Authenticity of the Qur'an

[جوري]

Hugo - why is it that internationally he is recognised as one? You simply define Scholar as someone who you agree with or espouses orthodox views and you often quote from websites as if they have authority. Prophet Mohammed was not a scholar yet you take note of what he says so there is something wrong with the way you view what is said.

Recognized as a scholar of what? as we have indeed discussed this a few pages ago, but again just to refresh your memory. Does a person who have a doctorate in cardiology also allowed to perform neurosurgery? Is being learned in one area abridge over to complete knowledge of another?
As for someone who espouses my views, I rather think that is an excellent assessment of yourself and your approach to anything that doesn't agree with your man/god fiasco.
are we comparing prophets to lay men? I am yet to see a book by Esack that will influence people globally and for centuries. So far all we have seen is a one man crusade by your person.

Please refer to my earlier post and consider this example quoted by Professor Esack page 111 regarding vowelling marks (tashkil). "...where a simple "u" on the pronoun "h" (his) after the word rasul (prophet) in 9:3 led to the following reading:

That God dissolves obligations toward [both] the pagans and his Prophet






When the vowel "u" on the pronoun is replaced with the vowel "i" the meaning is as follows

That God and his apostle dissolves obligations with pagans"

وَأَذَانٌ مِّنَ اللّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ إِلَى النَّاسِ يَوْمَ الْحَجِّ الأَكْبَرِ أَنَّ اللّهَ بَرِيءٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَرَسُولُهُ فَإِن تُبْتُمْ فَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَإِن تَوَلَّيْتُمْ فَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّكُمْ غَيْرُ مُعْجِزِي اللّهِ
وَبَشِّرِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ {3


The 'vowel' 'u' or 'i' will have no bearing on the way the verse is understood whatsoever.The tashkil plays very little part as I will show in my Arabic example below, it is the confirmation of grammatical rules in Arabic that dictate how a sentence is understood and formed, tashkil is but one part, we also have to conform to the rules of lexicon, morphology, syntax, derivation, rhetoric and halat, nominative,genitive and accusative as well the status constructus. If I write:

اكلت ليلي الدجاج or اكلت الدجاج ليلي
notice no 'vowels' used whatsoever. in the first the literal translation would be ' ate the chicken lila' the seconds lila ate the chicken. in the first it would appear from its structure that it is the chicken that is doing the eating .. yet both understood as lila doing the eating .

http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/aljarf/Publications/Books/A%20Contrastive%20Analysis%20of%20Enlgish%20and%20Arabic%20Morphology.pdf
You are not only doing yourself a great disservice but if this is indeed how superficial the 'best arabic lexicon' in the world is, then it is no wonder that no Arabic speaker has heard of it.. it doesn't appear to be very intellectually penetrative!

Hugo - look at you own words; "If I take the Qur'an...unerring ..." If this is what you believe then I applaud it but since it cannot be shown to be true or false (unerring and divine) it is a fallacy to argue in this way. It will not become scietifically true, unquestionably true by you repeating yourself?

Your applause has no bearing on the veracity of said claim.
You can't apply data to all work, even in certain fields of science, for instance psychiatry, but what you do is set very stringent standards to be met as a reference point, and is usually quite an expansive bell shaped curve as to include the majority of variances in opinions.
Let's say someone is suffering depression.. well it isn't something you can quantify.. there is no depression-o-meter where you place your head, hold on to the bars and then some measurements of your psyche is out in numbers on the paper..
no you come up with a criteria, subjects and researchers as such

• Loss of interest in normal daily activities
• Feeling sad or down
• Feeling hopeless
• Crying spells for no apparent reason
• Problems sleeping
• Trouble focusing or concentrating
• Difficulty making decisions
• Unintentional weight gain or loss
• Irritability
• Restlessness
• Being easily annoyed
• Feeling fatigued or weak
• Feeling worthless
• Loss of interest in sex
• Thoughts of suicide or suicidal behavior
• Unexplained physical problems, such as back pain or headaches

if a person meets the majority of these said standards then you can give them the diagnosis of depression. The person doing the diagnosis also has to be learned vastly in the field as to recognize it as such and not miss for instance a case of hypothyroidism, or anemia or the one rare case of diphyllobothriasis.

that is why stringent standards are set, so we don't have lay people quoting an equally questionable character and disseminating false info as if it were facts. Anyone familiar with Islamic fiqh, jurisprudence, methodology, knows that no other religion has a more stringent code for narrations, integrity of transmitters and names and dates to back up all the information.. of course the content itself is not nonsensical for what is the point if one to believe mark or john or saul if what they preach is very counter intuitive?

Hugo - you have NOT given me a copy of this mysterious Torah, Gospel and Psalms that you say you believe in. Of course one can believe that there are lost works but it has no substance and in the case of Sappo it is just a wish that we had access to such work. You see what I find irrational with what you say is that you vigorously defend the Qu'ran against the tiniest corruption and the same time trust in book or books that you have never seen?

I don't need to give you a copy of the mysterious Torah, there is no point as the Quran is the final authority, there is no going back to being lost in the desert once you've conquered empires. The case of Sappho is legitimate and recorded historically, and such with the torah as their own admission of their lost books. You find many things irrational, but unfortunately don't seem to see yourself as inconsistent and have complete lack of reason.

Yes it is a pity that great works are lost although understanable in antiquity because of the labour involved in preservation and because like most literature it comes and goes as a vogue as people move on.

I don't understand the relevance of above sentence to the subject matter we are discussing!

Trouble here is you become irrational and let your own desired belief intrude into what should be a rational discussion so here you insult God, the disciples and Paul. Is you own faith so thin it can only be supported by such tactics?

