With the help of our readers we went through the Koran and removed every
verse that we believe did not come from Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate. However, it is possible that we missed something, and we could use your help. If you find verses in the
reformed version of the Koran that promote violence, divisiveness, religious or gender superiority, bigotry, or discrimination, please let us know the number of the verse and the reason why it should be removed. Please email your suggestions to koran-AT-reformislam.org.
When we finish editing process, we would like to publish
Reform Koran in as many languages as possible. If you could help with translation or distribution of the
Reform Koran, please email us at koran-AT-reformislam.org. If you could provide financial support, please visit
our support page.
Posts
144 comments:
When will the Reformed Koran be published?
After we finish editing and find a publisher. It will also be available online for free download.
2.39: And (as to) those who disbelieve in and reject My communications, they are the inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide.
By removing the verse above, you proved to be one of those described in the verse. Enjoy!
Ahmed Saleh,
2.191: And kill them [infidels] wherever you find them
Applying your logic, you are either a mass murderer or a hypocrite who will burn in hell.
Are you sure a reformed Koran is the right way to proceed? How about an offshoot denomination of Islam based on this new Koran?
A New Islamic Charter could be the governing documentation, with the Koran-R an important part of the denomination.
I really want to believe there are many Muslims who are truly peaceful, but history and world events suggest otherwise.
Despite my skepticism, I wish you good luck.
"Are you sure a reformed Koran is the right way to proceed?"
No, but this the best thing we could come up with.
Please remove my name or any reference to me from your webpage ASAP. I respect our differences. But you are going down the wrong road and you will get yourself hurt. I don't be paprt of an organization who fulles the Radicals ignorant ideas of Authentic Muslims. You make the real Muslims look weak and destory them through percistant of a wrong road.
Koran is holey and a history of Prophets and God and must left as it was sent. You don't like it change the impression rather than touching the holey koran. That makes you Khavaraj or ( the outsiders).
I am not with you in your message.
Ghazal OMID
Dear Supporter of Muslims Against Sharia!
Muslims Against Sharia
I don't think it's just a problem with the Koran. I think alot of problems start with people who oppress and are set in a very sexist, uncivillised mindset that the law of some countries has unfortunately enforced in their favour.
Dear Ms. Omid,
We are sorry to see you go, but we complied with your request. Your name is removed from our list of prominent moderate Muslims as well as from the blog authors.
It is surprising that you of all people would object to removing verses that promote polygamy and gender discrimination.
You are welcome to re-join at any time,
Khalim Massoud
President
Muslims Against Sharia
Clara Lim,
"people who oppress and are set in a very sexist, uncivillised mindset" base their views on religious texts, i.e., the Koran.
It is very evident that this blog is not actually run by Muslims, or by anyone who has any respect for Islam at all.
If the people running this blog have anti-Muslim opinions, then at least be upfront about your bigotry. It is cowardly to pretend otherwise.
Aziz Niran,
Your delusions of grandeur are simply pathetic! It is so typical for Islamists to accuse anyone who does not agree with their perverted interpretation of Islam of apostasy, heresy, or anything else. Having utmost disrespect for medieval relics like you has nothing to do with us and Islam.
Hi,
I saw your comment announcing your actions on another blog and wanted to show you some support. A few of us there, from Christian backgrounds thought this was great, and thought it would be a good exercise for the bible as well, especially the Old Testament.
Of course, you're going to get warnings and so would we, but we like the view found in the following link. It suggests a way forward for Christians that Muslims may also find helpful. Or not! I don't know the Koran. But have a read, and see what you think.
http://www.askrealjesus.com/ L_CU...amentalism.html
Hi,
Just realized the link was in a shortened form that doesn't work here. Here's the link again.
http://www.askrealjesus.com/L_CURRENTAFFAIRS/JESUS_THINK_ABOUT/Bfundamentalism.html
Glad to be able to help! Please let me know if I can be of assistance, albeit with a badge or a widget.
By the way, have you picked up on this one: "Al Qaeda Associate Renounces 3rd Jihad"? http://newcitizenship.blogspot.com/2007/12/al-qaeda-associate-renounces-third.html
Good luck!
Cass.
Thank you, Cassandra.
We did pick it up, but we'll have to agree with al-Zawahiri; you cannot trust a message coming from inside the Egyptian prison.
Muslims against Sharia, I commend your efforts. While I am not a Muslim, I am wondering if reforming the Koran is the best approach. The Koran is accepted by Muslims as a holy book and the word of the Prophet. It might be difficult to get Muslims to accept changes in the Koran.
How about rather than changing the Koran, having Islamic scholars reinterpret the Koran for the modern time. As you are aware, Rabbinic scholars have, for the past 2,000 years, reinterpreted the Torah (the Old Testament)so that the parts that refer to committing violence, stoning, etc. have been banned by the Rabbis and replaced with non-violent activities, such as prayer.
It will take respected Imams to reinterpret and to have it accepted over time. But you are right in one respect - only Muslims can reform Islam.
I find it interesting that MAS includes Muhammad Hisham Kabbani as a 'moderate muslim'. Yet MHK isn't against sharia, nor does he call for the Koran to be changed in any way.
I think the reality of MAS is that it is just an extension of Benador Associates and the wacko worshippers of that grand mufti-ess of nutty conservatism, Ayn Rand.
By the way, how do you define sharia?
Although I admire your efforts, I disagree with them. The Quran says what it says - to remove verses that offend you is to change the very religion itself. That should tell you that maybe the God you seek is not found in the Quran.
As for the Christian who posted saying we should do the same thing with the OT, I disagree with them also. The Bible is God's Word to mankind. If there are passages you don't like or don't think should be in it, then you don't really believe the Bible in the first place. Maybe the passages you have trouble with are because you don't understand them fully.
This is a very good effort on your part to reform your faith. However, like the Reform Jewish movement, it will have much opposition to modernization and reform. Reform Judaism is not recognised in Israel for similar reasons. Perhaps the approach should rather be towards re-interpretation of the Koran where there are suras that are controversial rather than changing or removing suras that are considered an integral part of Islam. Like the Torah, where there are many violent phrases, it is quite possible that the commentaries were misunderstood. Cutting out suras that are unacceptable to the modern believer would never be acceptable or supported. It would be like censoring the Torah or the New Testament. This would never gain support even from moderate, mainstream Moslems.
The Koran is a holy book and any attempt to remove parts of it deemed unacceptable will not gain support. I say this as a Jew.
Irfan Yusuf,
You must be pretty stupid to ask for an answer right after you insult someone.
==============
Ms.Green,
"The Quran says what it says - to remove verses that offend you is to change the very religion itself."
What about verses that contradict each other?
==============
zac,
"Perhaps the approach should rather be towards re-interpretation of the Koran where there are suras that are controversial"
How do you re-interpret "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them"?
Irfan Yusuf,
You must be pretty stupid to ask for an answer right after you insult someone.
==============
Ms.Green,
"The Quran says what it says - to remove verses that offend you is to change the very religion itself."
What about verses that contradict each other?
==============
zac,
"Perhaps the approach should rather be towards re-interpretation of the Koran where there are suras that are controversial"
How do you re-interpret "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them"?
Interesting site. I applaud you for your efforts.
Qur’an 9:88 “The Messenger and those who believe him, strive hard and fight jihad with their wealth and lives (in Allah’s Cause).” jihad is inner struggle makes no sense
Surah 2:244 “Fight in Allah’s Cause, and know that Allah hears and knows all.”
Surah 2:246 “He said: ‘Would you refrain from fighting if fighting were prescribed for you?’ They said: ‘How could we refuse to fight in Allah’s Cause?’”
Surah 8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
Surah 8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.”
Surah 8:73 “The unbelieving infidels are allies. Unless you (Muslims) aid each other (fighting as one united block to make Allah’s religion victorious), there will be confusion and mischief. Those who accepted Islam, left their homes to fight in Allah’s Cause (al-Jihad), as well as those who give them asylum, shelter, and aid—these are (all) Believers: for them is pardon and bountiful provision (in Paradise).”
Surah 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Surah 9:14 “Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them.”
Surah 9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax* in submission.” *protection tax is called the "jizyah" tax.
Surah 9:123 “Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.”
Surah 47:4 “When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”
sahih muslim
Book 041, Number 6985
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
MississippiMud,
As you may notice, most of the verses you referred to are not present in our Koran
To order the removal of passages from any religious book/s on whatever grounds, would have to be put to the vote by ALL those who follow that particular religion.
However, where followers of one religion are domicile on the territories of another whose religion is the basis and foundation of that nation and civilization, such incomers should agree to abide by ALL the laws of that host nation with any who do not agree to adhere either peacefully returning to their own lands of origin or be forced to do so.
The building of prayer houses not of the nation's founding religion, should not only be heavily curtailed, but preferably banned.
Syntec, what do we do with 2nd or 3rd Generation Muslims that are born here and become mujahadin ? Deport them where ? The only logical solution ( in my opinion ) that any Mosque and Imam teaching jihad be shut down. Problem #2 We won't know which Mosque is preaching jihad until a terror attack happens. I am for severly limiting Muslims into America ( no offence too the creators of this blog ) I'm just being logical not hateful. The problem is that wherever Islam spreads violence happens when Muslims get into large numbers. I believe that this group has really created a solution too the problem by taking out the texts in the Koran that call for division between non Muslims and Muslims. But this solution will probably take 50 to 100 years to really take hold, if at all. It is the only practical solution I have ever heard from Muslims and Non Muslims alike. I offer any apologize if I made any comment that has been taken as "hateful" to the creators of this blog or any one. It was not intended as such. I try to look at the world in a rational , logical stance.
"We won't know which Mosque is preaching jihad until a terror attack happens."
We could if the FBI grew some balls.
"I offer any apologize if I made any comment"
No need. We are all working towards the same goal here and if someone's feeling get hurt in the process of saving lives, so be it.
Your bold but dangerous move needs to be saluted nay revered by all those who believe in humanism and not blind hatred. Brother/Sister entire humanity owes you. If there is really a God or Goddess may (s)he bless you with long life and success in your endeavor.
We appreciate your support!
You ask, What about verses that contradict each other?
If you are a Muslim then you know about the doctrine of abrogation. So you have to ask yourself why someone would follow a religion that justifies contradicting itself.
And if you take away the doctrine of abrogation will you also consider taking away the doctrine of Takkiya? (and if you say yes to this, how can I know that you mean it?)
"If you are a Muslim then you know about the doctrine of abrogation."
Doctrine of abrogation is irreconcilable with God's infallibility, therefore, it does not apply to holy texts.
Ultimately, at a scientifically verifiable level, all the ayats that you want to remove are actually original revelation. They aren't added in or disfigured revelations.
