Authenticity of the Qur'an

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hugo
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 252
  • Views Views 43K
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not think you are sincere Mr. Hugo or whatever title you want to be called by. If you were sincere, I would not have seen same useless debates, dancing around the subject and beating around the bush, from you time and time again. Both you and I know this

Hugo - I do not think you are sincere Mr. Islamiclife or whatever title you want to be called by. If you were sincere, I would not have seen same useless debates, dancing around the subject and beating around the bush, from you time and time again. Both you and I know this


right, so giving kunya is an insult? I wonder according to which dictionary? Actually if you think about it, you should not be ashmed to be compared to Abu Lahab. He rejected Islam so do you. He committed shirk by worshipping idols so do you by calling upon Jesus and making him God. Yet you do not follow him since you reject the Bible and take only that you like. Either that or you think your god did not know the future or was merciless unjust god because he revealed rulings which could only be followed by people at certain period of time. Thus, he abandoned rest of mankind and lead them astray and wonder around.

Hugo - how come YOU know so much about me but so little about Christianity. If there is one thing God abhors its is self-righteousness.

This is your methodology, let us talk about that and not issues which would make you avoid the core problem. yes we do know. Now, do you know the unknown writers of the Bible? If you knew the authors they would not be unknown now, would they?

What is my methodology, please explain it as you seem to know everything else. I have said this before but say it again simply assume that God was the author of the Qu'ran, I cannot falsify that claim and you cannot prove it so let stop beating around the bush. I can just as easily say God was the author of the Bible, you cannot falsify it and I cannot prove it.

Sometime when I read this kind of post it seem of no consequence to you what is in the Bible or Qu'ran all your interested in is its transmission.

Let me end by asking a question - do you think there is anything of value in the Bible, if so tell me which part or parts?
 
Because it's impossible for them to do that. There are so many versions of the bible and christians can't even agree on which one to follow. The Qur'an has no versions and the original Qur'an in arabic is memorized letter by letter, dot by dot, by millions of muslims including people on this very forum. You may argue that there are christians who have memorized the bible with which I ask you this; one in how many christians have done this?

As many christian converts to Islam have stated from their own words that the christian scripture is virtually lost. Thus, for christians to agree on one version of the bible is a matter that cannot and will not be solved so no other individual can make this claim and emerge as a winner.

Why it is impossible? Do you mean by versions, translations?

If the Qu'ran has not a single error anywhere (though Dr Azami's book does not say this) it does not mean it is God word does it, it is not proof is it?
 
:sl:

yes, so what? and your point is? So you believe in a God who cannot see? How silly of you to even bring up this argument when you believe that a man, who walked on this earth, ate, slept, etc. was god.

where did you get this from? Do you know anything about sunni usool reagrding ta'wil, dhahir, tashbeeh, tamtheel, tahreef and haqiqi? If you do not then a good place to start learning is Aqeedah (Islamic Creed)

My quotes were obviously Biblical ones so this has zero relevance. If its about what we believe and a matter of swapping stories, do you believe that Prophet Mohammed's heart was extracted and washed with snow? Do you believe that someone could die for a 100 years and when he woke up he found this moth eared book etc etc. Is there a literal bridge one has to cross at the end of life, is heaven full of sofas etc?.

This is worthless discussion
 
Why it is impossible? Do you mean by versions, translations?

If the Qu'ran has not a single error anywhere (though Dr Azami's book does not say this) it does not mean it is God word does it, it is not proof is it?

A book without mistakes means it could have only come from a divine source making it impossible to be written by man. If you notice in the beginning of every book the author states his or her short comings and mistakes, an admition to his imperfection though he did his best when writing it. Comparing this to the Qur'an the first verse in the second chapter of the Qur'an states "This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil). " meaning this is a book that contains not a single mistake as it contains guidance for mankind and no other source except the divine can admit to this. For one to walk on the straight path he must have a firm conviction that this path has no doubt or crookedness to it and the Qur'an contains clear signs concerning this.

And i'm sorry I haven't been following this thread so I don't know what Dr Azami's book says.
 
@hugo

and here I thought you were mocking me when I stated that you dance around the issue. But how sad I was wrong yet again, you in fact do dance around the issue.

My quotes were obviously Biblical ones so this has zero relevance. If its about what we believe and a matter of swapping stories
It is not about sawaping stories, it is about exposing your double standards time and time again. How many times have we done this on Islamic-Life forums? Whether its Christianity or secularism, you always resort two faced hypocrite methodology. But what can you do, that is all what you got: inconsistent self contradictory doctrine.

You find our beliefs to be problematic but at the same time you believe in worst or same things. The example was clearly presented earlier: you think it is somehow problematic to believe that Allah can see but then you have no issue believing and propagating that a man was god. So instead of tackling the response, what did you do: brought more stuff to further expose your double standards

do you believe that Prophet Mohammed's heart was extracted and washed with snow? Do you believe that someone could die for a 100 years and when he woke up he found this moth eared book etc etc. Is there a literal bridge one has to cross at the end of life, is heaven full of sofas etc?.
off course, we believe in that. We believe in the miracles and everything that which is relayed to us authentically and maybe you do not believe in miracles despite claiming to be a christian. This is typical double standards of Chrisitan missionaries. They would attack Islam and the Qur'an for strange miraculous events even when they believe that Jesus raised people from dead and walked on water, etc. Have anyone seen a man walking on water lately? Have you seen any Muslim attacking this belife of yours? But why do you do the same: simple because your batil ideas are based upon inconsistent self contradictory doctrine

This is worthless discussion
yet you bring it up. How strange, isn't? and then you ask me why I question your sincerity.

What is my methodology, please explain it as you seem to know everything else.
already discussed many time on other forum

Sometime when I read this kind of post it seem of no consequence to you what is in the Bible or Qu'ran all your interested in is its transmission.
lol, you are clearly lost. when we talk about authenticity and preservation then we are talking about the transmission and whether the content is intact. We are not talking about the content itself. You in fact have discussed the same thing throughout this thread and yet you bring this up. Also are you the same guy who just said:
If the Qu'ran has not a single error anywhere (though Dr Azami's book does not say this) it does not mean it is God word does it, it is not proof is it?
So really, where are we going with this?