I'd a grievous death before I insult God. Question is really who is insulting? Folks who make god akin to animals, attribute human emotions to him, turn him into an adulterer, a jealous being who almost loses to david in a boxing match, and sleeps with prostitutes, and is jealous that his children take other gods for worship that he smites 'his children', then feels remorse over what he has done. then descends to the earth, to D*** it for not bearing him fruit, then weeps to himself in the garden of Gesthmane, then gets crucified by the people he was sent to, then realizes that he erred so he abrogates his commandements through his nemesis:



Jesus says that our good works are necessary and meaningful (Matt. 5:16; John 10:24-25) while Paul says they are worthless and unnecessary (Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:6-14).

Jesus exhorts his followers to strictly adhere to the laws and commandments (Mark 10:18-19; Matt. 19:17; Luke 18:20) while Paul calls the law and commandments a “curse” and “bondage” (Gal. 2:16, 3:11, 24; Rom. 2:13). (SOURCE)

or the ones who believe that:

[2:255]Allah! There is no god but He, the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) Before or After or Behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).


I think if we were to employ even a 'sliver' of logic the choice would be clear!

In hope we can now move on to consider some of the points that Dr Azami's book related about the Qu'ran and the Bible to see if we can mutually learn something of value.

I don't seek my knowledge from evangelists, and I would ask you to kindly refrain from leaving me PM's with your DSM-IV diagnosis of my psyche...

don't on one thread allege that Muslim women are maltreated in Islam and then come up with some cockamamie account as to why I don't conform to your idea of a Muslim woman.

all the best

 

[Hugo]

I have gotten the contents from a christian site, and it is what is found in his book table talk. Pls do purchase it, as I believe the German used is word for word the German of it..

Why don't you purchase the book then and check it against it? you seem hyper vigilant at best when checking Azami against every known source in the universe (if such in fact is in existence) pls go ahead, purchase his book and let's see if that isn't the German word for word and appropriate translation of .. I know of at least two Lutherans who agree with that content, one is my sister in law (who since has converted to Islam) and another is a dear friend, who saw Luther as reformer of the oppression of the catholic church, and believes heavily in said interpretation! What is the matter can't you exonerate your god from adultery? you've had him do just about everything else, so why not that for the full human experience?

Hugo - perhaps I will get the book but can you be a little more precise about the edition you have as there are as you know dozen of books covering "table Talk".

Lutherans are considered a branch of the Protestant Church adhering to the views of Luther. That is actually a common dictionary deifnition, I don't have to search far, thus your analogies crumble upon themselves as usual!

Hugo - TRY to be precise, you said Luther was the leader and that was never true. You also make the mistake of saying these are Luther's words but they are words that someone recalled Luther saying and that is who you are citing as I understand it. Even so the allegation are not Biblical ones are they?

See above quote, and again, whatever you do to appease yourself about your beliefs is something that you have to amend/excuse/rectify in your own private time. I don't buy into the man/god myth and everything that builds upon that is a Petitio principii. I really don't care to build an argument upon already faulty logic. The reason for said quote is to properly cite Azami, not shelter your ego from the contents of your religion or its branches!

Hugo - you really don't get it do you, and have no conception that anyone can rationally believe something different to you so your logic is invariably flawed. Let me use your silly argument line above to make it plain. Suppose I say: .. whatever you do to appease yourself about your beliefs is something that you have to amend/excuse/rectify in your own private time. I don't buy into the man in a cave and a message from an angel or someone getting his heart washed with snow myth and everything that builds upon that is circular reasoning.

You commit fallacy after fallacy, your two sisterly witnesses above treated as authorities, you appeal to consequences, you claim things that cannot be shown to be true, begging the question and on.

Your advise means very little, you have very slanted views at best, your influenced by your own biases. You can't hold the same alleged integrity to all the texts you approach, you slander, you quote incorrectly, you pass judgment, you derive satisfaction out of simplistic conclusions and are a dynamo of a hyperbole. all the best

Here we yet more fallacies in your post: ad hominem, guilt (mine) by association, poisoning the well and so on

 

[جوري]

Hugo - perhaps I will get the book but can you be a little more precise about the edition you have as there are as you know dozen of books covering "table Talk".

Find something original with the German side by side translation. it isn't difficult to do!

Hugo - TRY to be precise, you said Luther was the leader and that was never true. You also make the mistake of saying these are Luther's words but they are words that someone recalled Luther saying and that is who you are citing as I understand it. Even so the allegation are not Biblical ones are they?

I think one should employ common sense when reading, if the allegations are biblical or not, you yourself seem to have had trouble quoting Al-Azami' for when I quoted directly from the book he referenced to table talk..Again, I fail to see why you make demands from others from which you are exempt?

Hugo - you really don't get it do you, and have no conception that anyone can rationally believe something different to you so your logic is invariably flawed. Let me use your silly argument line above to make it plain. Suppose I say: .. whatever you do to appease yourself about your beliefs is something that you have to amend/excuse/rectify in your own private time. I don't buy into the man in a cave and a message from an angel or someone getting his heart washed with snow myth and everything that builds upon that is circular reasoning.

It would indeed be true, if the Quranic content was comparable to your biblical content in context and collection which it isn't.. the illiterate man in the cave brought us the Quran and the hadith very distinctively different and you are yet to establish if not from God then from whom.. whereas Jesus' miracles died with him, the Quran is God's living miracle!

You commit fallacy after fallacy, your two sisterly witnesses above treated as authorities, you appeal to consequences, you claim things that cannot be shown to be true, begging the question and on.

of stuff and nonsense.. if you have something or relevance to impart as pertains to the thread or something I have written then bring it on. I told you before that your observations mean very little, as I don't value your opinion for reasons of your own making!