They were meant to guide that community under those specific conditions. Hand in hand with that revelation is the context of that revelation and its understood impact on the Sahabah (RA). Lets not belittle our beliefs by taking the literalist, decontextualised, and nonsensical vision of the Quraan that Wahabis and other so called orthodox people have taken.
Lets permit the Quraan its proper place and explain why "kill the infidels" in one ayat, and respect freedom of belief in another, are both parts of a complete revelation. Surely if you were in a state of war over your freedom to practice your religion, and you were attempting to set right the social barbarity of the present day practices, then it becomes necessary to meet your enemies as warriors and not as missionaries. That proved to be the best resort (with minimal casualties) and culminated in the peaceful and just restoration of Makkah to all of its inhabitants.
I accept the Quraan as it is. I accept that revelation came as it did. I accept that it was best for the Muslims and the world at that point that Allah (SWT) guided us as he did. What we have seen by various empire ideologues and anti-libertarian provocateurs, is a concerted attempt to enforce a value system and not a fair legal an socio-political system. Its actually an insane attempt at social engineering that was never endorsed as the purpose of revelation.
Can't we instead of diminishing the Quraan, develop our theology, philosophy and science. Do we have to follow in the footsteps of literalists and abhor thought and creativity? Much of the argument against these ayats is in the Quraan itself and most muslims are aware of this. But when religion is being used as political tool and our academic institutions are chained to theocratic/dictatorial "schools of thought", Muslims are being disenfranchised. Rewriting this Quraan will only further disenfranchise a politically chained spiritual Ummah.
With all due respect, if you really mean this, then aren't you making yourself God, deciding what is and is not - and making yourself the lawgiver?
Also, what about the second part of my question - the doctrine of Takkiya?
BTW - I am truly not trying to aggitate you - I am sincere in my questions.
It might interest you to know that one of America's Founding Fathers had a similar idea. Read
the Jefferson Bible.
This should not be construed as support or criticism of your project, which is purely an internal matter for Muslims to handle.
If you removed all that from the Koran the book would be empty! Good luck anyhow. Personally, organized religions are a practice best kept in the medieval age when religion was used for the cohesion of society. I'm an agnostic. God, the creator, the Architect, whatever, would never waste "its" time in creating this universe or whatever "it" created and then play petty god by sending down about 50 different religious books and over 1000 eclectic yet diametrically opposed religious organisations. Unless we are guinea pigs in some cosmic experiment highlighting the absurdities of religion I seriously doubt that God or "it" has any further use for us. But, good luck in your endeavors.
Ghulam,
“Ultimately, at a scientifically verifiable level, all the ayats that you want to remove are actually original revelation.”
Pulling ideas out of your ass and calling them facts hardly qualifies as a “scientifically verifiable level.” Those ayats, as well as others, were first written dozens of years after the Prophet’s death and then re-written many times. How can you “scientifically verify” that they weren’t altered?
“Lets not belittle our beliefs by taking the literalist, decontextualised, and nonsensical vision of the Quraan that Wahabis and other so called orthodox people have taken.”
Yeah, let us leave it there, so we can have the most contradictory an violent religious text in history.
“Lets permit the Quraan its proper place and explain why "kill the infidels" in one ayat, and respect freedom of belief in another, are both parts of a complete revelation.”
Let’s also call the white black and the black white when it suits us.
“Surely if you were in a state of war over your freedom to practice your religion, and you were attempting to set right the social barbarity of the present day practices, then it becomes necessary to meet your enemies as warriors and not as missionaries. That proved to be the best resort (with minimal casualties) and culminated in the peaceful and just restoration of Makkah to all of its inhabitants.”
In reverse, it sounds like a great rationalization to murder all Muslims.
“What we have seen by various empire ideologues and anti-libertarian provocateurs, is a concerted attempt to enforce a value system and not a fair legal an socio-political system.” - which is based exactly on what’s in the Koran
“Do we have to follow in the footsteps of literalists and abhor thought and creativity?”
I don’t know, do we? Considering the notions that the Koran is a literal word of Allah and that the Koran tells us to kill infidels wherever we find them.
=================
leon the pig farmer
“If you removed all that from the Koran the book would be empty!” If you actually looked at these pages (http://www.reformislam.org/koran.php & http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php), you wouldn’t be saying that.
Any Religion, or Country for that matter, that is static, is doomed to die. The Christians has their Reformation as did the Jews.
Both of these Religions have since that time changed and progressed as was necessary.
For Islam to have the arrogance of moral superiority is the mark of a religion withering away and drastic measures are needed to save it.
The Imam's don't want change because it would upset the Status-quo," but unless they are marginalized Islam will never fullfill it's potential.
Thank you for visiting my blog.
I was shocked this morning, when I heard Benazir Bhutto's assasination.
The PPP is what is looked to, with all of its problems, as being the party to fight dictatorship, Islamism and Maoism.
Ms.Green,
Thomas Paine points out the many inaccuracies in both the OT and NT here:
The Age Of Reason
He used the bibles own words to point out these inaccuracies, and no one has ever been able to dispute his points...ignore the points, but unable to dispute them.
Most Christians don't understand what the bible actually says, or even where it actually came from.
Seaberry said: He used the bibles own words to point out these inaccuracies, and no one has ever been able to dispute his points...ignore the points, but unable to dispute them.
Most Christians don't understand what the bible actually says, or even where it actually came from.
I have no intention of reading the entire link you gave me and wasting my time. I am already familiar with Thomas Paine and his opinions on Christianity. However, if YOU have specific issues with Scripture you would like to address, I would be glad to comment on them.
As for your assertion that most Christians don't fully understand their Bible, that is unfortunately true. And most Muslims as well do not fully understand their Quran, and depend on others to tell them what it says.
I don't have all the answers on the Bible, as no one does, but I am a graduate of a Bible Institute, and will, as I said, be happy to discuss specific issues that you have - either here, or maybe more appropriately, over at my blog.
Sorry, had to re-do, I'm a rotten speller and it sometimes makes me look like an idiot! (Boy did I leave myself open with that comment!)
Ms. Green is right, the Koran, just like the Bible, has many contradictions.
How can anyone take as literal truth books that were finally published hundreds of years after they were concieved, and then by people who used them to further their own agenda.
The Bible and the Koran are great as metaphoric stories and guidlines on behaviour, (in most instances) as I explained in my book "The Plain Truth About God" (what main-stream religion doesn't want you to know!) www.God-101.com but when I get a guy like I just read today who spent four pages trying to convince me that Jesus was born on Sept. 29th 2 C.E., my answer is "who gives a damn!"
(As far as I'm concerned it's Dec 25th about 2000 years ago!)
Ms. Green is right, the Koran, just like the Bible, has many contradictions.
For the record, I did not say that the Bible has many contradictions. You are misquoting me, or attributing someone else's remarks to me. I believe the Bible is the Word of God and has no contradictions in it.
Ms. Green,
We are not claiming to be Bible scholars, but for a layman "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" seem pretty contradictory.
We are not claiming to be Bible scholars, but for a layman "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" seem pretty contradictory.
It does seem contradictory. I can see that.
The Old Testament law, which is where "eye for eye" comes from, was given so that we would see that it is impossible for us to live righteously. It is an impossibility.
The New Testament says in Galatians, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."
God knew there was no way we could keep all his Commandments, let alone the Law that was given to the Jews. He used the law to show us that. That is why He sent Christ - to pay the punishment for our sins so we could receive eternal life.
And Christ fulfilled the law because He lived a sinless life. The law no longer condemns us once we've accepted Jesus' free gift of salvation. Jesus, in the New Testament, said we are to turn the other cheek. He also said we're to love our enemies and pray for them.
The contradiction you see in this case is the difference between living under the law, which is a death sentence to us all, because we will all sin, or living under the grace of God, Who gives us life.
I hope I explained this in a way that makes sense.
Ms Green, I know this is a Muslim site but if I may quote you quickly I believe the Bible is the Word of God and has no contradictions in it. then you had better read it again or consider changing to being a Hindu or something because you don't know the Bible.
Ms. Green,
It seems a little too convenient. I see no reason why people cannot keep all of God's Commandments. But if we accept your explanation, it means that God made a mistake, contradicts the doctrine of God's infallibility.
I see no reason why people cannot keep all of God's Commandments. But if we accept your explanation, it means that God made a mistake, contradicts the doctrine of God's infallibility.
I see that the purpose of your webiste has gotten off course, and I apologize if I had anything to do with that. It wasn't my intention. I'm going to answer the above, and then go my way. Any and all are welcome to visit my blog.
No one can keep God's commandments. If you've ever lied or disobeyed your parents, you've broken commandments. God didn't make a mistake. He knew we would not use our free will to be righteous, and that by sending His Son to take our punishment, it would show His glory, love for us, and mercy.
I've enjoyed the visit, but I don't have the time to keep commenting here. I have other "irons in the fire" so to speak.
Thank you, Muslims Against Sharia, for your hospitality and politeness. You are welcome at my place any time.
Just a question, I am not trying to be antagonistic or anything like that whatsoever. What authority do you use to edit a historical document? I understand why you want to, that is obvious.
Common sense and simple logic. God is infallible and cannot contradict himself, therefore, if two verses contradict themselves, at least one of them could not have possibly come from God.
Stevie, first of all, impersonating Steve Ballmer of Microsoft might get you into deep poo-po so stop it.
Now, with changing a historical document, why not take what is relevant for today? It was changed and altered during it's conception just as the Bible was, so if they could change it then to suit their purposes, does that make it sacrosanct now?
Remember the Koran was used to justify Arab expansionism and conquest and altered to fit that role while the Bible was put together by Constantine to support a religion he needed to consolidate power.
There is no thing as "carved in stone" just as there certainly is a "history is written by the victors."
The best example we have of this is that The Christian Bible is more of a product of Pauline thinking and Constantine's meddling than the actual message of Jesus.
They took the "Message of Jesus" and turned it into the "Ressurection of Christ" and much the same happened to the Quran.
Yes, Islam needs a reformation, much the same as Christianity did and still does. The only thing is that we are getting a hell of a lot of flack from both the Vatican and the induvidual Imam's who don't want to give up their power!
People like them HATE change!
I need your best one thousand reasons for believing that verses in Quran did not come from Allah.
And I need a new yacht. We don't always get what we need.
Listen Kid........
First of all your just a kid, (and a flat-earther kid at that) and you are way too demanding. Gimme gimme never gets.
But!
I will give you one!
Verses all written on whatever was handy, pieces of bark or leaves, papyrus, scratched in sand etc. and then laid around for years and years, and retold over and over before being compiled in a book!