Let me end by asking a question - do you think there is anything of value in the Bible, if so tell me which part or parts?
off-topic - what relevancy this have to our question about unknown biblical authors. Why are you changing the topic? Plus, how many times I have clarified and discussed this at Islamic-Life forums with you

I will add the rest later, g2g
 
Does the hearsay information of these different 'traditions' in fact exist or are all speculatory and courtesy of your chosen 'scholars' Again, I'd really like to see variations in order for your testimony to hold some weightiness and not always turn up so empty!

Hugo - just want an answer from you - are you saying there is only ONE tradition about the preservation of the Qu'ran?

In your case, the father apparently begets and is begot and born to a woman, yes it seems rather wrong, as for the 'allegorical' themes in the Quran, are rather well explained.

Not only done from day one, but on the year of his death, the messenger was said to recite the Quran in its entirety to Gabriel not once as was done from its revelation but twice. I really don't understand, your incessant need to educe otherwise.

Hugo - if this is what you believe then I have no comment but belief is not fact is it. My issue I suppose is that if its a Muslim tradition you have no difficulty taking it as absolute fact without criticism or question yet when others do it in their faith it's an absurdity.

Sure you can always falsify the claim. Either by bringing the names and dates of those who dictated the Quran to the messenger and account for every last verse, i.e those chapters that held no meaning except to modern times (for instance after the recent find of the lost city of ubar (the people of Aa'd) of whom for the longest time was dubbed as a Quranic fable. The stories of old, current, and future, as was also revealed years apart but put so in the order dictated by Gabriel (the way the verses were revealed) for instance the last two verses which go into the second chapter, or the first which go at the end. You'd need a computer or a filling cabinet and still be prune to major error. We all know that the Messanger died poor with his armor pawned to a Jew, so perhaps also a motive would be great or take the easiest route of all, and bring a forth a sura like it, which was the actual challenge of the Quran for those who have held doubt.

Hugo - I think if you read my post you would have seen that with regard to falisfication I was talking of the supposition that author of the Qu'ran being God.

Bring a chapter albeit as long as the shortest one, and have it fulfil the criteria or rhyme, reason, syntax, lyricism and cover every aspect of man's life as such does the Quran, from politics, economics, social structure, inheritance, and spiritual guidance and call upon your own witnsses for comparison!

Hugo - I assume you are not suggesting the preposteraous idea that every verses or even every chapter has all these things?

If God authored your bible, then why is it wrought with error, surely God, can do better, and the better question is, if you know that it is the unerring word of God, then why do you not follow it to a T? after all did he send down his word for mere idol play?

and yes the scribes for the Quran are known and discussed in the book recommended. Go read it!all the best

1. I assume that that above para in red is a challenge so I submit Psalm 8 (NIV) A psalm of David for starters, this one is just a hymn of praise can you produce one like it and this is vastly more useful if we share don't you think?

1 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens.
2 From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise because of your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger.
3 When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
4 what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?
5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet:
7 all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field,
8 the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas.
9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!

2. Where is the Bible full of errors; ever page every verse, no one but a biased individual could think that? Its moral truths for example are the same as yours unless you don't subscribe to the 10 Commandments. There are no moral truths in the Qu'ran that one cannot find elsewhere.

Do you follow the Qu'ran to the 'T', if so why don't you use cotton threads to mark the end and beginning of a day during ramadan, why is it if the Qu'ran is complete do you need the Sunna et etc?

These are pointless arguments and what we are about as believers is loving God and striving for good.
 
A book without mistakes means it could have only come from a divine source making it impossible to be written by man. If you notice in the beginning of every book the author states his or her short comings and mistakes, an admition to his imperfection though he did his best when writing it. Comparing this to the Qur'an the first verse in the second chapter of the Qur'an states "This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil). " meaning this is a book that contains not a single mistake as it contains guidance for mankind and no other source except the divine can admit to this. For one to walk on the straight path he must have a firm conviction that this path has no doubt or crookedness to it and the Qur'an contains clear signs concerning this.

And i'm sorry I haven't been following this thread so I don't know what Dr Azami's book says.

It is not necessary to refute such an obviously erroneous idea as stated in bold above. Such an argument is fallacious because I cannot falsify your claim of divine origin and you cannot prove it.
 

Hugo - just want an answer from you - are you saying there is only ONE tradition about the preservation of the Qu'ran?

What is your definition of 'Tradition' as per regard to the Quran?


Hugo - if this is what you believe then I have no comment but belief is not fact is it. My issue I suppose is that if its a Muslim tradition you have no difficulty taking it as absolute fact without criticism or question yet when others do it in their faith it's an absurdity.

Facts are judged by the end product. I don't need to see the bees to know that they are what is responsible for the honey on my table. In such a case the Quran is the final product of said events. And its nature is so that no other work in history dares to be a contender!
as for your criticism, it would be welcome if it weren't so absurd.. the absurdity comes from the fact that you are not familiar with Islam yet engage in very minute detail , I hazard ask, on what you've built your criticism?



Hugo - I assume you are not suggesting the preposteraous idea that every verses or even every chapter has all these things?
The challenge is to bring a sura.. can you differentiate between chapter and verse?


1. I assume that that above para in red is a challenge so I submit Psalm 8 (NIV) A psalm of David for starters, this one is just a hymn of praise can you produce one like it and this is vastly more useful if we share don't you think?

1 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens.
2 From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise because of your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger.
3 When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
4 what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?
5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet:
7 all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field,
8 the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas.
9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!


