right and the other is not (e.g. recent Hamidm Sahib vs Tahmed Sahib debate here, just to mention).

Can you not see Gangaram's confusion? I really wonderr about the state of mind of your grandfather Gopinath.

dost writes "Thanks. I had thought that Ar-Rahman was just an attribute of Allah."

Yes it is an attribute of Allah, the Quran says 17:110:

"Call upon Allah, or call upon Ar-Rahman: by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well): for to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. .."

Conjecturing from this that just because an attribute was an alternative name, it was a discrepancy in what God was called is dimwitted. Thank you kindly....


Maharana I knew you would like what HP wrote, it fits in with your Hindu biases. Those sources 'post date' the Quran for one and for two, they are not consistent across the board and for three, the 'shia' quran had nothing to do with that "committee" or with Uthman but is still the same even according to the sources...

Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi

tahmed#91:

I do not dislike Islam and do admire parts of it. If Islam allowed picking and choosing and one could choose what you choose to choose, I for one would be completely okay.

HP:

"Before Allah Muslim God was Ar-Rahman"

Thanks. I had thought that Ar-Rahman was just an attribute of Allah.

Re: # 394

BTW the Quran says that it contains nothing new


so do u

no wonder why would not one ban spamn???

u must be the lonliest creature LOL

HP #390,

That was impressive. I did not know all the things you mentioned in your post. Why no muslim has ever written about this on chowk, I don't know. I remember reading that Muhammad wanted to unite all the warring tribes in arabia and hence islam (as one of the reasons) came about by weaving various tribal cultures and beliefs.
I guess if more muslims knew this, it would be better for them and the mankind.

Adios

Have a nice day and take it easy and read the article chowk staff censored,

The Barack Conspiracy

http://chowk.com/ilogs/69522/40823

BTW the Quran says that it contains nothing new, so this searching for similarities and terming them sources is Prima facie an exercise in futility. The real exercise would be to disprove it by using scientific criteria and that does not mean scanning through hadith books and their tales to come up with a list of committee members who compiled it.

HP writes "There is no harm in saying that the Quran has many sources..."

The Quran has many facts, if you term them sources (which at best is guess work with no scientific backing) so be it. Just because something is known before (and the Quran doesn't claim otherwise) does not mean it was manufactured from the various sources that had bits and parts of it. Content analysis of the Quran reveals that no "committee" was involved in its compilation with their own understanding or differences of style, discrepancy in the order (which is internally verifiable btw) would have emerged. There is no faith involved in undertaking a scientific content analysis of the book. Regarding the "name" and the "crescent", there is no such symbolism mentioned, even those who use it do not link it to Allah in any way, this moon god business is conjecture, backed by no historical account is BS of the first caliber. The Quran was no secret like the Talmud, it was with the people, it was recited and memorized, it was used in daily prayers. Its manufacture after the event unlike the books of the Bible with no such checks and balances would have been quite impossible...

Have a nice day and take it easy and do not take the easy way out of explaining a fantastic book by using third rate inventions.

TNI Masadi

#389 hamidm: " big bad bullies like urstruly are just going to kick over their table and beat the koran out of them .."

big bad bully urstruly challenged me (#350). I provided a "fitting response" (#365). Urstruly has been unable to respond.

tahmed 1, urstruly 0

from the sidelines, cheema sahib (who makes no bones about his dislike for islam) rose to urstruly's defense (after all, islam-haters love the urstruly's of the muslim world) and i gave him a fitting response. so the reverend Dost Mitter (who also makes no bones about his dislike for islam) stepped in to try and help, by anointing urstruly as the true spokesman for islam.

What does that tell you?

#386 DM

“As for the hearsay part, wasn't the Quran itself compiled by Usman decades after the death of the Prophet? And didn't he also use the same technique? I believe that he appointed a committee to come up with the correct version since there were conflicting versions. Come to think of it, the Quran does sometimes appear to be the work of an inter-departmental committee trying to accomodate conflicting viewpoints.�

Partially true! The Quran was written during Mohammed’s time. The compilation was simply because Mohammed supposedly dictated the Quran to many people and everyone tried to hang on to their own copies.

The true part: It was written by a committee. There is no reason to believe it was dictated by God. But that is the belief and there is no reason also to go into this ridiculous debate.

There is no harm in saying that the Quran has many sources. The Talmud, after all is an attempt by the Sages to graft Greek methodology to Judaism.

Before Allah Muslim God was Ar-Rahman, which was also another name for Jewish Talmud God Rahmana. (Similar to Ramayana or Rama’s journey of Hindus?) Allah was the moon god in Kaaba and that is the origin of Crescent as Muslims symbol.

Islam is based on many religions most important being the Sabean of Yemen, the Prophet visited Yemen before he started preaching Islam. The rituals of 5 prayers and the 30 days fasting were actually adapted from the Sabeans. (You can search sabean on Wiki…which has pretty good info.The quran also mentions the Sabean religion) Hanafism was a popular religion in Mecca around that time and Islam’s monotheism comes from that too. Monotheism being a Greek construct. Moses (if there was someone by this name) also preached Monotheism.

The committee members who wrote the Quran.
• Imrul Qays—an ancient poet of Arabia who died a few decades before Muhammad’s birth
• Zayd b. Amr b. Naufal—an ‘apostate’ of his time who preached and propagated Hanifism
• Labid—another poet
• Hasan b. Thabit—the official poet of Muhammad(He also was one of the persons who took dictation of the Quran from Mohammed)
• Salman, the Persian—Muhammad’s confidante’ and an advisor
• Bahira—a Nestoraian Christian monk of the Syrian church
• Jabr—a Christian neighbour of Muhammad
• Ibn Qumta—a Christian slave
• Khadijah—Muhammad’s first wife
• Waraqa—Khadijah’s cousin brother
• Ubay b. Ka’b—Muhammad’s secretary and a Qur’an scribe
• Muhammad himself

There were other parties involved too. They were:
The Sabeans
Aisha—Muhammad’s wife
Abdallah b. Salam b. al-Harith—a Jewish convert to Islam
Mukhyariq—a Rabbi and another Jewish convert to Islam

Re: # 388

dost-mittar ji,

.... let's be fair ..... most people have a smorgass-board approach to religion - we pick what we want and leave the rest for idiots, savants, mullahs, sadhus and other riff raff ....... the problem with islam is that the smorgass-board has fallen under the control of the wahabis who don't want to give you too many choices ..... tahmed and captain clueless are trying to set up their own little table with cupcakes and tea, but i am afraid that big bad bullies like urstruly are just going to kick over their table and beat the koran out of them ......

hamidm2#387:

I was presenting the views of a non-believer and not of a believer to whom the Quran is divine. My point simply is that one cannot reject the hadith on the basis that they are based on what some people narrated while accept the Quran which was validated using a similar technique.

dost-mittar ji,

..... do you really think that you will be able to convince people like captain clueless and tahmed that the koran might be a work of fiction edited by a committee of four men and a goat ? ............. good luck!

..... in any case, it doesn't really matter because regardless of what the koranists say, islam is what the vast majority understand it to be - and that includes bukhari's hadith and maudoodi's tafseer ...... it is silly to insist that abdul, who doesn't know his elbow from a hole in the ground, can actually make any sense out of a book of rhetoric .........