Here we yet more fallacies in your post: ad hominem, guilt (mine) by association, poisoning the well and so on

It isn't considered ad homs if we are using erroneous premises accepted by you to argue against an opposition we are merely pointing out the fact of the matter.. you misidentify fallacies and expect us to go by your chosen definitions..

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Recognized as a scholar of what? as we have indeed discussed this a few pages ago, but again just to refresh your memory. Does a person who have a doctorate in cardiology also allowed to perform neurosurgery? Is being learned in one area abridge over to complete knowledge of another?

Hugo - Esack is recognised as an Islamic scholar - why don't you get the book and test it for yourself then we can discuss it properly. Whilst I agree with you that we need experts that does not mean that the rest of us are idiots either or experts are always right. One can be the most eminent scientist in the world but an absolute fool when it comes to putting a bit of Ikea together. It cannot one hopes have escaped you that what is expert knowledge today can be totally obsolete tomorrow

As for someone who espouses my views, I rather think that is an excellent assessment of yourself and your approach to anything that doesn't agree with your man/god fiasco.

Hugo - this is obliviously false because I have read all I can get me hands on from Khomeine to Bernard Lewis. I am not the one who dismisses writers without argument or grabs from the nearest website am I?

are we comparing prophets to lay men? I am yet to see a book by Esack that will influence people globally and for centuries. So far all we have seen is a one man crusade by your person.

Hugo - this now become preposterous - Jesus, Paul, the disciples influenced billions yet you never fail to denigrate them. Prophets are people and as far as we can tell God rarely selected the bright and beautiful did he?

The 'vowel' 'u' or 'i' will have no bearing on the way the verse is understood whatsoever. The tashkil plays very little part as I will show in my Arabic example below, it is the confirmation of grammatical rules in Arabic that dictate how a sentence is understood and formed, tashkil is but one part, we also have to conform to the rules of lexicon, morphology, syntax, derivation, rhetoric and halat, nominative,genitive and accusative as well the status constructus. If I write:

notice no 'vowels' used whatsoever. in the first the literal translation would be ' ate the chicken lila' the seconds lila ate the chicken. in the first it would appear from its structure that it is the chicken that is doing the eating .. yet both understood as lila doing the eating .

Hugo - it is nonsense to say that the use of vowels has no bearding but if you say that Professor Easck is wrong then I think you have to show us your scholarly qualifications or point us to a suitable source. I am not doing anyone a disservices, you asked for example and I provided from from a reliable source. The idea that NO Arabic speaker has heard of Lane's lexicon is so absurd it is not worth a comment.

You can't apply data to all work .. Let's say someone is suffering depression.. well it isn't something you can quantify.. there is no depression-o-meter where you place your head, hold on to the bars and then some measurements of your psyche is out in numbers on the paper..no you come up with a criteria, subjects and researchers as such. Loss of interest in normal daily activities, Feeling sad or down, Feeling hopeless etc.

Hugo - you seem not to quite understand what you are saying and have no conception of what data might mean. In your example the list of items is a list of the data you want to collect - one cannot diagnose just by having the list, you have to see the patient and add a yes or no to each item. Its not numbers of course but have you never heard of any other kind of data?

Anyone familiar with Islamic fiqh, jurisprudence, methodology, knows that no other religion has a more stringent code for narrations, integrity of transmitters and names and dates to back up all the information.. of course the content itself is not nonsensical for what is the point if one to believe mark or john or saul if what they preach is very counter intuitive?

Hugo - have you never looked at the way Rabbi's work? I shall have more to say on the issues of methodology later.

I don't need to give you a copy of the mysterious Torah, there is no point as the Quran is the final authority, there is no going back to being lost in the desert once you've conquered empires. The case of Sappho is legitimate and recorded historically, and such with the torah as their own admission of their lost books. You find many things irrational, but unfortunately don't seem to see yourself as inconsistent and have complete lack of reason.

Hugo - if its of no significance why do you mention it? The Torah is not one book but 5 and I have a copy of them and so do billions of others. Even Azami admits that what we have today goes back at least about 2,500 years. Where is the irrationality in me having the Torah and you talking about a Torah that you cannot see

I'd a grievous death before I insult God. Question is really who is insulting? Folks who make god akin to animals, attribute human emotions to him, turn him into an adulterer, a jealous being who almost loses to david in a boxing match, and sleeps with prostitutes, and is jealous that his children take other gods for worship that he smites 'his children', then feels remorse over what he has done. then descends to the earth, to D*** it for not bearing him fruit, then weeps to himself in the garden of Gesthmane, then gets crucified by the people he was sent to, then realizes that he erred so he abrogates his commandements through his nemesis:

Hugo - Christians and Jews have beliefs and YOU regularly insult them and in so doing insult God. I can give long list of Muslim beliefs and pour score on them but I have more respect and simple humanity than to do that.

Jesus says that our good works are necessary and meaningful (Matt. 5:16; John 10:24-25) while Paul says they are worthless and unnecessary (Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:6-14).

Hugo - its always better to go to the sources not just copy from a website. Consider.

Matthew 5:16 (NIV) 16. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV) 8. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God 9. not by works, so that no one can boast.​

It is obvious that Jesus is saying our God works bring honour to God and Paul is saying salvation is a Gift and not something we have earned. You are muddled over the idea of Law, of course we should try to keep is but Paul is saying it has proved impossible. Is it possible in Islam, can a Muslim keep all the law faultlessly?

[2:255]Allah! There is no god but He, the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) Before or After or Behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory). I think if we were to employ even a 'sliver' of logic the choice would be clear!

Hugo - let me say it again, do you think out works can dishonour God, bring shame on his name? Do you think that anyone can fulfil all the laws demands. This question must be applicable to Muslims and Christians and Jews alike?