From my catholic school days, I remember the teacher after a very charged reading of the Psalms, asking the ladies to go read the bible for its explicit and erotic sexual contents: as such and let me quote



  1. Proverbs
  2. "Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times." 5:18
  3. "Come let us take our fill of love until the morning." 7:18
  4. One of the four "wonderful" things is "the way of a man with a maid." 30:18-19 Ecclesiastes (None)
    Song of Solomon
  5. "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine." . 1:2
  6. "He shall lie all night betwixt my breasts." 1:13
  7. "I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste." 2:3
  8. "His left hand is under my head and his right hand doth embrace me." She asks not to be disturbed "till he please." 2:6-7
  9. Our heroine takes her lover into her mother's bedroom and asks not to be disturbed "till he please." 3:4-5
  10. "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins." 4:5
  11. "Come ... blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits." 4:16
  12. "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him." 5:4
  13. "My hands dropped with myrrh.... I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had withdrawn himself." 5:5-6
  14. "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins." 7:1-3
  15. "How pleasant art thou, O love, for delights! ... Thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine." 7:6-8
  16. "Let us get up early to the vineyards ... there will I give thee my loves." 7:12
  17. "His left hand should be under my head, and his right hand should embrace me.... Stir not up, nor awake my love, until he please." 8:3-4
  18. "We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts ... But my breasts [are] like towers." 8:8-10

I don't know, you tell me, is this a book of guidance that you absolutely believe came from God, given the above perversity? I believe God is exalted above what is written in your book, from Lut fornicating with his two daughters to sisters comparing breasts or lack thereof!
2. Where is the Bible full of errors; ever page every verse, no one but a biased individual could think that? Its moral truths for example are the same as yours unless you don't subscribe to the 10 Commandments. There are no moral truths in the Qu'ran that one cannot find elsewhere.
I haven't come across verses in the Quran that read like the above. as for the errors, well, I think I'll leave that one to centuries of dark ages and persecution of scientists (such as Galileo) as a response.. Moral truths are a universal thing, then why should one subscribe to one religion and not the other since they all come bearing the same message-- obviousely something has to set itself apart from the rest!
Do you follow the Qu'ran to the 'T', if so why don't you use cotton threads to mark the end and beginning of a day during ramadan, why is it if the Qu'ran is complete do you need the Sunna et etc?
I am not familiar with cotton threads, thus I have no idea what that means or what it denotes.. I can tell however, that you are not familiar from the above comment (with whatever is meant) in the difference between fiqh il3ibidat, anf fiqh al'mo3amalat'
familiarize yourself with the differences, if your orientalists haven't taught you about them, I'd be glad to clarify. The Quran also tell us to follow the tradition of the prophet for what is the point of God sending a book without a teacher? Do pls contrast that with Jesus' disciples of whom Peter (the rock) denounced Jesus thrice before he was to be crucified.. can we say confused at best? These are the 'disciples' that allegedly your God has left behind for guidance after his death!
If God tells us to pray in the books yet fails to give us a teacher, well we might indeed end up dancing and clapping in God's house to the organ rather than going about it, in the manner of God's choosing!

These are pointless arguments and what we are about as believers is loving God and striving for good.

I noticed that the thread was started by you, if you now concede the worthlesness of the thread, I can be game with that..

all the best!
 
Re: A Summary

We seem to have got a little sidetracked so I will summarise. My postings have been about Azami's book "The History of the Qu'ranic texts..". In my view the book is weak because Azami is biased and careless. Here are sime points before I move on.

Azami sets out discuss the Qu'ran and its preservation. I have no issues with such an aim because such a book is a very useful contribution to the literature. My first point was about his inclusion of a commentary on Biblical transmission as a comparison and I can see no value in that as it has nothing to do with whether the transmission of the Qu'ran is authentic or not.

However, one might do such a thing since the Bible and Qu'ran cover much of the same material, the Bible since it is older might add weight to the claim of authenticity for the Qu'ran. One might also do it as a kind of question; which would you choose as the most authentic, most trustworthy book. However, Azami says he has done it to give the reader insights into the disparity of opinions between Muslim and Orientalist Scholars but seem to equate Orientalist scholar with Biblical Scholars but I will come back to that later.

According to Dr Azami his book is 1/3 about the Bible and 2/3 about the Qu'ran (page xv) so the title is a little misleading. Let us look at some example which to my mind show poor scholarship or bias.

1. Page xvi and xvii Azami) writes: “.. the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospels were written c. the 10th century...”. citing as a source Bruce Metzger who wrote “This is one of the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospel... “.

Why does Azami leave out the word "one" which in this context is critical to understanding, frankly it looks like he is misleading deliberately or unintentionally the reader into thinking that all NT text are 10th century or later.

2. Bottom of Page xvii Dr Azami says "The only known facts are that the OT books appeared on the scene only to disappear promptly for a few hundred years, before abruptly resurfacing. Again they disappeared without trace for many centuries, and were once again suddenly recovered."
Ignoring the impossibility of these being the 'only' known facts, Dr Azami at this point gives a ref to 2 Kings 14-16 (meaning chapters 14 to 16?). One supposes that these chapters would confirm his 'known facts' but the chapters list the names together with tiny biographies of Kings for the two Jewish kingdoms: Israel and Judah spanning about 200 years. In this list of kings There is one ref to the Torah in 2 Kings 14:6 and a very oblique one in verse 14 to the temple being robbed (where a copy was kept) and several refs to the Book of The Chronicles of the Kings. Hardly conclusive is it?

The OT has 24 books in the Hebrew Bible but if divided slightly differently we arrive at the usual number of 39 books. So when Dr Azami talks of “OT books” is saying here that all 39 books disappeared and then miraculously all 39 reappeared and this happened twice. Is he careless here or simply does not know his facts either way it’s not a good sign is it or careful scholarship?

3. On page xx he says “.. non Muslim sources however, some of whom feel no hesitation in referring to their own Lord Jesus Christ as an adulterer or a homosexual, to David as an adulterous schemer, or to Solomon as an idolater”.

This is a misleading idea because nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus was an adulterer or homosexual but it does say the other two things. So here he is either muddled or ignorant of simple facts and sources. Muslims might believe in the purity of the prophets but the Bible records Noah as getting drunk, Lot as sleeping with his daughters, Joseph as being drunk with his brothers, Abraham as a liar, Sarah as a spiteful vindictive women, Moses as trying to take the place of God and so on. Why does it do this is if it’s not true, what crazy redactor would leave all that in so here we have deliberate confusion over ‘non-Muslim sources' and a denial of what must be the truth.

4. On page xxi he speaks of a ‘most accurate Qu’ran in the world’ so there must be inaccurate ones and hence inaccurate manuscript and never quite explains how he knows it is the most accurate.

Hope that is fair summary and shows Azami as careless or unreliable from a scholarly point of view right at the start of his book. I hope in the next few days to move to later chapters.