(Just like the Christian Bible)
This in no way diminishes it's worth but we can't take either book (Quran, Bible) as the exact, inerrant truth because if nothing else, during the re-telling it was tainted with the agenda's of the narrators. See?
MAS, I applaud your efforts and it seems to me that a desire to reform Islam and make it applicable to the modern world is badly needed. It is no surprise to me that lovers of dogma will condemn you for this, and I hope you persist despite being called any of a variety of names.
As I am not a Muslim, I do not think it is my place to tell Muslims what to believe. But it seems to me that they would be better off abandoning fundamentalism and fanaticism, and embracing the world as it exists while still applying the moral commands of their faith. But to support you in some small way, I'll at least give you a link on my own blog.
One question -- you have Russian, English, and Swedish translations -- why don't you have your site translated into Arabic and Farsi? A large population of the people who need to read these ideas are Arabic or Farsi speakers -- and Arabic is the language of the Koran.
"why don't you have your site translated into Arabic and Farsi?"
The problem is that it is not easy to find a person who knows the language, knows web editing (design of left-to-right pages is more complicated), has the time, and agrees with our ideas to the point that he/she is willing to donate the time. And is not afraid to do that.
Thanks for informing me about this web site. It's not easy to maintain intellectual honesty with so many pressures. God bless you.
Dear Allan..
You are so much of a strong believer to my nickname, Kid, as you never know who I really am.
That was a good sign of telling me who you are, wasn't it?
I am aware of that scriptures were written on whatever was handy, pieces of bark or leaves, papyrus, scratched in sand etc. and then laid around for years and years, and retold over and over before being compiled in a book!..and..This in no way diminishes it's worth but we can't take either book (Quran, Bible) as the exact, inerrant truth because if nothing else, during the re-telling it was tainted with the agenda's of the narrators.
BUT..
Think about the ability of God to protect His own words, in all manner, in all ways. Even as a Prophet Jesus Christ could arise the dead and turn river water to wine. What else the God? See?
If you do not believe if He is Almighty and can do whatever He wants to do..then please, stop preaching.
You miss heaps of points.
Dear Kidpieces;
Can't arque with that!
(And you can take that ANY way you want!)
MAS, thank you for the information and for your efforts. The Reformation that overtook Christianity was a long, bloody battle that over-ran Europe. It was a battle over power and faith. Your effort is commendable; and will take on a life of its own if it takes hold within the "Islamic community."
All you can do is quit or continue to move forward. My guess is that you will continue forward and teach the young to follow in the path you are charting.
In terms of "reforming"/ changing the Koran or not being the "right" path to take; you have to start someplace and reformation must come from and through Muslims. The idea of another "sect" of Islam is always viable but that seems to be one of the serious points of contention for power today within Islam so, I'd say there are plenty of "sects".
But you are the only ones who can choose the path to take because you are Muslims.
I do respect what one commentator mentioned with regard to following the laws of the land/nation within which one has chosen to live and not try to change those laws. That is one of the problems building within Western nations - the efforts to make non-believers conform or make concessions to Islam. So, we'll see how it works out. Your method makes sense... And I see that no one is saying change will be easy.
mas,
I hope for the world's sake that you are successful.
I will be reading more here and I plan on making a positive post on my blog on what you are trying to accomplish here.
just fyi...eye for an eye in context refers to the punishment prescribed for murder etc...crimes
turn the other cheek is in reference to personal persecution
That sounds a lot like "kill them wherever you find them" only refers to infidels who attack Muslims.
I believe the eye for an eye is in reference to capital punishment for murder etc and I don't know of anywhere that Christians/Jews wish to enforce this in another context - such as "kill them when you find them"
My main point is that I wish to support you.
And we appreciate and value your support. The point I was trying to make is that trying to reconcile "an eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek" is as much of rationalizing as trying to reconcile "kill them wherever you find them" with "respect the People of the Book". Having said that, we believe that "an eye for an eye" is reasonable, but "kill them wherever you find them" is absolutely not.
I agree...eye for an eye is reasonable and was incorporated into Jewish Law.
The admonition to turn the other cheek is given by Jesus to his disciples. It belongs to the sphere of personal behavior.
I've heard some try to justify foreign policy on this verse...oi vay!
Forgive me, it was not my intention to engage in a theological debate.
RE: Eye for an eye.
I think this simply means "make the punishment fit the crime" and nothing else. Otherwise, there would be many blind and disabled folks wandering about.
"Turn the other cheek" simply refers to not striking back in anger.
That's my 2 cents which ain't worth a hill o' beans.
I don't know. To me 'Turn the other cheek' means 'bend over'. Kinda reminds me of the moderate Muslims' attitude towards the radicals. I think the 'an eye for an eye' would have been more appropriate.
lol
Sorry, hahhaa
I don't mean to po any Christians, but hey, that's the good thing about Christianity, we can laugh about comments like that.
Or at least, I'm willing to.
I'm with you, brother. We can also laugh about Christianity :)
Now, if we could teach ourselves ho to laugh at Islam, we could solve a lot of conflicts without firing a single shot.
MAS I'd help you out with that, but...
I mean really. The Most Merciful has GOT to have a sense of humor too, don'tcha think?
Absolutely! And a pretty warped one for that matter. Otherwise how can you explain all the shit that's going on today?
Exceedingly warped. I guess I'll never understand the mindset that allows for that crap. And I'm glad I can't.
I copped a great cartoon from another blog. It does a great job of jabbing jihadi's in the cojones.
Then post it here, as long as it is not rated "X".
I have no clue how to do that.
*headlight look atcha*
What's the URL of the image?
The image is here, enjoy!
http://kennewickmusing.blogspot.com/
Assalaamu alaikum,
I'm puzzled as to how you can claim the authority to edit the Qur'an arbitrarily. Where do you draw the line? Who is "The Decider"? Now you're eliminating those verses which you define as divisive, promoting hatred, etc. etc. What if someone else decides to eliminate those verses which they find inconvenient, such as the prohibitions against consuming alcohol or pork, based on the idea that Allah, the All-Merciful, wouldn't want to cause us difficulties? Again, where is the line drawn? I would find it laughable if it wasn't so disturbing, that you have the arrogance to claim authority to edit the Qur'an. I hope that Allah blesses you and shows you all the truth.
Assalaamu alaikum warahmatullah,
Chris
Chris,
"The Decider" is common sense. In your criticism you do not provide any alternatives. Would you suggest that Allah wanted us to commit mass murder?
I only began looking at your Reformed Koran, and already I see problematic verses:
• 2.6: Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe.
• 2.7: Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them.
These verses have two problems:
1) They tend to inculcate a denigration of human free will.
2) They tend to demonize Unbelievers as worthy of "great punishment".
As long as you are tinkering with the Divine Words, here is my suggestion for re-writing those verses:
• 2.6: Surely those who disbelieve, are confused and lost, and therefore I say to my Believers, persevere in trying to persuade them of the truth (but only do so gently and respectfully, never use violence, and do not try to change their laws, or my Holy Wrath will be upon YOU, you presumptuous lamebrained Believers, YOU GOT THAT!!!???).
• 2.7: Allah has NOT set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is NO covering over their eyes -- where on Earth did you get such a silly notion? --, for the Unbelievers have only lost their way because of the Mystery and Paradox of the Free Will I Myself have given them; and it is therefore sad to say if they persist in their confusion and do not turn around, there will be in the next life a great loss for them, for they will then realize that they have chosen to reject the deepest longing of their hearts -- and I ain't talkin' 'bout no 72 virgins either, you lamebrained Imams, Muftis and Ayatollahs!!! Jesus Christ!
A fresh set of eyes always helps.
OMG! I laughed so hard at Erich's post, and MAS response, I snorted!
I'm behind you people 100%.
Some misguided and/or confused, but well-meaning and hopeful souls who are against Sharia want to complain about whether or not all of you or any of you are Muslims. This is what I say:
It doesn’t matter if MAS are Muslims. They are against Sharia, that is what is important. I have no doubt there are Muslims involved. In any case, to any degree, they speak for all the Muslims WHO ARE against Sharia.
Yes, of course it is true that most Muslims are peaceful, moderate, reasonable, secular and against Sharia. Most Muslims aren’t terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims. Probably 99% of them.
There have been over 10,300 acts of Islamic inspired terrorism since 9/11. Check the religionofpeace.com, they document ALL of them.
These peaceful Muslims against Sharia can not speak out publicly without harassment from Radicals, often death threats.
The media and the Governments suck up to the ‘taqiya’ Muslims, the liars and apologists like CAIR, the moderates are left out in the cold.
Imagine if all the violent passages in the Koran had never existed. Or even had not existed for the last 100, or 50 years. In other words, had been removed years ago.
When radicals take over a country. They shove all the anti-Sharia Muslims and non-Muslims around. What are they supposed to do?
Rewriting the Koran is certain to piss off the radical wackos. How can that be a bad thing?
I am looking forward to hearing that The New and Improved Koran has hit Amazon and Barnes & Noble, or Lulu.
What’s wrong with taking out the bad and violent passages? How might things be different in 50 or 100 years if those violent passages don’t exist for the next few generations of Muslims?
http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php
Keep up the good work, and stay safe. Watch your backs, and cover your tracks. When this New Koran comes out it may make the Danish Cartoons circus look like a picnic.
It has to happen though. If enough peaceful Muslims read it they will probably think that it hasn't been changed too much, because they will still be resonating with the peaceful verses, the ones they have known and loved and followed.
Thus, a new seed of Islam will grow, and maybe in 50 or 100 years it will be the most widely read version of the Koran, and even more so 50 years after that. Imagine that.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
HAPPY NEW YEAR Infidels
ignore the threat of Jihad
just keep sleeping like sheep
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
behead homosexuals
while screaming GOD IS GREAT
and The Left will defend you
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
don’t understand terrorists
ignore their roots of hatred
political religions
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe wants
more radical preachers
invite them to your country
to advocate your downfall
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
let extremists rule
they will drag your country
back to seventh century
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe wants
all citizens beheaded
for most petty offences
let society collapse
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
take all girls out of school
they can not be allowed
to achieve more than a man
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
ignore creeping sharia
don’t believe Jihadists
want world domination
http://haltterrorism.com/
.
Great manifesto, great website, i sincerely admire and applaud your efforts!
To me (not a Muslim) it seems that attempts to edit Koran can weaken and compromise your position: it will turn many Muslims away from you, give ammunition to your critics and unlikely to get widespread support both inside and outside Muslim community. Most non-Muslims, while supporting your ideas, will be reluctant and uneasy to support rewriting the Koran.
In my respectful opinion the text of the holy book (be it Koran, Bible or Tora) should be left alone, what really matters is what is preached in mosques or temples and what is accepted as the norm by the community or congregation.
In other words focus on reforming Islam, not Koran.