I don't seek my knowledge from evangelists, and I would ask you to kindly refrain from leaving me PM's with your DSM-IV diagnosis of my psyche...

Hugo - this really is the pot calling the kettle black

don't on one thread allege that Muslim women are maltreated in Islam and then come up with some cockamamie account as to why I don't conform to your idea of a Muslim woman.

Where have I alleged the Muslim woman are maltreated any more than any other woman or man. Why change the subject, what relevance can it have in this thread? When have I said you don't conform my idea of Muslim woman - this is fantasy?

 

[Hugo]

Find something original with the German side by side translation. it isn't difficult to do!

I think one should employ common sense when reading, if the allegations are biblical or not, you yourself seem to have had trouble quoting Al-Azami' for when I quoted directly from the book he referenced to table talk..Again, I fail to see why you make demands from others from which you are exempt?

It would indeed be true, if the Quranic content was comparable to your biblical content in context and collection which it isn't.. the illiterate man in the cave brought us the Quran and the hadith very distinctively different and you are yet to establish if not from God then from whom.. whereas Jesus' miracles died with him, the Quran is God's living miracle!

of stuff and nonsense.. if you have something or relevance to impart as pertains to the thread or something I have written then bring it on. I told you before that your observations mean very little, as I don't value your opinion for reasons of your own making!

It isn't considered ad homs if we are using erroneous premises accepted by you to argue against an opposition we are merely pointing out the fact of the matter.. you misidentify fallacies and expect us to go by your chosen definitions..

1. I take it that you cannot give precise reference to "Table Talk" - when you can let me know and I will try to get a copy. I can find lots of possible books but if it is so simple please give the ref you have for your copy?

2. As far as I know I quoted Azami correctly but also gave the page references so there would be no dispute about what was said. My view is that is the proper way to deal with a text.

3. If you don't value my opinion that is an entirely acceptable position and one my wife often takes but she at least allows me to have them.

4. With regard to ad hominem it is acceptable that you try to undermine my credibility just as I have attempted to do with Dr Azami but that cannot undermine my reasoning and that is why your oft repeated ad hominem allegations lead to fallacious reasoning on your part. Anyone with a passing acquaintance with your postings will sadly see that often you resort to unkind and unfounded remarks about a persons intelligence or motives.

 

[جوري]

Hugo - Esack is recognised as an Islamic scholar - why don't you get the book and test it for yourself then we can discuss it properly. Whilst I agree with you that we need experts that does not mean that the rest of us are idiots either or experts are always right. One can be the most eminent scientist in the world but an absolute fool when it comes to putting a bit of Ikea together. It cannot one hopes have escaped you that what is expert knowledge today can be totally obsolete tomorrow

No, he isn't a Muslim scholar (we have gone over that definition before).. and I have indeed made the point previously using 'Dr. John Martin' as to how scholars can fall out of grace. So what exactly are you doing now? I don't understand, you wish to retract your previous comments?
His work should be tested for correctitude not against his PhD. which again doesn't extend to Islamic studies Just judging from the error in what you'd alleged to which I gave a similar Arabic example without tashkeel. Furthermore, I am yet to see any variations in reading for the same people who brought us 'tashkeel' are the same ones who had it memorized and written down without it. The Quran is still an oral tradition for I have a large chunk of it memorized and many here have it fully memorized. So when you or another fellow, even a Muslim (as was the comment by one in the hereafter thread) I need not check the verse he quoted against the Quran to know he quoted incorrectly.
We had two witnesses down for every aya that was written, by those who had memorized and recited it directly to the messenger.. so what is your point. Pls define your ill point as I see no possibility of me granting this courtesy another 16 pages.. I am not enjoying this ride!

Hugo - this is obliviously false because I have read all I can get me hands on from Khomeine to Bernard Lewis. I am not the one who dismisses writers without argument or grabs from the nearest website am I?

Really, it wasn't you who not two pages ago on this very thread accused Dr. Al_azami for plagerism for content you found on a web? and didn't even bother do the honors of checking the dates to see which came first? that wasn't you, I imagined it? It is like my dear grandma (May Allah swt yer7mha) used to say, prevaricators have the worst memory!

Hugo - this now become preposterous - Jesus, Paul, the disciples influenced billions yet you never fail to denigrate them. Prophets are people and as far as we can tell God rarely selected the bright and beautiful did he?

Your man/god didn't select the bright or the beautiful. That is your version of things, Jesus (p) and God are innocent of what you write against them and what you make them out to be and the false attributions.. I am yet to see you comment on the disparity between Jesus' teachings and those of paul as per my previous thread.. How do you reconcile that?

Hugo - it is nonsense to say that the use of vowels has no bearding but if you say that Professor Easck is wrong then I think you have to show us your scholarly qualifications or point us to a suitable source. I am not doing anyone a disservices, you asked for example and I provided from from a reliable source. The idea that NO Arabic speaker has heard of Lane's lexicon is so absurd it is not worth a comment.

The use of vowels indeed has no bearing on the sentence and I have gone ahead and given similar examples without tashkeel whatsoever. My qualifications is that Arabic is my mother tongue and I am learned in it. as opposed to forming a secondary opinion at face value. I am yet to see you bring me the variant readings from the Quran then and now for Esak's comments as per Quran to actually be of value. And indeed, though it may be hard for you to believe, folks will go to school and not use Easck as a source for Arabic Lexicon.

Hugo - you seem not to quite understand what you are saying and have no conception of what data might mean. In your example the list of items is a list of the data you want to collect - one cannot diagnose just by having the list, you have to see the patient and add a yes or no to each item. Its not numbers of course but have you never heard of any other kind of data?