Refs:
Al-Azamiv, M. M., (2003), The History of the Quranic Text, UK Islamic Academy, ISBN 1-872531-65-2

Metzger, B. M., (1968), The Text of the New Testament, OUP, ISBN

(note Dr Azami quotes from Metzger's 3rd edition but the second is more readily available and the pages in question are identical)
 


I am not familiar with cotton threads, thus I have no idea what that means or what it denotes.. I can tell however, that you are not familiar from the above comment (with whatever is meant) in the difference between fiqh
all the best!


I think he means

"7atta yatbayyun al khayt al abyad men al khayt al aswad men al Fajr"

He thinks this should be taken literally.^o)
 
I think he means

"7atta yatbayyun al khayt al abyad men al khayt al aswad men al Fajr"

He thinks this should be taken literally.^o)

oh I see.. I guess it doesn't matter that I have quoted chapter 3 verse 7 about three to four times on this thread.. I really don't think he reads any replies here, given the repetition of the same resolved points with each thread.. it is tedious!
 
Re: A Summary

I am amused by why you rehash the same points that have already gone answered? Pls tell me, is this some sort of one person soliloquy just so we could save our time and web space!


We seem to have got a little sidetracked so I will summarise. My postings have been about Azami's book "The History of the Qu'ranic texts..". In my view the book is weak because Azami is biased and careless. Here are sime points before I move on.
Azami sets out discuss the Qu'ran and its preservation. I have no issues with such an aim because such a book is a very useful contribution to the literature. My first point was about his inclusion of a commentary on Biblical transmission as a comparison and I can see no value in that as it has nothing to do with whether the transmission of the Qu'ran is authentic or not.

answered here:

Gossamer Skye: The idea of authoring a book about the preservation of the Quran, about its collection and immaculate preservation, had long germinated my mind and approximately three and a half years ago I finally began working on this book along side another entitled Islamic studies: What methodology? It was journalist Toby Lester's article in the Atlantic Monthly (jan 1999) however and the chaos it had the potential to sow amongst Muslims, which prompted a greater concentration on this work. His article suggested that Muslims, despite believing the Quran as the unadulterated Book of Allah, were thoroughly incapable of defending their views in a scholarly fashion.. The gauntlet was thrown and I felt it necessary to take on this challenge and explain the stringent methodology used by early Muslim scholars in accepting a text as genuine or rejecting it as fake. This has lead to the unavoidable repetition of some material in both books. As most of the scholars that lester quotes are either jews or Christians. I also considered it fitting to cover the histories of the old and New testament by way of comparison.
I think his intentions are quite defined and no where in those words have I read 2/3 OT/NT or that the veracity of the Quran rests on the falsehood of the bible.. it is but an excellent side by side comparison and a direct result to an blatant offense, which he accepted and challenged in return!
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/134284834-authenticity-quran-7.html

However, one might do such a thing since the Bible and Qu'ran cover much of the same material, the Bible since it is older might add weight to the claim of authenticity for the Qu'ran. One might also do it as a kind of question; which would you choose as the most authentic, most trustworthy book. However, Azami says he has done it to give the reader insights into the disparity of opinions between Muslim and Orientalist Scholars but seem to equate Orientalist scholar with Biblical Scholars but I will come back to that later.
Being older adds no weight least of which to sustain itself and I have quoted quite extensively on this very thread on the very questionable nature of many biblical passages.
and you should indeed come back to your latter point later as I am not following. Indeed many orientalists covered in his book are missionaries with an agenda (really not unlike your person)
According to Dr Azami his book is 1/3 about the Bible and 2/3 about the Qu'ran (page xv) so the title is a little misleading. Let us look at some example which to my mind show poor scholarship or bias.
Again, covered here, although I am glad you fixed your own short coming on the matter:
. BTW as an addendum to the above and refresher.. does everyone else see:
A comparative study with the old and New testament right on the cover?



he has already listed the reasons for writing the book, so I really don't want hammered in over and over this moot point:

Originally Posted by Hugo (Authenticity of the Qur'an)
-- According to Dr Azami the book is 2/3 about the Bible and 1/3 about the Qu'ran so the title is a little misleading. His premise seems to be that Qu'ran is authentic because the Bible is not. But let me give one example just from the preface and perhaps someone can shed light on it.
Again, I pose the Question, do others on this thread see what it says right on the cover? is anyone here fooled by '' A comparative study with the old and new testament''?



1. Page xvi and xvii Azami) writes: “.. the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospels were written c. the 10th century...”. citing as a source Bruce Metzger who wrote “This is one of the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospel... “.

Why does Azami leave out the word "one" which in this context is critical to understanding, frankly it looks like he is misleading deliberately or unintentionally the reader into thinking that all NT text are 10th century or later.
covered here:
Gossamer Skye Not a single book from the NT has survived in the original author's handwriting, the closest thing being a fragment dated c. 100-115 and containing six verses of John 18 (footnote) Here I must interject that this date is pure guesswork, a subjective enterprise that can occasionally run with a marginal difference of decades to centuries. Among the earliest Greek manuscript of the N.T to actually bear a date is one written in the year of the world 6457 (i.e 949. C.E) Vatican library No. 345. Notice that the the manuscript does not contain any christian date, because the Anno Domini 'year of the Lord' calendar system had yet to be invented. See also this work pp 238-39, where Leningrad Codex mentions a slew of dates, none of them christian. This reveals that until the 11th C C.E (if not beyond) no christian calendar system existed or at least was not in use]
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/134284834-authenticity-quran-8.html

2. Bottom of Page xvii Dr Azami says "The only known facts are that the OT books appeared on the scene only to disappear promptly for a few hundred years, before abruptly resurfacing. Again they disappeared without trace for many centuries, and were once again suddenly recovered."
Ignoring the impossibility of these being the 'only' known facts, Dr Azami at this point gives a ref to 2 Kings 14-16 (meaning chapters 14 to 16?). One supposes that these chapters would confirm his 'known facts' but the chapters list the names together with tiny biographies of Kings for the two Jewish kingdoms: Israel and Judah spanning about 200 years. In this list of kings There is one ref to the Torah in 2 Kings 14:6 and a very oblique one in verse 14 to the temple being robbed (where a copy was kept) and several refs to the Book of The Chronicles of the Kings. Hardly conclusive is it?
Covered here:
Gossamer Skye : I am at a loss at to why this is a difficult point -- you may actually use google the search feature and you'll get youtube vids by Jews speaking of the law of Moses being lost-- is it a matter of reference of vexation of bringing such a known point to the light?