We all know that while Bible did not change, Christianity definetely did. Heretics were burned alive and Jews were persecuted as Christ killers. Dark ages are no more, Bible is the same.
But what to do with passages commanding to kill? I'm sure there will be an explanation: e.g., they are superceded by other texts; they should not be taken literally; they are not authentic; they refer to "holy war" which is long over; they were written 1400 years ago and should be interpreted in historical context ; etc.
If most terrorist are muslims then most killers of civilians are Christians and Jews. Ha ha ha! But somehow when they do it its not terror. What is this? Justice according to Judeo-Christian philosophy?
Anyways there is nothing wrong with the koran. Violence in Islam is done by sects like Sunnismor Shism and they follow the oraltraditions rather than the koran. But most of you probably don't know the difference.
Some have said that the terrorist are Islam's true spoken. The so called moderates practice taqiya. Taqiya is the deliberate lying for the faith. They say Islam is a violent religion that commands Muslims to kill non Muslim. Non Muslims have 3 choices, either they convert, pay the jizya(tax) or die. They say Muhammad was peaceful for PR reasons and once strong showed his true colors and preached violent jihad. They say all the peaceful verses were abrogated after his final victory with this verse:
9.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And also this verse:
9.29. Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
This verses are chosen for a reason. When read alone it implies a command to attack until they convert. Of course there are other verses in the Koran that talks about fighting. But why do they tend to focus on this one? Its simple, the other verses tend to show the defensive nature of the jihad and also the malicious intent and behavior of the pagans. Thus never cited. Lets look at some of them:
2.190. Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors
2.191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith
2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God, but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression
Also:
2.217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.
All these verses talks about fighting, however within these verses the defensive nature of the verses and the malicious behavior of the pagans is cited. Thus those who wish to attack Islam never cite those verses. Its a deliberate attempt to hide what the Koran as saying and using selective verses to imply what they know the verses does not mean.
Lets however look at the verse that is often cited. This time we will take the verses before and after it to see what is the context this verse is talking.
9.4. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous.
9.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
However in the same chapter in explains the intention behind this verse:
9.13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!
Its important for us to understand what the Koran is saying. When the koran says if they repent and establish regular prayers and so on, its not a command to attack them till they do that. Its a command to say if they choose to one day becoming Muslims, do not despise them because of past blood. Let bygones be bygones because now there are your brethren. If he chooses to remain pagan then let him be and do not fight him unless he chooses to fight you. The verse are read wrong, since many pagans converted to Islam and some of the earlier believers had problems with individuals who they fought before or were persecuted and oppressed by them before.
The verses clearly indicate that no forced conversion was there.There are standards that the Koran established for fighting.
As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth. As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 60:8-9
Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and verily, God has indeed the power to aid them. Those who have been driven from their homelands in defiance of right for no other reason than their saying, ‘Our Lord is God.’ 22:39-40
Islam is peace!
Mohamed you hit the nail right on the head! As with most Muslim Apologists you make excuses and whitewash the bumpy parts of your religion instead of standing up like a man and acknowledging the need for change.
Pity!
Allan W Janssen
Hello there, quite frankly I am shocked and appalled at what I'm seeing, Allah alone has promised in the Quran that it book will be protected and wont beocme corrupted. The words there 1400 years ago are the same today, we are the fastest growing religion in the world and especially amongst women and the western world. I ask you to fear Allah and repent and to take shahada again,are you really in such a position to feel you have any authority in altering the Quran to how you see fit? Subahnallah fear Allah before its too late. If you feel there are contridictions or things which you deem to be unfair or too harsh,then set up a page which your complaints and Inshallah they will be answered, but this route you are taking will never take hold, and many people have tried and failed to alter the Quran before,and the result is the same,the original quran is still present. You edit verses like its a copy and past word document; what are going to do about the arabic script, what about the millions of Hafidh of the quran,are they expected to just forget it?Remember this; if your objective is to change the direction of Islam by altering the quran, then the only way is if all 1.6+ billion mulsims accept it, otherwise your efforts are futile,there are plenty of 'moderates' throughout the world already, they aint the people causing the trouble for you. Islam has been promised a brilliant future, with you part of this deen or not, i fear for the consequences you will take, so please go back to the true deen of Allah SWT, Read the Quran & Tafsir, and ask the ulema or post on a new page any problems you have so they can Inshallah corrected. May allah guide you all the viewers to the correct path and the truth... I declare there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammed is the final messenger of Allah.
Astagfirullah,
If you do not see contradictions in the Koran, you are just too damn stupid. If you do see contradictions in the Koran and believe they came from Allah, your beliefs are insulting to Allah. And judging by the fact that you do not always capitalize Allah's name, it is probably the latter.
I am not whitewashing. i am pin pointing what the Koran is saying. the pagans chose to fight him to silence him. Just like the pharoah did against Moses and the Romans did against Jesus. But somehow when it comes to Muhammad the Judeo-Christian world don't givehim the same credit. Maybe some of you would have wished he got killed and silenced. Maybe that would have suited you just fine. However the Koran is clear. The job of the messenger is to convey the message and he can't do that if heis going to be killed or silenced. Lets look at the Koran and what it says regarding freedom of religion.
2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.
16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .
6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.
4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."
11:28 He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?°
17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.
21:107-109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour is near or far."
22:67 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord. You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, `God best knows what you do."
24.54. Say: "Obey God, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).
88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.
48:28 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.
36:16 17 (Three Messengers to their people) Said, "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.'
39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.
42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....
64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.
67:25 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."
10.99-100. If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand
28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance.
109.1-6 Say : O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine.
74.11-17 Leave Me with whom I created alone!, To whom I granted resources in abundance, And sons to be by his side, To whom I made (life) smooth and comfortable, Yet is he greedy-that I should add (yet more);- By no means! For to Our Signs he has been refractory!, Soon will I visit him with a mount of calamities!
"So have We appointed for every Prophet an enemy - devils of men and Jinns; who inspire each other with seductive, deceptive speech which leads astray; but had thy Lord willed they would not have done so. So leave them with what they do devise. And let the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter listen to it; and let them be well pleased with it; and let them gain what they can gain!" 6:113-114
"And when you see those who meddle with Our revelations, withdraw from them until they meddle with another topic. And if the devil causes you to forget, sit not, after the remembrance, with the congregation of wrongdoers. 6:68
Slam dunk. Now find anythingin human history that resembles this kind of freedom. So why did he fought in battles? Not because they were pagans and refused him. The koran clearly gave the situation where the prophet was to fight.
As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth. As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 60:8-9
Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and verily, God has indeed the power to aid them. Those who have been driven from their homelands in defiance of right for no other reason than their saying, ‘Our Lord is God.’ 22:39-40
Islam is peace
“I am not whitewashing. ... Islam is peace.”
Islam is peace. But not the perversion of Islam that is practiced by radicals who base their actions on “kill them wherever you find them” and similar verses. And until those verses are expunged, there always be people to use Islam as war. Apparently, you are either too stupid to understand this or you are deliberately whitewashing.
To go against banish and reform words from the prophet Mohammed and established by the Caliphs, and enforced by the "struggle" (Jihad) makes you a marked target.
By the way, which reforms have been spoken to you by Allah via Gabriel the angel as who Mohammed said gave Islam its words?
Muslims Against Sharia said...
“I am not whitewashing. ... Islam is peace.”
Islam is peace. But not the perversion of Islam that is practiced by radicals who base their actions on “kill them wherever you find them” and similar verses. And until those verses are expunged, there always be people to use Islam as war. Apparently, you are either too stupid to understand this or you are deliberately whitewashing.
End quote
I don't think you truly understand what Sunnism or Shiasm is. You keep thinking thet get their Islam from the koran. You arenot aware of how these sects operate and what kind of religious authority they follow. Both these sects would consider me a non-Muslim for not following the oraltraditions of theirs. Sunni Islam relies on whats known as hadiths. The Koran is not where they interpret islam from. These verses you quote they don't believe can be interpreted atface value. They believe the hadith explains thekoranand interprets it.
Sunnisbelieve it isnot permissible to portray animage of the prophet.Yet the Koran does not forbid that. Sunni Islambelieves apostatesshould be executed if charged.Koran has nothing of that sort. Sunni believe Jews and Christians and other monotheist who do not acknowledge the 5 prayers, ramadan and haj are infidels. Yet the Koran does not say that. In fact even the 5 prayer ritaulsare nowhere to be found in the koran. Sunni believe Muslim should be burried in a Muslim cemetary. There is nothing about that in the Koran. They also believe that adulterers should be stoned. There is nothing about that in the koran. They believe verses can be abrogated and even believe verses came down and are not included in today's Koran as they say about a sopposedverses about stoning the adulterer which they say was lost or forgotten or abrogated and not included in the Koran we have today. No Koranist will ever recognize such nonsense. They also believe the Totrah and Goseplhas been corrupted. TheKoran says the opposite. So this nonsense you guys are throwing by thinking by eleminating a verse or 2 that these Islamist will leave you alone is a myth.
You don't know what Sunni or Shia mean. Its closerto the Judaic Talmud that it is to the Koran.
"I don't think you truly understand what Sunnism or Shiasm is."
Keep telling yourself that, maybe you will start believing it.
"They believe the hadith explains thekoranand interprets it."
We do not consider Ahadith an authority.
muslims against sharia:
You forgot to excize 4:24:
"4.24: And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication..."
This is legitimizing sex slavery.
How come you guys don't know that? How come a non-Muslim white boy like me has to point this out to you? Jeez Louise!
"This is legitimizing sex slavery." That's quite a stretch. This verse is about providing women with means to live after divorce.
I have great difficulty believing that this blog is actually authored by Muslims, when it contains so many of the libels that have been invented by right-wing demagogues against Islam, which any Muslim would know to be untrue about the religion.
This is not the first time that a group has tried to "edit" the Qur'an. Search for "The True Furqan," an Arabic book that attempts to mimic the style of the Qur'an and convince Muslims of evangelical Christan beliefs. It is doing as well as God in the Qur'an said it would - miserably.
As a Muslim, I am not worried about your publication. It will suffer the same fate. What I am concerned about, though is that by making such arguments you are legitimizing a literalist, Wahabbi-Salafist interpretation of the Qur'an, and trying to pass it off as what the Muslim world has historically subscribed to.
This will do everyone more harm than good.
Why would an Islamist/Islamofascist worry about Wahhabist/Salafist interpretation of the Koran? Are you a Shia Islamofascist, is that it?
muslims against sharia:
You forgot to excize 4:24:
"4.24: And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication..."
This is legitimizing sex slavery.
How come you guys don't know that? How come a non-Muslim white boy like me has to point this out to you? Jeez Louise!