Do you read everything written before you write? just considering how often you end up with a foot in your mouth or do you like to play dumb?
here please let me requote myself: even in certain fields of science, for instance psychiatry, but what you do is set very stringent standards to be met as a reference point, and is usually quite an expansive bell shaped curve as to include the majority of variances in opinions.
Let's say someone is suffering depression.. well it isn't something you can quantify.. there is no depression-o-meter where you place your head, hold on to the bars and then some measurements of your psyche is out in numbers on the paper.

followed by:

The person doing the diagnosis also has to be learned vastly in the field as to recognize it as such and not miss for instance a case of hypothyroidism, or anemia or the one rare case of diphyllobothriasis.

are you able to process information like the rest of us? clearly somethings can't be subjected to the 'typical' research method, in which case you find some other means to do it. You want to discuss how to diagnose and manage a patient with me cowboy, then nothing would give me greater pleasure!

Hugo - have you never looked at the way Rabbi's work? I shall have more to say on the issues of methodology later.

What does this have to do with 'authenticity of the Quran' or an answer as to why you remain a christian regardless of how Rabbi's work.. you do realize that Rabbis look at Mary as a common street walker (astghfor Allah) if that is the sort of work you enjoy then by all means be my guest!

Hugo - if its of no significance why do you mention it? The Torah is not one book but 5 and I have a copy of them and so do billions of others. Even Azami admits that what we have today goes back at least about 2,500 years. Where is the irrationality in me having the Torah and you talking about a Torah that you cannot see

My question remains, why aren't you a Jew if you see such great value in the Torah? why do you not follow its laws?

Hugo - Christians and Jews have beliefs and YOU regularly insult them and in so doing insult God. I can give long list of Muslim beliefs and pour score on them but I have more respect and simple humanity than to do that.

The man you worship isn't God, and Jesus is innocent from all that you attribute to him. I don't mock God, I question the absurdity of your belief system which you expect others to subscribe to. Isn't that what you are after given you previous comment. of my belief crumbling if someone proves it wrong? well I am still waiting!

Jesus says that our good works are necessary and meaningful (Matt. 5:16; John 10:24-25) while Paul says they are worthless and unnecessary (Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:6-14).

Hugo - its always better to go to the sources not just copy from a website. Consider.

Matthew 5:16 (NIV) 16. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV) 8. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God 9. not by works, so that no one can boast.​

It is obvious that Jesus is saying our God works bring honour to God and Paul is saying salvation is a Gift and not something we have earned. You are muddled over the idea of Law, of course we should try to keep is but Paul is saying it has proved impossible. Is it possible in Islam, can a Muslim keep all the law faultlessly?

You bringing the source hasn't really changed meaning. Jesus and Paul at odds and Jesus doesn't seem to be speaking about himself he doesn't say (show me your good deeds and praise me) how do you reconcile that? Also try to stick to the point of the quote before making the leap to question other religions.
but to answer your Q, The laws are important indeed and good Muslims uphold them yes!
You can't desire for something and then work against it. You can't say you love your mother and then steal from her purse because going without desert has proven difficult. and well she loves you anyway and forgives all your sins in advance so you are free to commit them!

Hugo - let me say it again, do you think out works can dishonour God, bring shame on his name? Do you think that anyone can fulfil all the laws demands. This question must be applicable to Muslims and Christians and Jews alike?

I think you dishonor yourself, God is above all you ascribe unto him, and good Muslims do fulfill all their religious obligations..or at least know they are at fault for not fulfilling them, and not simply exempt because some nameless self-appointed apostle said so. I don't follow the religion or find value in a religion that reduces God to men, or where God forsakes after giving his word for something so anticlimactic as eating my sins for me.

Hugo - this really is the pot calling the kettle black

I don't see how, if I had remote interest in 'Muslimizing' don't you think I'd be rubbing elbows with Christians on their own site showing them the errors of their ways, which in fact would be quite easy for me to do?

Where have I alleged the Muslim woman are maltreated any more than any other woman or man. Why change the subject, what relevance can it have in this thread? When have I said you don't conform my idea of Muslim woman - this is fantasy?

You should go re-read your post under 'things in Islam I am curious about' as to my fantasy, well I certainly wasn't the one who left you a PM message stating:

I wish I could understand why you do it - is there something in your past, has someone hurt you?

a little schmaltzy for my personal taste.. but no, no one in my past has hurt me, try not to loan yourself to linear thoughts, it makes it even less interesting to engage you, not that I think that would possible at this stage!

all the best

 

[جوري]

1. I take it that you cannot give precise reference to "Table Talk" - when you can let me know and I will try to get a copy. I can find lots of possible books but if it is so simple please give the ref you have for your copy?

Go get yourself an original English/German copy and then come question me on where I have gotten it from.. deal?
Books that quote the original author don't differ! I have played chess alot and your moves are stale and predictable!

2. As far as I know I quoted Azami correctly but also gave the page references so there would be no dispute about what was said. My view is that is the proper way to deal with a text.

You in fact haven't, you attributed to him saying it directly about the bible, when I quoted him directly referencing table talk with page number. one of us is obviously dishonest .. any guess as to who?

3. If you don't value my opinion that is an entirely acceptable position and one my wife often takes but she at least allows me to have them.

I am sure you make up for your short comings with her in other ways :smile:

4. With regard to ad hominem it is acceptable that you try to undermine my credibility just as I have attempted to do with Dr Azami but that cannot undermine my reasoning and that is why your oft repeated ad hominem allegations lead to fallacious reasoning on your part. Anyone with a passing acquaintance with your postings will sadly see that often you resort to unkind and unfounded remarks about a persons intelligence or motives.