The logical thing you can do in said case if you believe otherwise is provide evidence to the contrary? Dr. Al-Azami in this book in fact into quite the details of the names of those who held early manuscripts of the Quran, the hafiths, and the transmitters and from whose original copies, who had what and who was killed for what and where it was dissminated, how about instead of criticizing where there are no real perceived flaws to the rest of us, you do exactly what he has done for the OT, show us the not so lost books where they were kept, who had copies, the names of those who held copies. If it is merely disbelief, then you should replace it with factual evidence, not mere expression of dismay!
The OT has 24 books in the Hebrew Bible but if divided slightly differently we arrive at the usual number of 39 books. So when Dr Azami talks of “OT books” is saying here that all 39 books disappeared and then miraculously all 39 reappeared and this happened twice. Is he careless here or simply does not know his facts either way it’s not a good sign is it or careful scholarship?
Covered and corroborated here:
Gossamer Skye: Please reference me to exactly where he wrote miraculously ALL 39 books disappeared then re-appeared as well do me the kind pleasure of pointing where they were preserved meanwhile i.e the names of their preservers (it is only fair since he does go into that detail with the Islamic text) if we are to have integrity in the side by side comparison.. before re-discovery whether by prophet Uzair or some other method ... you'll forgive me of course, not only do you have a habit of insetting text and your desired conclusions, leading me to refuse to take what you write at face value, and I have consistently exposed you to the readers here!

nonetheless, please allow me to corroborate the writing of Dr. Al-Azami with one of many sources on the web:
Missing books of the OT:
1. The Book of the Wars of the Lord(Sepher Milkhamot Adonai)
“Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD, “Waheb in Suphah, And the wadis of the Arnon,” (Numbers 21:14)​
Timothy R. Ashley says:​
“14-15 A citation from a source called the Book of Wars of Yahweh supports the claim made in v. 13. The exact nature of this work is “unknown”, since the only fragment of it is the poetry cited in vv. 14-15, unless the poem in vv. 17-18a is also from it. The title of the work suggests that it contained songs celebrating Yahweh’s victories against his enemies.” [1]
Matthew Henry says:​
“we are not particularly told, but are referred to the book of the wars of the Lord, perhaps that book which was begun with the history of the war with the Amalekites, Ex. 17:14. Write it (said God) for a memorial in a book[2] (emphasis added)​
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary says:​
book of the wars of the Lord–A fragment or passage is here quoted from a poem or history of the wars of the Israelites, principally with a view to decide the position of Arnon.” [3]
John Gill’s Exposition on the Bible:​
“Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord,…. A history of wars in former times” [4]
The author of Izhar Al-Haq quotes the commentators Henry and Scott:​
“Presumably this book was written by Moses for the guidance of Joshua and described the demacration of the land of Moab.” [5]
2.The Book of Jasher(Sepher Ha Yashar)
“So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.” (Joshua 10:13)​
“and he told them to teach the sons of Judah the song of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of Jashar.”(2 Samuel 1:18)​
Gnana Robinson comments on 2 Samuel 1:18,​
” “It is written in the Book of Jashar,” literally “the Book of the Upright”. Another poetical piece attributed to the book of this name is Josh. 10:12-14.” Similar literary collections of various sorts seem to have been circulating among the people (e.g. the Book of the Wars of Yahweh, Num. 2:14); this shows that the collection of poems was made well before Samuel was edited and written.” [6]
Rev. Prof. Herbert G. May remarks,​
“The Deuteronomist makes the poem the words of Joshua, but the poem itself is non-committal as to the speaker. The Book of Jasher is also quoted in 2 Sam. 1:18, and in the LXX of 1 Kg. 8:53. It was apparently a collection of poems. Compare the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14).” [7]
Concerning Joshua 10:13 Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary says:​
“The passage, which is parenthetical, contains a poetical description of the victory which was miraculously gained by the help of God, and forms an extract from “the book of Jasher,” that is, “the upright”–an anthology, or collection of national songs, in honor of renowned and eminently pious heroes.” [8]
John Gill’s Exposition on 2nd Samuel 1:18:​
“behold, it is written in book of Jasher); which the Targum calls the book of the law; and Jarchi and Ben Gersom restrain it to the book of Genesis, the book of the upright, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and suppose respect is had to the prophecy concerning Judah, Genesis 49:8, but Kimchi, extending it to all the five books of Moses, adds his blessing, in Deuteronomy 33:7. In the Arabic version it is explained of the book of Samuel, interpreted the book of songs, as if it was a collection of songs; which favours the above sense. Jerom {s} interprets it of the same book, the book of the righteous prophets, Samuel, Gad, and Nathan…” [9] (emphasis added)​
Lost proverbs of Solomon
“He also spoke 3,000 proverbs, and his songs were 1,005.”(1 Kings 4:32)​
John Gill’s Exposition:​
And he spake three thousand proverbs,…. Wise sayings, short and pithy sentences, instructive in morality and civil life; these were not written as the book of Proverbs, but spoken only, and were taken from his lips, and spread by those that heard them for the use of others, but in process of time were lost…” [10] (emphasis added)​
On the verse the Methodist theologian Adam Clarke explains:​
“He spake three thousand proverbs] The book of Proverbs, attributed to Solomon, contain only about nine hundred or nine hundred and twenty-three distinct proverbs; and if we grant with some that the first nine chapters are not the work of Solomon, then all that can be attributed to him is only about six hundred and fifty.​
Of all his one thousand and five songs or poems we have only one, the book of Canticles, remaining, unless we include Psalm cxxvii. 1-5, Except the Lord build the house, &c., which in the title is said to be by or for him, though it appears more properly to be a psalm of direction, left him by his father David, relative to the building of the temple. “
He laments in his notes on verse 33:
“O, how must the heart of Tournefort, Ray, Linne, Buffon, Cuvier, Swammerdam, Blosch, and other naturalists, be wrung, to know that these works of Solomon are all and for ever lost! What light should we have thrown on the animal and vegetable kingdoms, had these works been preserved![11] (emphasis added)

