River

-Kat


Muhammad is said to be " the living Qur'an" and he embodies the characteristics of 125,000 Prophets and 315 Messengers before him. The Qur'an calls him a model and example for mankind.


The Qur'an is the Actual Word of G-d. The Hadiths Qudsi is the Inspired word of G-d. The Hadiths (not Hadiths Qudsi) are the sayings of Prophet Muhammad or " alleged" sayings of the Prophet. There exists a couple hundred thousand hadiths of various degrees of authenticitity. There is Only one Quran (arabic).

I don't believe in all Hadiths. I usually place more importance to eschatological hadiths do to its near flawless track record. The Hadiths are the work of humans with some divine inspiration or angelic inspiration. They sometimes contain loads of superstitious beliefs that are not found in the Holy Qur'an.

Magus55

River, if Mohammed is the "living Quran", how come he called himself sinful? Sin is in opposition of perfection, and therefore if Mohammed is the living Quran, and he considered himself to be sinful and unworthy, the Quran is as well.

Jesus on the other hand, is the Word of the God in the flesh, and is perfect and sinless.

River

Muhammad was a human Messenger. There are no episodes of his life that were labelled as "sinful" , though he always asked for G-ds forgiveness, as any true Servant of G-d (should).





Jesus is the Word of G-d. The Qur'an is the Word of G-d.

Kat_Somm_Faen

I am the word of G-d. No question!

By G-d being the supreme ruler of the Universe - is it in my power to do something He does not will me to do?

Verily not!

As the word Islam means submission and muslim, literally, one who surrenders (to God) I have no option BUT to follow G-d's bidding. I am a muslim.

Glad we have that issue settled!

River

coolz

Kat_Somm_Faen

I am not joking! This is just a logical extension of Allah being the ultimate power in the Universe. All in the Universe is his will so why not me, as a part of the Universe?



Verily He commands me to be this way! So your words are wasted on me

echidna

Apparently G_d feels that a jolly good rhythm is more important than actual meaning ? When seeking to convey understanding of important concepts (life, death, that stuff), surely it is better to do so with a higher priority on avoiding ambiguity, than making sure it rhymes. Would the International Bill of Human Rights be a more effective document if it had to rhyme ?

Boro Nut

Shush. It's a trap.

River

The elegant rhyming structure was probably employed because of the limits of human memorization. Memorizing Tome-like materials would be impossible unless there are other ways of memorizing (it). Remember the Qur'an had to be memorized in entirety. "Bill of Rights" is not a document that is meant to be internalized by the human conscience.

River

-Lobstrosity

Do you really think people can't see through your flimsy arguments? I will expose your specious agenda here. Your definition of " expanse " is suspect. You falsely claim 'expanse' as denoting "flatness"....whereas the dictionary definition reveals
A wide and open extent, as of surface, land, or sky.

Expansion.
The distance or amount of expansion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin expnsum, from neuter past participle of expandere, to spread out. See expand.]


expanse

\Ex*panse"\, v. t. To expand. [Obs.]

That lies expansed unto the eyes of all. --Sir. T. Browne.


expanse

\Ex*panse"\, n. [From L. expansus, p. p. of expandere. See Expand.] That which is expanded or spread out; a wide extent of space or body; especially, the arch of the sky. ``The green expanse.'' --Savage.

Lights . . . high in the expanse of heaven. --Milton.

The smooth expanse of crystal lakes. --Pope.


expanse

n 1: a wide scope; "the sweep of the plains" [syn: sweep] 2: the extent of a 2-dimensional surface enclosed within a boundary; "the area of a rectangle"; "it was about 500 square feet in area" [syn: area, surface area] 3: a wide and open space or area as of surface or land or sky [syn: extent]


Unless you clarify the definition of "expanse" to yourself....there is absolutely no point for me to explain "orbit " to you. You have stunted your scope. Secondly I gave an explanation to why "ostrich egg" served as a secondary meaning. Dahaha is derived fro Duhiya. In a similar example I explained why peace, derived from " shalom" is a secondary definiton of "Islam". And the word and concept 'islam' reflects the aramaic "shalem' , the hebrew root ' shalom' and the arabic 'silm' to some degree and together.