I undermine your credibility by directly quoting you, that which is overt to the naked eye and that which you have left in private. All those who are acquainted with my work have indeed left me their impressions in the feedback two in the past day were from Christians.. So I suppose this thunderous testimony of yours is as usual, all smoke and mirrors...
I'd keep with the topic and not meander it to assumed personal glories...


all the best

 

[Follower]

islamiclife - "Was there any witness to 10 commandments or rest of the bible?"

"...angles only come to the Prophets with revelation. Who heard Prophet Moses' (peace be upon him) talk with the Lord when he was given 10 commandments? Why do you trust Moses (peace be upon him) being the only witness for 10 commandments but reject Muhammad (peace be upon him) for the same reason."

I have mentioned on another thread that miracles were given to Moses. When Gabriel went to Mary he also went to Joseph in a dream.

It is very worrisome to me that Gabriel squeezed Mohammad terrified him, caused him to run home to his wife in fear and with worry. When Gabriel went to the people in the Holy Bible he was always reassuring.

If we had the original quranic verses as they were first written we could easily see if the message had remained unchanged.

We know that the different companions of Mohammad if they could write kept their own separate notes of what Mohammad revealed- where are those notes of each of the separate companions? Where are the verses written on the bones- the leaves of course would have not last but the bones would.

Here is an example at what I am trying to get at- we have the early church fathers and students of the Disciples that quoted and referenced the Holy Bible in their writtings so we know that the Gospel we have today is the one from the Disciples that followed Jesus.

"Who said chronological order is important?"
The site you linked to explains that and it might also help those that do not know which verses have been exchanged for better verses.

No I didn't mean prophecies of the individuals but of the book -the Holy Bible have prophecies written in it that didn't come true until many years after the fact to prove that it is from GOD. I guess in the Quran's/Mohammad's case it is just his prophecies that I am wondering about.

 

[Hugo]

No, he isn't a Muslim scholar.. and I have indeed made the point previously using 'Dr. John Martin' as to how scholars can fall out of grace. So what exactly are you doing now? I don't understand, you wish to retract your previous comments? Hugo - you consider him not to be a scholar, let's leave it at that. I am not retracting anything, the section I quoted from his book is perfectly rational but if you refuse to see it in that light there is nothing I or anyone can do

His work should be tested for correctitude not against his PhD. which again doesn't extend to Islamic studies Just judging from the error of the sentence you quoted. Furthermore, I am yet to see any variations in reading for the same people who brought us 'tashkeel' are the same ones who had it memorized and written down without it. The Quran is still an oral tradition for I have a large chunk of it memorized and many here have it fully memorized. So when you or another fellow, even a Muslim (as was the comment on the hereafter thread) I need not check the verse he quoted against the Quran to know he quoted incorrectly. We had two witnesses down for every aya, who had memorized and recited it directrly to the messanger.. so what is your point. Hugo - you looked it up in your Qu'ran, that is not in anyway the same as looking at the original as it was written down is it 1,400 years ago. Professor Esack is simply pointing out difficulties and to deny them as you do is foolish.

Really, it wasn't you who not two pages ago on this very thread accused Dr. Al_azami for plagerism for content you found on a web? and didn't even do the honors of checking the dates to see which came first? that wasn't you, I imagined it? Hugo - I did not as I recall accusing him of plagiarism, I said there was a case to answer as someone has copied. I did not find the content using google I used a proprietary piece of software that searches for any documents, websites, journals and so on for similarities so I had no hand in being selective or painting the picture any worse than it is and to do it I used your posting of quotations from Azami's book. I did check the date but it is NOT conclusive as I explained and there may well be a third party involved.

Your man/god didn't select the bright or the beautiful. Jesus (p) and God are innocent of what you write against them and what you make them out to be.. I am yet to see you comment on the disparity between Jesus' teachings and those of paul as per my previous thread.. How do you reconcile that? Hugo - I have posted a response please read it before you speak.

The use of vowels indeed has no bearing on the sentence and I have gone ahead and given similar examples without tashkeel whatsoever. My qualifications is that Arabic is my mother tongue and I am learned in it. as opposed to forming a secondary opinion at face value. I am yet to see you bring me the variant readings from the Quran then and now for Esak's comments as per Quran to actually be of value. And indeed, though it may be hard for you to believe that folks will go to school and not use Easck as a source for Arabic Lexicon. Hugo - how many examples would you like? Of course you can give examples without tashkeel but that does not mean they don't exist does it and that difficulties over meaning can therefore arise? The same is true for Hebrew and no doubt you would think it is a serious problem there or are you happy to accept that it causes no difficulty with finding meaning in the Hebrew Bible?

Do you read everything written before you write? just considering how often you end up with a foot in your mouth or do you like to play dumb? here please let me requote myself: even in certain fields of science, for instance psychiatry, but what you do is set very stringent standards to be met as a reference point, and is usually quite an expansive bell shaped curve as to include the majority of variances in opinions. Let's say someone is suffering depression.. well it isn't something you can quantify.. there is no depression-o-meter where you place your head, hold on to the bars and then some measurements of your psyche is out in numbers on the paper. Hugo - this just shows how little coherence your answers have. If there is a bell shaped curve how was it developed without real data? So on the one hand you say its bell shaped meaning numerical data must be involved and then you say it cannot be quantified. Why don't you go and think about qualitative and quantitative or things like nominal, ordinal and interval and ratio scales and then come back.

are you able to process information like the rest of us? clearely somethings can't be subjected to the 'typical' reaearch method, in which case you find some other means to do it. You want to discuss how to diagnose and manage a patient with me cowboy, then nothing would give me greater pleasure! Hugo - yes let us do that; so how do you do it and I will begin by asking do you collect ANY data at all during diagnoses?