End quote
Lets see what the Koran says about prisoners:
76.8. And they feed, for the love of God, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,-
76.9. (Saying),"We feed you for the sake of God alone: no reward do we desire from you, nor thanks.
8.70 O Messenger. say to those who are captives in your hands: "If God findeth any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than what has been taken from you, and He will forgive you: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
As far as sex with concubines and female prisoners we read the verses some say justifies it:
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. 4.24
This is used to justify having sex even if she has a husband, presumably a female captive.
Also:
33.50. O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And God is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful
However upon examining the Arabic text there is no mention whatsoever about captives or prioners of war or booty. It only says "thy right hand possess of whom God has assigned thee". I am not sure where they got that from.
Anyways the verses after verse 4:24 says something else:
If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their family, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful 4.25
So here is says that "thy right hand possess" must be wed and their dowries paid. What interesting is the Koran says permission of their families should be seeked. Also what interesting is the Koran says if they fall into shame then they should get half the punishment of chaste woman(muhsanat) and not free women as some commentators say.
Its not clear what "muhsanat" means however a look at the Koran tells us:
"And Mary, daughter of Amran, who guarded her chastity [ahsanat]." (66:12)
"And she who guarded her chastity [ahsanat]." (21:91)
Here Musanat is refering to guarding her chastity, or virginity.
24.4-5 And those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever, they indeed are the evil doers, Except those who repent thereafter and do righteous deeds, verily, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Here Muhsanat is used to again regarding accusing them of ill conduct without four witnesses.
4.3-5 If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly, then only one, or that your right hands possess,that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice, And give the women their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, Take it and enjoy it with right good cheer, To those weak of understanding Make not over your property, which God hath made a means of support for you, but feed and clothe them therewith, and speak to them words of kindness and justice.
Here also right hand possess is used and it talks about marrying them to prevent from doing injustice by marrying more than one and then not treating them all as equals.
So whatever muhsanat or right hand possess means, its quite clear the Koran talks about marriage and payment of dowries and good treatment.
Beware of Enlish translations that places words in the Koranbased on SUNNI interpretation rather than what the Arabic actually says.
Mohamed,
Obviously you put some time into your comment, but was there a point to that prolonged diatribe?
Since there's a Jeeze Louise in there, I suppose it might have been aimed at me, but near as I can tell, he's just a little ... well... off, shall we say?
The dubious authors of this blog, proving further that they have a tenuous grasp of Islam or Muslim culture and history, wrote:
"Why would an Islamist/Islamofascist worry about Wahhabist/Salafist interpretation of the Koran? Are you a Shia Islamofascist, is that it?"
Because Islamist does not denote "fascist," no matter how hard you try to make it seem that way. Islamist actually doesn't denote anything, although for most of history Western academia has used the term to refer to "anthropologist who studies Muslims."
The Wahhabi-Salafist interpretation of the Qur'an is a recent innovation on its own, and runs counter to the foundations of traditional Islamic thought, which allowed a diversity of interpretation and appreciated the richness of the Qur'an and its historical context.
If you were actually Muslims, you would have put at least some effort into studying this, instead of parroting Robert Spencer ad nauseum.
"Islamist does not denote "fascist"
And 'idiot' does not denote 'moron'. If you don't want to equate Islamic fundamentalism, with Islamic radicalism, with Islamism, with Islamofascism, you don't have to, but it doesn't change the fact that there is no difference. However, we suggest you found out where the term "Islamofascism" came from before embarrassing yourself any further.
People who believe in Islam, the religion are Muslims. Monkeys who believe in Islamism, the political ideology are Islamists. The question is what are you even doing on a human site? Don't you have some wives to beat or some infidels to kill?
I see that Muslims Against Sharia have excized 4:25 -- not sure if they did it because of the recent comments about sex slavery. I hope so, because I wish to thank Mohamed here who pointed out 4:25. I doubt that Mohamed realized it, but he provided the linchpin of my proof.
I had argued that 4:24 establishes sex slavery, on the basis that it says that all the women (listed previously in 4:23 and back) are forbidden to Muslim men EXCEPT "those whom your right hand possesses" (i.e., captive women; i.e., women taken after battles).
Mohamed then showed that 4:25 establishes that Muslim men may marry those among the captive women who are "Believing women" -- i.e., leaving the non-Muslim slave women to be still enjoyed, but not married = sex slaves.
Now that 4:25 is excized from this Koran, the sex slave part is left sufficiently murky as to be unestablished.
However, there's still the nagging problem of slavery in Islam. 4:24 still assumes Muslim men will have women "possessed" under "their right hand".
C'mon guys, excize 4:24.
Yeah, you're right.
What i was saying is that in verse 4-24 itstranslated as:
and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee
However the Arabic text of the koran does not mention "out of the prisoner of war". It says "and those whom they right hand psosseses whom God has assigned thee".
There is nothing in those verses about prisoners of war.
The verses that do mention prioners,asra" are these verses:
76.8. And they feed, for the love of God, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,-
76.9. (Saying),"We feed you for the sake of God alone: no reward do we desire from you, nor thanks.
8.70 O Messenger. say to those who are captives in your hands: "If God findeth any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than what has been taken from you, and He will forgive you: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
Lets look at the Arabic text:
حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمْ أُمَّهَاتُكُمْ وَبَنَاتُكُمْ وَأَخَوَاتُكُمْ وَعَمَّاتُكُمْ وَخَالاَتُكُمْ وَبَنَاتُ الأَخِ وَبَنَاتُ الأُخْتِ وَأُمَّهَاتُكُمُ اللاَّتِي أَرْضَعْنَكُمْ وَأَخَوَاتُكُم مِّنَ الرَّضَاعَةِ وَأُمَّهَاتُ نِسَآئِكُمْ وَرَبَائِبُكُمُ اللاَّتِي فِي حُجُورِكُم مِّن نِّسَآئِكُمُ اللاَّتِي دَخَلْتُم بِهِنَّ فَإِن لَّمْ تَكُونُواْ دَخَلْتُم بِهِنَّ فَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَحَلاَئِلُ أَبْنَائِكُمُ الَّذِينَ مِنْ أَصْلاَبِكُمْ وَأَن تَجْمَعُواْ بَيْنَ الأُخْتَيْنِ إَلاَّ مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ غَفُوراً رَّحِيماً(23) وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاء إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ كِتَابَ اللّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَأُحِلَّ لَكُم مَّا وَرَاء ذَلِكُمْ أَن تَبْتَغُواْ بِأَمْوَالِكُم مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُم بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً وَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا تَرَاضَيْتُم بِهِ مِن بَعْدِ الْفَرِيضَةِ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلِيماً حَكِيماً(24) وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُم مِّن بَعْضٍ فَانكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلاَ مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ذَلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ وَأَن تَصْبِرُواْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ(25)
Here the Koran says it is forbidden for you to marry so and so and so. And it is permissible for you to marry so and so and so EXCEPT what your right hand possesses. Meaning its forbidden, however if you are in fearof commiting an immoral act or you are not able to marry from the list given, then marry from the believing women of whom your right hand pssosses and give them their dowries and get permission from their families.
Itis not clear what right hand posseses means. The koran does not use the term captives or slaves for that matter in those verses. However the koran does use the term slaves and captives in other parts of the koran but does not use it here. So any translation using these terms are not accurate. There is still a debate as to what exactly right hand possesses actually means. But no where in these verses the koran uses the term captives or prioners of war.
The actual translation word by word goes like this:
23. Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;-
24. Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
25. If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their family, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for chaste women(muhsanat). This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Mohamed,
"possession" of "whom" is slavery.
Looks like Mohammed needs to get a life.
(and a good whoopin by a woman)
Reminds me of Willie Nelson's story. He was at one time a drunk and wife abuser.
Got drunk, slapped his wife around, passed out.
Wife sewed him up in his sheets. Took a baseball bat to him.
He never hit a woman again.
Mohamed,
I know the Muslims Against Sharia folks do not follow the Hadiths, but I suspect you do follow the Sunna: According to Sahih Muslim (as recorded by Ibn Kathir):
"...(except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed,
[وَالْمُحْصَنَـتُ مِنَ النِّسَآءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ]
(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.''
This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa'i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. "
Mohamed, do you know better than Ibn Kathir and Sahih Muslim?
Erich,
"Mohamed, do you know better than Ibn Kathir and Sahih Muslim?"
Of course, he does. Have you ever met an Islamist who was wrong?
Erich has left a new comment on the post "Reform Koran":
Mohamed,
I know the Muslims Against Sharia folks do not follow the Hadiths, but I suspect you do follow the Sunna: According to Sahih Muslim (as recorded by Ibn Kathir):
"...(except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed,
[وَالْمُحْصَنَـتُ مِنَ النِّسَآءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ]
(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.''
This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa'i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. "
Mohamed, do you know better than Ibn Kathir and Sahih Muslim?
End quote.
Well which Sunna, the Shia version or Sunni version or Zaydi version or Ismaeli?
Do I know more than Ibn Kathir? Wel Ibn Kathir reliedon reports comming to him. He does not control who makes these reports and who transmitts it and how it reaches him.
Anyways Ibn Kathir himself was unsure what the verse meant.
Muhamad Asad notes that for the expression ma malakat aymanukum ("those whom your right hands possess", i.e., "those whom you rightfully possess"), it is often taken to mean female captives can be taken in marriage irrespective of whether they have husbands in the country of their origin or not. Despite the differences of opinion, even among the Companions of the Prophet, regarding the legality of such a marriage, Razi in his commentary on this verse, and Tabari in one of his alternative explanations (going back to ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid, and others) hold the view that ma malakat aymanukum denotes here "women whom you rightfully possess through wedlock".[6]
If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. [Qur'an, Chapter (Surah) An-Nisa (Women)(4):25][3]
Ibn Kathir notes that "(This is for him among you who is afraid of being harmed in his religion or in his body;) indicates that marrying slave girls, providing one satisfies the required conditions, is for those who fear for their chastity and find it hard to be patient and refrain from sex."[7]
Ibn Kathir comments "(not fornicators) referring to dishonorable women, who do not refrain from illicit sexual relations with those who ask. Ibn `Abbas said that the fornicating women are the whores, who do not object to having relations with whomever seeks it"[8]
Ibn Kathir comments "(nor promiscuous) refers to taking boyfriends. Similar was said by Abu Hurayrah, Mujahid, Ash-Sha`bi, Ad-Dahhak, `Ata' Al-Khurasani, Yahya bin Abi Kathir, Muqatil bin Hayyan and As-Suddi."[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum
I do not take authority from hadiths. I only accept authority of Koran. Th people who run this site don't care about Koran or hadith. But most of their attacks against Islam is valid based on hadiths and Sunni Islam. However they have nothing on the koran yet talk like they do. Like Robert Spencer and Ayaan Ali, they rarely quote for the Koran and if they do they rely on hadith interpretation and put words in the Koran. Like this stuff about prisoners of war or captives of war they translate these verse by even though the Koran said no such thing. Onlt they accuse Muhammad of marrying a 6 year old. Meaning Aisha. Yet Aisha is not even mentioned in the koran.