The Books of Samuel the Seer, the Prophet Nathan and Gad the Seer
“Now the acts of king David first and last are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer:” (1 Chronicles 29:29)​
All of the books mentioned in the verse have all DISAPPEARED.​
Adam Clarke says,​
” The acts of David-first and last] Those which concerned him in private life, as well as those which grew out of his regal government. All these were written by three eminent men, personally acquainted with him through the principal part of his life; these were Samuel and Gad the seers, and Nathan the prophet. These writings are all lost, except the particulars interspersed in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, none of which are the records mentioned here.” [12]
The Book of Isaiah the Prophet
This is yet another book which is totally LOST. It so happens that it was written by the major Old Testament prophet, Isaiah.​
“Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first to last, the prophet Isaiah, the son of Amoz, has written.” (2 Chronicles 26:22)​
Adam Clark says,​
“The rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, did Isaiah the prophet-write.] This work, however, is totally lost; for we have not any history of this king in the writings of Isaiah. He is barely mentioned, Isa. i. 1; vi. 1. ” [13] (emphasis added)​
John Gill says,​
“Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last,…. What were done by him, both in the beginning and latter end of his reign:​
did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, write: not in his own prophecy, but in the history of his own times, which was usual for every prophet to write, though now lost, see 2 Kings 15:6.” [14] (emphasis added)​
References:
[1] Timothy R. Ashley. The Book of Numbers. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 411
[5] Izhar Al- Haq. p. 166
[6] Gnana Robinson. 1 & 2 Samuel, Internationl Theological Commentary(1993). William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and The Handsel Press Limited. p. 157
[7] H. G. May. Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. Joshua(1962). Routledge. p. 297
[12]http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1chr29.htm
3. On page xx he says “.. non Muslim sources however, some of whom feel no hesitation in referring to their own Lord Jesus Christ as an adulterer or a homosexual, to David as an adulterous schemer, or to Solomon as an idolater”.

This is a misleading idea because nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus was an adulterer or homosexual but it does say the other two things. So here he is either muddled or ignorant of simple facts and sources. Muslims might believe in the purity of the prophets but the Bible records Noah as getting drunk, Lot as sleeping with his daughters, Joseph as being drunk with his brothers, Abraham as a liar, Sarah as a spiteful vindictive women, Moses as trying to take the place of God and so on. Why does it do this is if it’s not true, what crazy redactor would leave all that in so here we have deliberate confusion over ‘non-Muslim sources' and a denial of what must be the truth.
covered by me here also by me from a different thread:

Gossamer Skye: are Lutherans considered part of the protestant church?
Martin Luther made Jesus into 'thrice' the adulterer

Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: "Whatever has he been doing with her?" Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died. (D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33)



This is to be found in Luther's Table-Talk (Weimar edition, vol. ii, page 107) . . . Here is the original: --
Christus adulter. Christus ist am ersten ein ebrecher worden Joh. 4, bei dem brunn cum muliere, quia illi dicebant: Nemo significat, quid facit cum ea? Item cum Magdalena, item cum adultera Joan. 8, die er so leicht davon lies. Also mus der from Christus auch am ersten ein ebrecher werden ehe er starb.
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifi...0128-did-muhammad-ever-sin-3.html#post1176023

4. On page xxi he speaks of a ‘most accurate Qu’ran in the world’ so there must be inaccurate ones and hence inaccurate manuscript and never quite explains how he knows it is the most accurate.
covered here:
No, Only you are supposing that the others are false because oh it would be so delightful, the Medinah Mus'haf if you have bothered with a two second research you'd have come up with:

http://www.iqrashop.com/product_info.php?products_id=1806&language=en&currency=GBP

and let me quote since the page won't allow for a cut and paste:


''However, authors and publishers have not been able to include the Qur'anic verses in documents and personal writings, except in normal fonts, which lack many of the aesthetic aspects that the Uthmanic calligraphy has. This has resulted in some instances of text distortions, confusion of reading or drops of certain items.''

To expound on that you'd have to know something about rules of reading the Quran, such as the use of idgham, iqlab, ith'har' in tajweed idgham and the rest each have a subset in 7iroof matmathleen, or 7iroof motqarbeen or 7iroof mot3abadeen etc e.x can only be given in Arabic as these are rules of grammar but for those Arabic speakers interested in further investigation:

نواع ادغام

ادغام از نظر مدغم و مدغم فیه، در روایت حفص از عاصم بر سه قسم است:

ادغام متامثلین

دو حرف مثل هم (متماثل) بلا استثناء در یکدیگر ادغام می شوند و کافی است که حرف اول ساکن باشد.
مثال

قُلْ لِمَنْ
لَهُمْ مُوسَی

اِضْرِبْ بِعَصَاکَ

رَبِحَتْ تِجَارَتُهُمْ

اَوْ وَزَنُوا

یدْرِکْکُم النساء 78

ادغام متجانسین

این ادغام فقط در موارد زیر انجام می شود:


  1. باء ساکن در میم مثل اِرْکَبْ مَعَنَا که در قرآن فقط همین مورد و در سوره هود علیه*السلام آمده است.
  2. (ت- د- ط) دو به دو با یکدیگر. مثل
اَحَطْتُ نمل آیه 22 ادغام ناقص
هَمَّتْ طَائِفَةٌ
قَدْتبَینَ


  1. (ث- ذ- ظ) دو به دو با یکدیگر. مثل
یلْهَثْ ذَلِکَ
اِذْ ظَلَمْتُمْ زخرف آیه 39
عَبَدْتَ
http://daneshnameh.roshd.ir/mavara/mavara-index.php?page=%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%BA%D8%A7%D9%85+%C2%AB%D8%AA%D8%AC%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%AF%C2%BB&SSOReturnPage=Check&Rand=0


this is a topic completely expansive and over your head, that I have no desire to discuss it here in any detail given your pedantry. But the parsing of letters dictates the speech and that certainly can be lost to people who don't understand the rules of grammar and thus tashkeel saves them the principal conditions behind it. They can read like the pro without being pros!




and yes of course the originals exist you can see them in the book or on line
.. one I have personally seen in Egypt.. you are simply not allowed to browse every page. You look at whatever is on display!
<imaged removed by moderator>.