What does this have to do with 'authenticity of the Quran' or an answer as to why you remain a christian regardless of how Rabbi's work.. you do realize that Rabbis look at Mary as a common street walker (astghfor Allah) if that is the sort of work you enjoy then by all means be my guest! Hugo - I take it you mean ALL rabbi's? I suggest you read a simple introduction such as "The Jewish People: Their history and their religion, ISBN 0-14-015491-4 (Penguin).

My question remains, why aren't you a Jew if you see such great value in the Torah? why do you not follow its laws? Hugo - one supposes I can ask you the same question? I do value the Torah but I like most Jews know there are 631 laws and regulations commanded by God BUT as I have said before on many occasions that often the circumstances and institutions to which they apply now no longer exist. We all adhere to the 10 commandments, the moral laws, and one cannot do better that that - would you not agree? It must one suppose be the same in Islam, you have laws about slavery for instance but slavery now no longer exists does it so those laws are now museum pieces - is that not so?.

The man you worship isn't God, and Jesus is innocent from all that you attribute to him. I don't mock God, I question the absurdity of your belief system which you expect others to subscribe to. Isn't that what you are after given you previous comment. of my belief crumbling if someone proves it wrong? well I am still waiting! Hugo - we don't seem to be getting anywhere because you refuse or perhaps cannot get your mind to accept that others might think your belief system is an absurdity, I do not wish to be disrespectful but: walking round a building, throwing stones at the devil, jins and so on. I have nowhere as far as I know tried to evangelise on this board - it is not allowed and rightly so.

Why would I want to 'prove' your beliefs to be wrong, I regard them as personal to you I am not looking for scalps. We discuss but for me its about sharing not destroying and I have learned a good deal in this board. My concern is that you accept that others can hold their beliefs as strongly an deeply as you do with perfect rationality so there is no need to mock or abuse one another is there?

You bringing the source hasn't really changed what it actually means. Jesus and Paul at odds, how do you reconcile that? Hugo - I explained the meaning, you don't accept it then there is little I can do

Also try to stick to the point of the quote before making the leap to question other religions. but to answer your Q, The laws are important indeed and good Muslims uphold them yes! You can't desire for something and then work against it. You can't say you love your mother and then steal from her purse because going without desert has proven difficult. and well she loves you anyway and forgives all your sins in advance so you are free to commit them! Hugo - no Christian worthy of the name would say that the law is not important or ignore the 10 commandments and so strive to live holy and useful lives devoted to God's service on that we can agree. No Christian would say God loves us so we can do what we like and still get forgiveness, if we love God then we cannot even think it would be right to abuse his love in any way and to do so would only prove you have no love for God - do you agree?.

I think you dishonor yourself, God is above all you ascribe unto him, and good Muslims do fulfill all their religious obligations..or at least know they are at fault for not fulfilling them, and not simply exempt because some nameless self-appointed apostle said so. Hugo - I am sure they do but I don't think of not doing wrong or engaging in acts of worship as an obligation, I think of it as a demonstration that I love God and want to please him and be useful in all I do. As a pale analogy, when I first met my wife I would have done anything for her not out of any obligation but out of love and the love she showed me. Even now many years later, to hurt her in any way would cause me the utmost pain - do you see what I mean?

I don't see how, if I had remote interest in 'Muslimizing' don't you think I'd be rubbing elbows with Christians on their own site showing them the errors of their ways, which in fact would be quite easy for me to do? Hugo - you must go your own way and do what you think is right for you. I have no other comment here.

You should go re-read your post under 'things in ISlam I am curious about' as to my fantasy, well I certainly wasn't the one who left you a PM message stating: a little schmaltzy for my personal taste.. but no, no one in my past has hurt me, try not to loan yourself to linear thoughts, it makes it even less interesting to engage you, not that I think that would possible at this stage!

No one but you and I would have any idea what the above section is about and that is how it should remain. As always in this board there is no compulsion to join in and any one can ignore anyone else without a crime being committed. Peace and blessing upon you.

 

[Hugo]

Go get yourself an original English/German copy and then come question me on where I have gotten it from.. deal?Books that quote the original author don't differ! I have played chess alot and your moves are stale and predictable!

Hugo - DEAL, I will get a possible list and let you have it then we can proceed. Sadly, any quote can also be a misquote so you are not right there that is whyb we always need the primary source - check!


You in fact haven't, you attributed to him saying it directly about the bible, when I quoted him directly referencing table talk with page number. one of us is obviously dishonest .. any guess as to who?

Hugo - not quite, I said he made accusation about Jesus, David and Solomon but that his accusation about Jesus could NOT be found in the Bible. It was you quite helpfully who suggested where Azami got the information from.

I undermine your credibility by directly quoting you, that which is overt to the naked eye and that which you have left in private. All those who are acquainted with my work have indeed left me their impressions in the feedback two in the past day were from Christians.. So I suppose this thunderous testimony of yours is as usual, all smoke and mirrors...
I'd keep with the topic and not meander it to assumed personal glories...
all the best

I have no comment to make on innuendo and half truth?

 

[جوري]

Quote:

Hugo - you consider him not to be a scholar, let's leave it at that. I am not retracting anything, the section I quoited from his book is perfectly rational but if you refuse to see it in that light there is nothing I or anyone can do

He is a scholar in his field (I'll take that at face value).. his comments about the Quran play no factors in reality.. simply by virtue of the example I have given, with no tashkeel..
No tashkeel doesn't denote one is to throws out logic dictated by the sentence even if I am to take tashkeel as all there is to dictate parsing and discard all I know of Arabic as explained (in examples above)!
oranges are wtrmlns ..watermelons might be missing vowels, it can still be read correctly even with strain on part of some but it doesn't make them oranges.. is that simple for you to understand without me resorting to Arabic for examples?
Logic will dictate meaning, even in the most primitive of text... I don't even know why I humor you, I find your examples hilarious, nonetheless this is a public forums and other passerby might have legitimate questions which should be addressed.