Let us take a look at what Lobstrosity said earlier

(p5) Lobstrosity: " I didnt read the rest because I stopped caring......"

and now Lobstrosity says: " It is the last line I'm paying attention to in particular ".......[in reference to River::......" It is important to pay attention to what it ( Quran) says as well as what it chooses not to say"]


Do you really expect us to take you seriously? Do you choose to pick what you want to read and what you don't want to read.....to assess " what it says as well as what it ( Qur'an) does not say"? Is it possible that you are cherry-picking? DO YOU PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH? Where is your criticism for Maurice Bucaille's portrayal of Noah's Ark?

Why didnt you contest this Qur'anic verse -Sura 24, verse 45: "God created every animal from water"


Perhaps because it is in harmony with modern science?

Why are you trying to "shoehorn" your notions of heliocentrism/geocentrism into the Quranic text? Did I not tell you to look carefully into what the Qur'an " does not say"? Does the Qur'an juxtapose the words "sun " and "earth" anywhere in its ( thousands of ) pages? So what gives you the right to explicitly "shoehorn" your prejudiced theories into the Qur'an [ especially that you have no concrete support for] (p6) Can you honestly prove your statement concerning that archaic cultures held a misconception about everything expanding? Why exactly is this a misconception?....Think of the Sun. Will it not expand till it reaches critical mass. It will become the red giant and then finally into a 'white dwarf'. What exactly is soo archaic and ignorant about this philosophy? Your red herrings fail to advance your arguments.


You are also guilty of commiting a serious logical fallacy [ Confusing Cause and Effect] You , for some inane reason believe that the Qur'an should reflect the beliefs and views fo the arabs of the time. And to substantiate the veracity of the Qur'an, you must also find the belief prevailing among arabs (you say). Do you not realize , that the Qur'an is not the by-product of Arab civilisation? The successors ( in knowledge) of the Prophet struggled in a lengthy reform process implementing Qur'anic/Islamic thought that required generations and centuries in duration. Ali ( pbuh) for example developed a substantial amount of Islamic philosophy, law and science as well as installing arabic grammer and syntax for a new emerging Islamic community. Maurice Bucaille states " I have compared the findings made during an examination of the hadiths with those already set out in the section on the Qur'an and modern science. The results of this comparison speaks for themselves. The difference is in fact quite staggering between the accuracy of data contained in the Qur'an , when compared with modern scientific knowledge and highly questionable character of certain statements in Hadiths on subjects whose tenor is essentially scientific....this comparison highlights the striking difference between writings of the this period, which are riddled scientific inacurrate statements , and the Qur'an, the Book of Written Revelation, that is free from errors of this kind".

You also alleged that the Bible is at the same level as the Qur'an. Compare the statements

Earth rests on pillars : {Bible}
For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’S, and on them he has set the world. (1 Sam. 2:8)

Sky, without any support


Due to lack of knowledge, Arab society, 1400 years ago, had many superstitious beliefs regarding the earth and the sky.


They thought that the earth was flat and that the mountains were supporting the sky above. They thought that there were high mountains at both the ends of the world, working as pillars and those pillars held the sky hanging above. However, all these superstitious beliefs were eliminated with the advent of the Quran. The Quran says:


“God is He who raised up the heavens without any support…..” (Surah ar-rad, 2)


thereby invalidating the belief that the sky remained suspended above because of the mountains. How did the author of the Quran know about this fact 1400 years ago? Indeed, Quran is the book of Allah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.

God says in the Quran that He created the heavens
"without any pillars that you can see" (Quran 31:10).
Again, the Quran says:
"God is the One Who raised the heavens without any pillars that you can see" (Quran 13:2).

Dr. Maurice Bucaille comments: "These two verses refute the belief that the vault of the heavens was held up by pillars, the only things preventing the former from crushing the earth" (The Bible, the Quran and Science, p. 154).

You even implied the ( lack of ) logic in YEC arguments about Earth being 5,777. They have an unsupportable notion of Global Flood as well as Original Sin, which defies logic.

Why do you then say that the Bible and the Qur'an are in the same category? Have you no sense?

What mythology are you accusing me of , anyway? I believe in Jinns...I admit.....However, is this all? Are you pissed at me because I believe in Jinns? What else are you accusing me of ?