I have already gone extensively as well so did Dr. Al-Azami and actually is right on the cover of the book itself, that it doesn't matter the calligraphy, the dotting or the parsing. It is read in the exact same manner.. The recitations stylistically can differ as we have Quran Majwad, or moratal. as well we also have different styles of writing in Arabic:
riq3a, naskh, Thuluth, farsi, kufi and amazingly able to read them all just the same!
please allow me demonstrate:

<imaged removed by moderator>la yazhal almr'r 3aliman ma talab al3ilm, fa'izha athann anaho qad 3alim faqd jahal (the above is a proverb is riq3a)

easy to read as is,
<imaged removed by moderator>wa3ad Allah Alzheena amano wa'3amilo as'sali7at ...

this is the actual page by the way as you can see the calligrapher didn't leave meaning of the traditionally written text for me to decode it.
http://www.almajara.com/photos/details.php?image_id=833&sessionid=3a682fd0eeb63519a96b9d94d1491c2d

as well I can read this: <imaged removed by moderator> وَاللَّيْلِ إِذَا يَغْشَى {1}
وَالنَّهَارِ إِذَا تَجَلَّى {2}
وَمَا خَلَقَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى {3}
إِنَّ سَعْيَكُمْ لَشَتَّى {4}
Wa'lyel izha yagh'sha, wa'nahar izha tajala, wama khlaqa Alzhakara wa'lontha, inna sa3yokoum lashata



and this
la illah illah Allah, Mohammed rasool Allah

and the more common traditional naskh

<imaged removed by moderator>min suret al'an3am al7mdllillah alzhi khalaq as'samwat w'alard, waja3ala athulmat wa'noor.




Now you tell me honesty If there were such a thing as an 'original bible' from the mouth of Jesus in such ancient text, or different shattered handwriting, would you be able to read it as I have just done with this level of confidence and fluidity?

examples of different recitations of the same surah mortal or mojwad you'll notice the 'tempo' of the first as such the entire surah is finished in 6 minutes and read differently than the second which at 8 minutes isn't half way through.. to the ignorant they can appear very different, but to the erudite they are but different styles:

___________________________​



The Quran IS the unadulterated word of God and so it shall remain by his will!

all the best![/QUOTE]



Hope that is fair summary and shows Azami as careless or unreliable from a scholarly point of view right at the start of his book. I hope in the next few days to move to later chapters.

Refs:
Al-Azamiv, M. M., (2003), The History of the Quranic Text, UK Islamic Academy, ISBN 1-872531-65-2

Metzger, B. M., (1968), The Text of the New Testament, OUP, ISBN

(note Dr Azami quotes from Metzger's 3rd edition but the second is more readily available and the pages in question are identical)
No, it has been fair in showing a few things about you though!

all the best
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Greetings,

Gossamer Skye said:
Moral truths are a universal thing, then why should one subscribe to one religion and not the other since they all come bearing the same message-- obviousely something has to set itself apart from the rest!

Agreed! :D

Peace
 
Quote Hugo - just want an answer from you - are you saying there is only ONE tradition about the preservation of the Qu'ran?

What is your definition of 'Tradition' as per regard to the Quran?

Hugo - I think you are just avoiding the question.

Facts are judged by the end product. I don't need to see the bees to know that they are what is responsible for the honey on my table. In such a case the Quran is the final product of said events. And its nature is so that no other work in history dares to be a contender! As for your criticism, it would be welcome if it weren't so absurd.. the absurdity comes from the fact that you are not familiar with Islam yet engage in very minute detail , I hazard ask, on what you've built your criticism?

Hugo - what can it mean to judge a fact by the end product, is not a fact the end product? I don't think you know what a 'fact is'. Of course there are contenders. Let's say poetry - are you seriously saying there is no poetry better that that found in the Qu'ran and if so show it to be so.

I don't know, you tell me, is this a book of guidance that you absolutely believe came from God, given the above perversity? I believe God is exalted above what is written in your book, from Lut fornicating with his two daughters to sisters comparing breasts or lack thereof!

Hugo - two things, but if you look around you will find Islamic sites that try to show that Prophet Mohammed is mentioned in the Song of Solomon. However, to get to the points, you were supposed to bring something from then Qu'ran comparable to Psalm 8, you issued the challenge and failed.

2. Where is the Bible full of errors; ever page every verse, no one but a biased individual could think that? Its moral truths for example are the same as yours unless you don't subscribe to the 10 Commandments. There are no moral truths in the Qu'ran that one cannot find elsewhere.

I haven't come across verses in the Quran that read like the above. as for the errors, well, I think I'll leave that one to centuries of dark ages and persecution of scientists (such as Galileo) as a response.. Moral truths are a universal thing, then why should one subscribe to one religion and not the other since they all come bearing the same message-- obviousely something has to set itself apart from the rest!

Hugo - sadly this is absolutely true but you cannot seriously suggest that persecution of thinkers and scientists did not happen in Islamic societies? Yes, I think you may be right, moral truths are universal and one does not have to be a Muslim or Christian to lead a good and useful life.

What is the point of God sending a book without a teacher? Do pls contrast that with Jesus' disciples of whom Peter (the rock) denounced Jesus thrice before he was to be crucified.. can we say confused at best? These are the 'disciples' that allegedly your God has left behind for guidance after his death!

Hugo - Peter denied not denounced. But what is your point, that humans should have no failing or weaknesses? Perhaps you would do well to read the whole story of Peter. Did you think God only works through the great but never through the humble or those that fail, if you do you make God the measure of your own mind.

If God tells us to pray in the books yet fails to give us a teacher, well we might indeed end up dancing and clapping in God's house to the organ rather than going about it, in the manner of God's choosing!

Hugo - what point is this making? The Bible is full of prayers and so we know how to pray with no without words at all, with lofty words, with broken half formed words, in sadness and in joy. Go look at Psalm 150 and you will see there is no single way and creation itself praises God, its all about our being a living sacrifice to Him - can you agree to that.

I noticed that the thread was started by you, if you now concede the worthlesness of the thread, I can be game with that..

I think you will find that an administrator stated it not me because another thread generated a different direction.
 