Mohamed,
If you don't take authority from the Hadiths (which are the crux of the Sunna), then you are just as marginal as the muslims against sharia folks. Either you are deluded into really believing that Islam is "only Koran", or you are cleverly trying to fool Infidels into thinking the Sunna (whose crux is the Hadiths) are not that important. Either way, you are a distraction from our (Infidels) larger problem of Muslims trying to kill us and subvert our cultures.
PS: I notice you seem to put Mohammad Asad, a 20th century Jew who converted to Islam over and above Ibn Kathir. Wow.
And who is Ibn kathir? Who is Bukhari? Persians who converted to Islam? They lived 200 years after Muhammad and the Koran, and they are the ones who are suppossed to teach me about Islam? I don't care about Muhammad Assad and I don't care about Ibn Kathir. I really don't care about this website either. I care about the Koran. Real Islam is the Koran.
Mohamed
Erich cited Sahih Muslim, and you then ask 'Well which Sunna, the Shia version or Sunni version or Zaydi version or Ismaeli?' I know there are many hadiths - question is how many versions of Sahih Muslim are there?
Also, are you a Shia? Or Zaydi? Or Ismaeli? If you are a Quran-only Muslim like muslims against shariah, then what do you use to resolve directly contradictory ayats, such as 2:256 vs 2:193? (In your opinion, which one trumps which?)
This website is not a Koranist website. No Koranist will tell you we need do away with Koranic verses. In fact Koranist refuse abrogation precisely for this reason, it does away with verses of the Koran. Koranist believe the Koran explains itself and all Koranist refuse the concept of abrogation. Even the more moderate ones refuse abrogation.
Sahih Muslim was compiled 250 years after Muhammad. Many narrators he accepted Bukhari refused. And many narrators Bukhari accepted, Muslim refused. This is because they used subjective reasoning in accessing the reliability or narrators and reports.
2:193 says:
2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
Oppression is something that everybody has a right to refuse and defend against. It has nothing to with freedom of faith.
The Koran tells us:
As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth. As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 60:8-9
Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and verily, God has indeed the power to aid them. Those who have been driven from their homelands in defiance of right for no other reason than their saying, ‘Our Lord is God.’ 22:39-40
So the koran gives all humans the right to fight oppression and occupation and being driven from their homes. It says fight those who fight you for your faith. So if God gave people the right to defend their faith and practice it, how can He then turn around and deny others the right to practice their faith, even if its paganism? Thats why the koran orders the prophet to:
16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .
6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.
4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."
And tells the prophet to:
88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.
42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....
64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.
67:25 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."
And then tell him to:
74.11-17 Leave Me with whom I created alone!, To whom I granted resources in abundance, And sons to be by his side, To whom I made (life) smooth and comfortable, Yet is he greedy-that I should add (yet more);- By no means! For to Our Signs he has been refractory!, Soon will I visit him with a mount of calamities!
And tells him to:
"And when you see those who meddle with Our revelations, withdraw from them until they meddle with another topic. And if the devil causes you to forget, sit not, after the remembrance, with the congregation of wrongdoers. 6:68
109.1-6 Say : O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine.
This is all consistent with verse 2.256
256. Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
Islam is freedom and Islam is peace.
First a message for Mohamed, I have never trusted anyone who uses quotes from the Bible or the Koran as their main source to win a debate.
That said I would like to remind you that you're all giving statements that suggest you can't see the forest for the trees.
"Sahih Muslim was compiled 250 years after Muhammad. Many narrators he accepted Bukhari refused. And many narrators Bukhari accepted, Muslim refused. This is because they used subjective reasoning in accessing the reliability or narrators and reports."
And;
"Erich cited Sahih Muslim, and you then ask 'Well which Sunna, the Shia version or Sunni version or Zaydi version or Ismaeli?' I know there are many hadiths - question is how many versions of Sahih Muslim are there?"
Different versions of this and different versions of that! Doesn't htis sugget that all is not written in stone?
A quick quote from my book "The Plain truth about God!"
Where we run into a problem is that, as in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, there is no actual copy of the Koran that can be said to have come directly from the hands of Mohammed.
The earliest written record of the Koran (and the 45 scribes who supposedly documented it) was written in the biography of Mohammed by a certain Ibn Ishaq who wrote Sirat Rasul Allah, (The life of the Prophet of God) about 100 years after the death of the prophet Mohammed!
From this point on, it gets even hazier since there is no actual record of this document as well, but rather, it is extensively quoted in an even later work by al-Tabari who lived close to 200 years after the death of Ibn Ishaq. Suddenly we have a space of 350 years (close to 1000 C.E.) that cannot be properly documented.
The Koran and the Bible have been subject to "spin doctors" who slanted the text to their own agenda's, and yet now you say that these verses are untouchable?
Allan W Janssen
Salaam!
I was born in the USSR where my dad was denied an exit visa for being Jewish. He studied Hebrew secretly. His teacher was imprisoned and spent 3 years in a Soviet prison cell.
I grew up in the U.S. When I was 19, I made Aliya(from the Hebrew "la'alot--"to go up") to Israel. I badly wanted to serve in the IDF but didn't get a chance for medical reasons. I spent 6 years in Israel during which I received a B.A. in English Lit. and Political Science, married, etc...
Now I'm back in Chicago. I've long wanted to discover the truth about Islam. When I was younger I was indoctrinated to hate Arabs(not all Muslims), especially Palestinians. When I came to Israel, I came face-to-face with Arabs and eventually earned respect for them and a deep understanding of their culture.
I'd like to learn about what I believe is the true Islam. That is what came here in search of. To begin with, I'd like to get to know you. I want to be honest. Though I'm a former Kahane-Chai member, I've grown and changed and I no longer associate with the followers of Rav Meir Kahane though I do honor his memory.
Please check out the top post on my site. There I talk about one particular experience I had in Israel. I'll email you(if an email is available in the near future).
Salumat!
p.s. I just read over the extensive comment list. I was impressed with what I read from Mr. Jansen and kennewickmusing. Also, please add me to your link list. I'll certainly do the same for you over @ mine.
Eitan,
We appreciate your comment very much. However your blogs "Jewish Vengeance" and "Right Wing Jew" do not seem to promote peace and understanding as much as your comment does.
Not to cause a dust-up but this comment from Eitan just doesn't ring true: "was indoctrinated to hate Arabs"
If so, he's the first of many hundreds of Jewish folks I know that live in Israel "indoctrinated to hate Arabs". I've found quite the opposite to be true.
Mohamed quoted Koran 2:193 --
2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God, but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
Then Mohamed wrote:
"Oppression is something that everybody has a right to refuse and defend against. It has nothing to with freedom of faith."
The word in the verse, Fitna, has a richer meaning than the English "oppression" connotes. "Oppression", particularly in our politically correct climate today, connotes poor Third World peoples (or minorities within the West) fighting for their rights against evil dictators.
But Fitna also connotes "disorder" or -- as the translation of the Koran which Mohamed used puts it with quaint and archaic expression -- "tumult".
And what kind of "disorder" is so bad it is even "worse than slaughter" (v. 191)? The problem with such a broad and general term as Fitna is that it can be interpreted with wide latitude, and can include people who believe in free speech and criticizing Islam in public, or people who believe in publically preaching religions different from Islam, or people who believe in activism in order to overturn Sharia law if it is the dominant law, or Muslims who want to leave Islam and still be treated with equality under the law; or gays and lesbians who wish to publically demonstrate their subculture without being punished; etc. and so on.
There is overwhelming evidence from the way Muslims behave now all over the world, and the way they have behaved throughout history, that they would consider all of the above to be Fitna -- worse than slaughter, and therefore to be punished and oppressed.
So there you have it, the supreme irony of all Utopian systems (and Islam is a Utopian system): The "Oppressed" become the Oppressors once they get power.
Erich said that the term "fitna" can be misconstrued. The reality is most of you here have not read the Koran. So you read some verses and then say well these verses can mean this or that. However the Koran is very explicit about freedom and orders the prophet to remember his job is preach and warn. There is nothing called "shariah" in the Koran. At least not the way the islamist understand it. The Koran does not lay out any specific legal framework. Its a book of guidance and religion. Not a theocratic legal code.
There is ample evidence that theKoran is about religion and the prophet was sent to preach and warn. No more, no less.
2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.
16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .
6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.
4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."
88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.
48:28 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.
36:16 17 (Three Messengers to their people) Said, "Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.'
39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.
42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ....
64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.
67:25 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."
So "fitna" can not be misconstrued to mean anything else but war and oppression.
Once again the Koran lays theestandard where people are permitted to fight.
As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth. As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 60:8-9
Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and verily, God has indeed the power to aid them. Those who have been driven from their homelands in defiance of right for no other reason than their saying, ‘Our Lord is God.’ 22:39-40
Islam is peace and Koran is the real Islam.
2.191: And kill them [infidels] wherever you find them
so what is the meaning behind taking only a single sentence from a whole verse and showing it as an examlpe of "falsity" in Qur'an ?
"And kill them(those who took up arms against you)wherever you find them. Drive them out from where they have driven you out. Al-Fitnah is worse than killing a man. Do not fight within the borders of the Mosque (Al-Haram). If they wage war upon you then you should wage war against them. This is how you should punish those who defies."
2:191 (even taking a single verse/ayat is not quite acceptable since all of them connected to each other)
I was very interested at the beginning, when I read about the idea of an Islam that is better understood... but I am now confused and sorry to see that you are actually trying to change Qur'an...
In terms of reform I agree there must be a reform but not in Qur'an but in Muslims.. because Qur'an is untouchable and is protected by Allah.
And what about the people who memorized Qur'an ? You can not erase the verses within their minds so the original Qur'an will live on. This is the idea behind "hifz"...
And I think you should also erase the verses about how Allah protects Qur'an :) I am not sure of the whereabouts of the ayat but it was something like that: "It is we, who sent it and we will protect it"
"This is how you should punish those who defies"
Who died and made you God? Ever wonder why the Almighty would want to command the murder of people just for being non-Muslim, even though all people are his children?
Alila said in part "
And I think you should also erase the verses about how Allah protects Qur'an :) I am not sure of the whereabouts of the ayat but it was something like that: "It is we, who sent it and we will protect it"
So if Allah's so mighty, why does he need mere humans to protect the Quran?