Greetings,



Agreed! :D

Peace

obviously, you have failed to bold all that I have written, as it should be taken in whole not in part.
Allow me the analogy: Surgery is freaking great to remove a parotid tumor, but whether it is Mucoepidermoid carcinoma or Adenoid cystic carcinoma or Malignant mixed tumors or Acinic cell carcinoma, Adenocarcinoma or Primary squamous cell carcinoma or Sebaceous carcinoma, has to be diagnosed and determined by the pathologist.. one mass, different presentations which will dictate the clinical course and appropriate therapy.. Surgery is crude medicine, and such is the universal moral law as it is reduced to the simplest most basic form.. religion does for morality, what pathology does for surgery.

all the best!
 
It is not necessary to refute such an obviously erroneous idea as stated in bold above. Such an argument is fallacious because I cannot falsify your claim of divine origin and you cannot prove it.

How can such an argument be fallacious, would you rather expect a book full of mistakes to be divine?

A divine book has to be free from error and this has to be but one of it's preconditions. It's completely and totally illogical to argue otherwise. And yes I can prove that the Qur'an is true but this is not where the problem lies, the problem is accepting and believing in it once the truth is made clear.
 
Last edited:
Hugo - I think you are just avoiding the question.

How about you elaborate on your non-question and give it a bit more definition I am not a mind reader!


Hugo - what can it mean to judge a fact by the end product, is not a fact the end product? I don't think you know what a 'fact is'. Of course there are contenders. Let's say poetry - are you seriously saying there is no poetry better that that found in the Qu'ran and if so show it to be so.
The end product is indeed a fact and can be for the more mystifying ends of things. And no, there are no contenders, though the Quran reads like poetry it isn't a poetry book. I have gone ahead and listed for you, all that was brought by the Quran. Islam isn't merely a religion, it is a complete, political/economic/social/moral/spiritual system. Plus it is melodious.. if you fixate on aspect, you'll have missed the point, as you often do and then dwell as nauseam on non-points!

Hugo - two things, but if you look around you will find Islamic sites that try to show that Prophet Mohammed is mentioned in the Song of Solomon. However, to get to the points, you were supposed to bring something from then Qu'ran comparable to Psalm 8, you issued the challenge and failed.
I can bring better:



[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL0zAQOrd3I[/MEDIA]​

_______


[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTXejWwA_YE&feature=related[/MEDIA]​


and here is one that brought all the listeners to their knees, Muslims and nonMuslims alike when it was revealed:
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFeMUVEGNGY[/MEDIA]



Hugo - sadly this is absolutely true but you cannot seriously suggest that persecution of thinkers and scientists did not happen in Islamic societies? Yes, I think you may be right, moral truths are universal and one does not have to be a Muslim or Christian to lead a good and useful life.
Like the example I have given of Christianity in the middle ages, I give the example of Islam in the age of enlightenment.. in fact the one that was oppressing our scientists was still the church, as was the case with Ibn Rushd whose books were banned by Pope Alexander the IV


Hugo - Peter denied not denounced. But what is your point, that humans should have no failing or weaknesses? Perhaps you would do well to read the whole story of Peter. Did you think God only works through the great but never through the humble or those that fail, if you do you make God the measure of your own mind.
The point is, your god was about to die (forsaking himself) and the folks he left behind to carry out his message were confused at best should really be foretelling of the future of christianity, that he (your god) in order to correct his short comings had to in a cryptic act, use his nemesis Paul to abrogate his commandments.. through a man who wasn't even a chosen disciple and the former lover of Popea (the wife of Nero) .. I'll leave that to your deductive reasoning as it is often over active.. we can only hope it equally active in this situation as well.

Hugo - what point is this making? The Bible is full of prayers and so we know how to pray with no without words at all, with lofty words, with broken half formed words, in sadness and in joy. Go look at Psalm 150 and you will see there is no single way and creation itself praises God, its all about our being a living sacrifice to Him - can you agree to that.
The point I am making is of the importance of sunna, and sane 'disciples'
I am not here for sacrificial or self-immolating purposes.. seems very counter intuitive.
I think you will find that an administrator stated it not me because another thread generated a different direction.
I genuinely don't understand what that means.. if it lost all purpose, why do you continue rehashing questions that have already been answered?

all the best!
 
Last edited:
Greetings,

obviously, you have failed to bold all that I have written, as it should be taken in whole not in part.
Allow me the analogy: Surgery is freaking great to remove a parotid tumor, but whether it is Mucoepidermoid carcinoma or Adenoid cystic carcinoma or Malignant mixed tumors or Acinic cell carcinoma, Adenocarcinoma or Primary squamous cell carcinoma or Sebaceous carcinoma, has to be diagnosed and determined by the pathologist.. one mass, different presentations which will dictate the clinical course and appropriate therapy.. Surgery is crude medicine, and such is the universal moral law as it is reduced to the simplest most basic form.. religion does for morality, what pathology does for surgery.

all the best!

I love your medical analogies. :)

They make it all so much clearer.

Peace
 
Greetings,


I love your medical analogies. :)

They make it all so much clearer.

Peace



that is why the cyber idols created google? Although admittedly all you needed to get out of that, was in the closing sentence '
religion does for morality, what pathology does for surgery' as in gives it more definition and direction!

all the best
 
Allow me the analogy: Surgery is freaking great to remove a parotid tumor, but whether it is Mucoepidermoid carcinoma or Adenoid cystic carcinoma or Malignant mixed tumors or Acinic cell carcinoma, Adenocarcinoma or Primary squamous cell carcinoma or Sebaceous carcinoma, has to be diagnosed and determined by the pathologist.. one mass, different presentations which will dictate the clinical course and appropriate therapy.. Surgery is crude medicine, and such is the universal moral law as it is reduced to the simplest most basic form.. religion does for morality, what pathology does for surgery.

I can hardly understand what this is saying and even when I went to emedicine.com/plastic/... (not very nice is it to use and not cite the source unless you wrote it?) I still failed to understands where the analogy was. The essence of arguments based on analogy is simplicity and clarity not complexity and fog.

So if I state a moral law; let's say one about honesty do you mean that Islam or Christianity some how raises this law to another plain because those without religion have no sense of right and wrong?

I might agree with you if you said that religions have the necessary vocabulary to speak about morality - is this what you mean?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top