Reading more and more like a propoganda/counter-intellience blog. Most Muslims know that the way to reform Islam is to dive deeper into the Quraan.
All the ayats are read in their context and understood in terms of their outcomes. Thats why even the most liberal of Muslims ends up looking to the Quraan.
Thus, the reform proposed here aren't coming from within the Ummah.
Hello Guys and Girls Assalam,
You all are Muslims........?
you want to some one call you as muslim.........? than better change your mind set.if your muslim than you should have to follow Quran, Hadith and Islamic Sharia.Till now no one can imagine in dreams also, how much dare to you reform........who were tried to changed they all are reformed from world. If you dont like the Islamic Law's,Shariaya, and Quran than you dont have the rights to call As a Muslim you come out from the Muslim religion.It is not a Customise, so you can change religion as you want. it is standard reand peacefull religion if like than stay in side or dont like than come out. but dont try to play with religion. it is feeling of all muslims.
rohith, why does every Islamofascist feels compelled to claim that he represents ALL Muslims?
Schacht asserts that hadiths, particularly from Muhammad, did not form, together with the Qur'an, the original bases of Islamic law and jurisprudence as is traditionally assumed. Rather, hadiths were an innovation begun after some of the legal foundation had already been built. "The ancient schools of law shared the old concept of sunna or ‘living tradition’ as the ideal practice of the community, expressed in the accepted doctrine of the school." And this ideal practice was embodied in various forms, but certainly not exclusively in the hadiths from the Prophet. Schacht argues that it was not until al-Shafi`i that ‘sunna’ was exclusively identified with the contents of hadiths from the Prophet to which he gave, not for the first time, but for the first time consistently, overriding authority. Al-Shafi`i argued that even a single, isolated hadith going back to Muhammad, assuming its isnad is not suspect, takes precedence over the opinions and arguments of any and all Companions, Successors, and later authorities. Schacht notes that:
Two generations before Shafi`i reference to traditions from Companions and Successors was the rule, to traditions from the Prophet himself the exception, and it was left to Shafi`i to make the exception the principle. We shall have to conclude that, generally and broadly speaking, traditions from Companions and Successors are earlier than those from the Prophet.
Based on these conclusions, Schacht offers the following schema of the growth of legal hadiths. The ancient schools of law had a ‘living tradition’ (sunna) which was largely based on individual reasoning (ra'y). Later this sunna came to be associated with and attributed to the earlier generations of the Successors and Companions. Later still, hadiths with isnads extending back to Muhammad came into circulation by traditionists towards the middle of the second century. Finally, the efforts of al-Shafi`i and other traditionists secured for these hadiths from the Prophet supreme authority.
Goldziher maintains that, while reliance on the sunna to regulate the empire was favoured, there was still in these early years of Islam insufficient material going back to Muhammad himself. Scholars sought to fill the gaps left by the Qur'an and the sunna with material from other sources. Some borrowed from Roman law. Others attempted to fill these lacunae with their own opinions (ra'y). This latter option came under a concerted attack by those who believed that all legal and ethical questions (not addressed by the Qur'an) must be referred back to the Prophet himself, that is, must be rooted in hadiths.These supporters of hadiths (ahl al-hadith) were extremely successful in establishing hadiths as a primary source of law and in discrediting ra'y. But in many ways it was a Pyrrhic victory. The various legal madhhabs were loath to sacrifice their doctrines and so they found it more expedient to fabricate hadiths or adapt existing hadiths in their support. Even the advocates of ra'y were eventually persuaded or cajoled into accepting the authority of hadiths and so they too "found" hadiths which substantiated their doctrines that had hitherto been based upon the opinions of their schools’ founders and teachers. The insistence of the advocates of hadiths that the only opinions of any value were those which could appeal to the authority of the Prophet resulted in the situation that "where no traditional matter was to be had, men speedily began to fabricate it. The greater the demand, the busier was invention with the manufacture of apocryphal traditions in support of the respective theses."
In summary, Goldziher sees in hadiths "a battlefield of the political and dynastic conflicts of the first few centuries of Islam; it is a mirror of the aspirations of various parties, each of which wants to make the Prophet himself their witness and authority." Likewise,
Every stream and counter-stream of thought in Islam has found its expression in the form of a hadith, and there is no difference in this respect between the various contrasting opinions in whatever field. What we learnt about political parties holds true too for differences regarding religious law, dogmatic points of difference etc. Every ra'y or hawa, every sunna and bid`a has sought and found expression in the form of hadith.
And even though Muslim traditionalists developed elaborate means to scrutinize the mass of traditions that were then extant in the Muslim lands, they were "able to exclude only part of the most obvious falsifications from the hadith material." Goldziher, for all his scepticism, accepted that the practice of preserving hadiths was authentic and that some hadiths were likely to be authentic. However, having said that, Goldziher is adamant in maintaining that:
In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to express the most tentative opinions as to which parts of the hadith are the oldest material, or even as to which of them date back to the generation immediately following the Prophet’s death. Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections.
As a late-comer to this blog and blogpost, and not having been able to read thru all the previous 128 comments (that's a lot!), nevertheless I have this to say:
To edit out the offending verses in the Qur’an is a work for the entire Islamic people, or their representatives. This is, of course, an impossibility, because there is no such thing as an “ecumenical” Islam. There are far too many sectarian divisions.
There is an inherent absolutism in the Qur’an about its contents, that is explicit and cannot even be matched in Judaism or Christianity.
The absolutism in the TaNaKh (Torah-Nevi’im-Ketuvim) of Judaism is implicit, and though the words of the scriptures for them cannot suffer any change, they have a tradition of evolving understanding about them, such that the violent passages in the Torah are modified by the pronouncements of the later prophets, without the necessity of editing them out (G’d forbid!).
The absolutism in the Bible of Christianity is an extension of the same inherited from Judaism, in which it is admittedly a participant. A verse in the final book of the New Testament, the Revelation, is explicit that anyone who adds or subtracts from the words “of this book” will receive all the plagues described in this book. This verse is often erroneously applied by the ignorant to the whole Bible, but it actually only applies to the book of Revelation. The absolutism of the Christian Bible is still just an extension of that applied by Judaism, and the way in which it is moderated is the same as in Judaism, by an appeal to reason and adaptation to culture. For both Jews and Christians, this willingness to modify or reinterpret the actual, unchangeable texts, still elicits problems, controversies and divisions.
The absolutism of the Qur’an can thus be viewed as a fortified version of the absolutism of the other two religions “of the Book.” Yet, this absolutism contains, as has been pointed out in some of the previous comments, unsolvable contradictions derived from the very pages of the Qur’an itself. Analyzed by an impartial logician, the Qur’an contains self-contradictions at a level which cannot be combined with the level of its absolutism, and thereby disproves itself as an infallible and perfect utterance of Allah. Similar contradictions can be found in the TaNaKh of the Jews and the Bible of the Christians, but they do not invalidate these scriptures, because the level of absolutism is simply not as high as that of the Qur’an.
As an example, the Qur’an speaks of Miriam the sister of Moses as also being the mother of Jesus. This is a well known mistake, and by itself demonstrates a logical, historical error that invalidates the whole of the Qur’an, because the Qur’an is to be accepted as absolutely perfect and correct.
Another example, in the Bible Jesus makes reference to the eating of sacred food from the Temple by secular persons who should not have eaten it, as having happened during a particular high-priesthood. In historical fact, the high priest He cited was incorrect. Yet the Christians claim that Jesus is God, and that the Bible is inerrant. How can this single example not invalidate both claims? First, because they believe Jesus assumed the human nature with all its characteristics, including fallibility in knowledge as well as the temptation to sin (the Jews call this “the evil impulse”), it was possible for Him to make an error as being human, though they believe that because He was also God, it was impossible for Him to yield to temptation or to sin. Second, because the Bible is believed to be inerrant does not invalidate it because it is not considered to be the “Word of God” in the sense that the Qur’an is so believed. Instead, like the incarnation (descent into human nature) of the Son of God, the inspiration (descent into human literature) of the Word of God can exhibit the same possibility of error in historical facts and other details.
Now, for the Christian, one more fact or item of belief also strengthens the absolutism of the Bible without turning it into a blatant bibliolatry (idolatry of a book), and that is, the Word of God and the Son of God are both names of the same Being, who is considered to be a person (hypostasis) of the Holy Triad (One Divine nature in three hypostases). Therefore, to call the Bible “the Word of God” is, though universal and unchallenged, still a conventional simplification or application of the absolute belief that Jesus is Himself the Word of God (the Divine Logos of the Father), but that the Bible is His explicit, written "image," and therefore reliable.
The point of my comment is this, that the Qur’an claims to be what Jesus is, that is, the Word of God. Muhammad therefore becomes what the Virgin Mary is, that is, the means by which that Word entered the human world. Is it not obvious that here we have two completely and diametrically opposed ideas?
If you plant a tree, and year after year it yields bad fruit. If you cultivate it, if you graft onto it branches of other trees with good fruit, if you care for it and try to improve it in every way possible, and yet it bears bad fruit no matter what you do, then there is only one thing to do. Chop it down, uproot it, and plant a tree with good fruit.
The tree with bad fruit is the Qur’an. The tree with good fruit is the Bible.
And what is the good fruit that is hanging on that tree?
It is Jesus.
Taste and see that the Lord is good. (Psalm 34:8)
I have a couple of points to make:
1. The previous commenter mentioned absolutism in Islam. My view is that the said absolutism was incorporated to prevent the corruption that happened with all other religious texts & practises. Isn't there a provision for Ijtihad as well?
2. Previous commenter may want to research the Miriam reference further.
3. The problem always lies with the interpretation as is on display here as well.
The verse should be read in it's totality. Quoting only half of it is akin to propaganda.
The full verse talks about forgiveness being superior to dishing out retribution & that God rewards those who forgive.
Check these links out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye#Lex_talionis_in_Islam
&
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.045
Can you explain on what philosophical basis or principles you will select what bits go and what stays?
How can you be happy with a new book that would be even more of a mess to read and understand?!
For example I notice in your new quran you go from 8.29 to 8.40 which says: 'And if they turn back, then know that Allah is your Patron; most excellent is the Patron and most excellent the Helper'
How will you explain who the 'they' are?
Thanks
We could, but you don't want to know the answer; you already have it in your head. Explaining something to you would be a total waste of time.
Try me
Give us one good reason why we should.
I do not want to waste your time. But I want to learn and understand the philosophy and principles on which you stand, and by which you are guided. I assure you it would not be a waste of time to tell me – how you can say that I already know these things is beyond my understanding!
Thanks
"I want to learn and understand the philosophy and principles on which you stand, and by which you are guided."
To understand, all you need to do is to read our manifesto.
Dear MAS
I agree with much of what your Manifesto says, but it does not quite answer my questions. Maybe my questions were not clearly stated. Let me try again and attempt to explain myself more clearly. Thanks for your patience.
When I say ‘philosophy and principles’ I want to know why you choose certain principles or philosophies over other ones?
For example:
On the positive side: You mention non-contradiction as one of the principles that guide you; You also mention non-violence, freedom of conscience, religion and democracy
On the negative side you mention:
War, murder, compulsion of the spirit and beliefs, ‘Outdated practices’ from the 7th century, ‘divisiveness and religious hatred, bigotry and discrimination’
Like I say, I agree with those principles! I choose to believe that the positive elements are indeed positive and the negative are negative. But why do you as a Muslim choose them?
It seems to me that a religious position/belief, like Islam, must come from God. It is God who will decide what is positive or negative.
Muslims believe that Allah revealed the truth via Mohammed who spoke Allah’s words as directly spoken to him. Right? So what did Allah reveal via Mohammed?
Since you take great stock in the Qur'an as the word of Allah, as a revealed message directly from Allah, how can you, a mere creation of Allah, judge which words are authentic and which are not? The Muslim community has settled on the Qur'an as the agreed text. It seems to me logical that if Allah really did reveal these words to Mohammed, then Allah would not care whether you liked what you read or not – for that is a different issue (Qur'an 2:216). But you are claiming on the basis of what you like or prefer that certain passages are not really from Allah. Do you have a better line to Allah than the first three generations of Muslims and 1400 years of Islamic tradition?
I would think that for confidence in your new Qur'an to take hold (and I hope it does) amongst all Muslims you need to first establish that the direct line of communication with Allah is re-established and that you and your team, and only you and your team, are plugged in! Otherwise you seem to just be saying that Allah could not really have said such and such because such and such does not feel good to me or seem right to me. A revealed religion, which Islam is, is just that - a revelation by and from God/Allah; and your Manifesto has not established or even claimed that you have received an updated revelation. You are saying that you, and you alone, know what was actually revealed to Mohammed and that the rest of the stuff was modified or added later.
Or is the Qur'an to be decided by popular vote?! A Qur'an that is not of Allah is not the Qur'an but simply another book like all the others. So it seems to me that this aspect of authority or authenticity is crucial to your endeavour but it is one I find lacking in your manifesto or anywhere else on your website.
The principle of what you prefer or like is not a principle that can stand the test of time. It may not even stand the test of your life time. You may change your opinion or attractions in the course of your life, as you probably have done since you were a child, as most adults do. What would happen then? Would you start another Qur'an III project?! Without clarity on this principle your project sounds like you are attempting to create Allah in your own image which is the great temptation of all of humankind.
Let me mention one more specific difficulty. Let’s take the principle of non-contradiction that you choose to follow. Why do you suspect that that principle is one of Allah’s attributes? Cannot Allah be whatever Allah wants to be and who is to say otherwise? But even if non-contradiction is actually one of Allah’s attributes the Qur'an makes provision for that through the doctrine of abrogation (e.g. Qur'an 2:106) which eliminates any confusion for us mere mortals. So it is not contradictory for Allah to say something at one point which is true and then later update it with another message which supersedes the previous, because the earlier message could have (logically) been true and necessary for humankind for that earlier period (for ‘Allah knows best’) but not for a later period.
As I said in my first post, the Qur'an is a difficult book to read as it is. With your new effort at eliminating many verses it would make it even more difficult.
I said earlier:
‘For example I notice in your new quran you go from 8.29 to 8.40 which says: 'And if they turn back, then know that Allah is your Patron; most excellent is the Patron and most excellent the Helper'
‘How will you explain who the 'they' are?’
I hope this is clearer.
Thanks
"You mention non-contradiction as one of the principles that guide you"
We believe that God is infallible, therefore he cannot contradict himself.
"You also mention non-violence, freedom of conscience, religion and democracy"
We believe that God is good and does not care in which way he is worshiped.
"Muslims believe that Allah revealed the truth via Mohammed who spoke Allah’s words as directly spoken to him. Right?"
No, Angel Gabriel spoke to Mohammed.
"So what did Allah reveal via Mohammed?"
We believe it was something like this: http://www.reformislam.org/koran.php
"Since you take great stock in the Qur'an as the word of Allah, as a revealed message directly from Allah, how can you, a mere creation of Allah, judge which words are authentic and which are not?"
See above / common sense.
"The Muslim community has settled on the Qur'an as the agreed text."
Obviously not all of it: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2007/12/poll-should-passages-that-may-incite.html / http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2007/11/poll-could-allah-most-merciful-most.html / http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2007/11/poll-does-koran-contain-verses-that.html / http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2007/10/poll-does-islam-need-to-be-reformed.html
"Do you have a better line to Allah than the first three generations of Muslims and 1400 years of Islamic tradition?"
How do you know that the Koran was not changed by them or after them?
"you need to first establish that the direct line of communication with Allah is re-established and that you and your team, and only you and your team, are plugged in!"
Or, we could just use common sense and logic.
"Otherwise you seem to just be saying that Allah could not really have said such and such because such and such does not feel good to me or seem right to me."
No, what we're saying is that Allah is infallible and would not contradict himself.
"your Manifesto has not established or even claimed that you have received an updated revelation."
That's because we have not.
"The principle of what you prefer or like is not a principle that can stand the test of time."
We believe that common sense does stand the test of time.
"Cannot Allah be whatever Allah wants to be and who is to say otherwise?"
If Allah is not infallible, he is not a Supreme Being.
"doctrine of abrogation"
We believe that the doctrine of abrogation is placed in the Koran by humans to justify changes.
"So it is not contradictory for Allah to say something at one point which is true and then later update it with another message which supersedes the previous"
That would mean that Allah made a mistake, which means that he is not perfect, which (we believe) is not a possibility.
"As I said in my first post, the Qur'an is a difficult book to read as it is. With your new effort at eliminating many verses it would make it even more difficult."
We're not trying to make it easy, we're trying to make it right.
"‘How will you explain who the 'they' are?’"
"They" are those who believe.
Dear MAS
Many thanks for your quick reply.
There is much to consider in your reply but for now let me just ask for clarification about just one of your responses.
You say:
"‘How will you explain who the 'they' are?’"
"They" are those who believe.
In the current Qur'an the ‘they’ are Unbelievers, from the pagan Quraysh. I think the verses that you expunge in your new Qur'an mark II make that clear. Am I reading it wrong?
But the larger question on this specific issue is this: in your new Qur'an mark II how will a reader know who the ‘they’ are if you have deleted the previous 10 verses?
Thanks
I commend your efforts but I fear for your lives. I have sent you money as you are the closest hope I have of curtailing radical and political Islam, especially in the US. Whatever publishing company you find is going to be burned to the ground by angry Muslims. What are you going to do about the Hadiths like the one about Mohammed sticking his tongue in a young boy's mouth? Are you expecting people to 'respect' Mohammed? There are several Muslims I respect, but not Mohammed.
Thank you, Mary. There is no need to fear for our lives. Our security is administered by professionals.
"Whatever publishing company you find is going to be burned to the ground by angry Muslims."
We haven't found one so far; we may have to publish it ourselves.
"What are you going to do about the Hadiths ... ?"
Nothing. The Ahadith should be discarded, just as most of the Gospels have been. We don't consider any of the Ahadith divine.
"Are you expecting people to 'respect' Mohammed?"
No. If Mohammed did the things that are attributed to him, he deserves no respect. We view Mohammed as the last prophet, the vehicle for God's message, not as an exemplary human being. His human qualities are irrelevant as far as we're concerned.
"If Mohammed did the things that are attributed to him, he deserves no respect. We view Mohammed as the last prophet, the vehicle for God's message, not as an exemplary human being. His human qualities are irrelevant as far as we're concerned."
M.A.S. , let me play devils advocate here. How can you not respect the last Prophet of God ? Would God let a non exemplary person to represent him?
"His human qualities are irrelevant" I disagree, I believe his human "qualities" are highly relevant ! You can't have it both ways . This post is not meant with any disrespect to M.A.S. as usual I just ask question. :) It seems to get me banned from paltalk, youtube, sean hannity forum etc, etc. I guess the interesting thing is that I get banned from all kinds of forums, republican, democrat, Christian, Jewish or Muslim. Dunno why, I'm just a harmless li'l blogger :)
Take care.
Jeff
"I disagree, I believe his human "qualities" are highly relevant !"
I'll concede this point as soon as you provide a theological basis for this statement.
"I get banned from all kinds of forums, republican, democrat"
Ideological forums prefer echo chamber modus operandi.
Finding a light in a dark night is like seeing your lover after ages. It takes ages to find your lost love, just like it takes ages to build the civilization again on this earth's soil after an earthquake which destroys all lives. A human-being, all alone, wakes from a sleep which was longed for centuries. Then he or she announces, wake up, we have to build our nest again, on the tree of this green life. Then a new age starts.
I am an ex-Muslim. At my 6 year age, I watched some documentaries on Nobel Laurette Rabindranath Tagore and Kazi Nazrul Islam. There I saw Nazrul wrote devotional songs on Hinduism, and Rabindranath did not(he actually did some, but they were not aired in the documentary on him). Do you know what I did then? I just cursed Nazrul Islam - go to Jahannam, and prayed to Allah- please give Rabindranath Tagore Jannat! I did not knew that a Muslim name can not contain words like Tagore(pronounced as Thakur), and Hindu name also can not contain words like Islam.
Now I am an atheist.
Muslims are always blind people to me, who born in darkness, grow up in darkness and remain in darkness.
For them, people like Salman Rushdi, Taslima Nasrin, Daud Haider and Humayun Azad, people like us, have to live in a yellow life in a yellow earth, where there is no green for us.
But when I arrived at your blog, I was so shocked! Demanding to reform Qur'an? How dare he is? Doesn't he care for his life?
It made me feel like falling down from Niagara Fall. Then I surprised, seeing your courage, your intellect, your humanism.
I want to say first- hats off you!
Then, be safe. You can be get killed any time.
I support you cent percent.
It gonna take some time, but it will happen, what you want to be happened.
I think one day Muslims will accept the reformed Qur'an.
You are the beginner of the change.
People like us will always behind you.
If you could establish the new-age modern Islam, I will just say- Islam is now one of the beautiful religion which understands the needs of reality, can lead a human-being to a peaceful life, and love non-Muslims, too.
I want to join in your member club, if you permit me.
Who says all the Muslims are enemy of humanism? Not at all. Muslims like you do exist on the earth.
Please visit my blog if you can.
Thousands of good wishes and real cries from heart.
Tamoso Deep
Post a Comment