Hugo - you looked it up in your Qu'ran, that is not in anyway the same as looking at the original as it was written down is it 1,400 years ago. Professor Esack is simply pointing out difficulties and to deny them as you do is foolish.

See above comment.. Also a few pages ago, I have given you Quranic text with no tashkeel whatsoever and wrote it out in full, also I included the original links to show that there was no translation of said pages for me to have it super imposed on something else for reference! If you know what you are doing, you won't need to run for reference!

Hugo - I did not as I recall accuse him of plagiarism, I said there was a case to answer as someone has copied. I did not find the content using google I used a proprietary piece of software that searches for any documents, websites, journals and so on for similarities so I had no hand in being selective or painting the picture any worse than it is and to do it I used your posting of quotations from Azami's book. I did check the date but they are NOT conclusive as I explained and there may well be a third party involved.

I believe you wrote and pls let me quote:

Hugo
Now I don't know what is going in here but someone is copying from someone so there is question of integrity. At the moment for me a shadow is cast on Azami's book at this point. If any one explain this it would help.

I don't know how to take that any other way rather than frank accusation of plagiarism, and failure to be forth coming about all the information you'd gathered.. nonetheless, I don't want to keep surrogate the birth of ancillary topics from ancillary topics.. pls try to focus ..

Hugo - I have posted a response please read it before you speak.

I have read everything and replied in full, the question is, why do you exempt yourself from the same obligation. practically half of the pages on this thread are wasted on you repeating yourself and me re-quoting my replies.

Hugo - how many examples would you like? Of course you can give examples without tashkeel but that does not mean they don't exist does it and that difficulties over meaning can therefore arise? The same is true for Hebrew and no doubt you would think it is a serious problem there or are you happy to accept that it causes no difficulty with finding meaning in the Hebrew Bible?

See first paragraph of this post.. The Quran has always existed along side by side its oral form. Not the case for the Hebrew bible which you don't subscribe to so there is really no point. Is this another exercise in futility?
If you can find a mistake bring it, again, I make the same repeated request, I am not going to loan credence to some concocted idea that you or your predecessors dreamt up that has no basis in existence!

Hugo - this just shows how little coherence your answers have. If there is a bell shaped curve how was it developed without real data? So on the one hand you say its bell shaped meaning numerical data must be involved and then you say it cannot be quantified. Why don't you go and think about qualitative and quantitative or things like nominal, ordinal and interval and ratio scales and then come back.

The bell shaped is an analogy to include the extremes of opinions by scholars in the field which are scattered throughout the spectrum not in regard to subjects of the study or the type of study being run or the criteria for the study.. Do you want to try again?

Hugo - yes let us do that so how do you do it and I will begin by asking do you collect ANY data at all?

in Medicine, we start with epidemiology which is the study of the distribution and causes of disease frequency in human populations, and then we assign types-- descriptive, analytic, experimental, then we look if the study is statistically valid.. we look for errors, confounders, or things that are due to chance-- we assign P values, confidence intervals, and relative risk, and we have different types of studies, cohorts (retrospective, prospective, cross sectional) and the best of all of course is double blind.. we have phases in trials (I through IV) we have types one and two errors or as the statisticians like to refer to them (sins of omission vs sins of commission), we assign said tasks to epidemiologists who have a doctorate in the field.. do you have a doctorate in epidemiology.. if we want to do a cohort between women who give birth at home using midwives vs those in the hospital and evaluate the mortality rate between them, are you the guy we call? or you just want to throw out terms like nominal, categorical, chi square, ordinal, null hypothesis and hope it fluffs up your feathers enough for the locals to scurry from the battle field? .. do you still want to take me on? or perhaps you can cut the crap and tell me what this has to do with the thread 'authenticity of the Quran'?

Hugo - I take it you mean ALL rabbi's? I suggest you read a simple introduction such as "The Jewish People: Their history and their religion, ISBN 0-14-015491-4 (Penguin).

Again, I am at a loss, do you want to show me the relevance of this to the topic or to what I had actually written?

Hugo - one supposes I can ask you the same question? I do value the Torah but I like most Jews know there are 631 laws and regulations commanded by God BUT as I have said before on many occasions that often the circumstances and institutions to which they apply now no longer exist. We all adhere to the 10 commandments, the moral laws and one cannot do better that that - would you not agree? It must one suppose be the same in Islam, you have laws about slavery for instance but slavery now no longer exists does it so those laws are now museum pieces - is that not so?.

You should ask me the same question indeed, I believe this whole exercise is to question why it is I find no value in the old scriptures and I have already answered that.. The Jews seem content following the 'abolished laws' thus perhaps your example is ailing.. . Islam worked to abolish slavery and such I have included a thread on the topic in the other thread..how to deal with modern day slavery would actually be mandated and carried out according to those laws and not a reinterpretation of them.. they are as relevant today as they were then.. Also I believe I have spoken earlier of figh il3ibadat and fiqh il3adat, which you didn't care to comment on, understand how it fits into the scheme of things or whatever reason, ijtihad is always a part of religion. ..

Hugo - we don't seem to be getting anywhere because you refuse or perhaps cannot get your mind to accept that other might think your belief system is an absurdity, I do not wish to be disrespectful but: walking round a building, throwing stones at the devil, jins and so on. I have nowhere as far as I know tried to evangelise on this board - it is not allowed and rightly so.

Pilgrimage is a ritual to signify the path of Abraham .. there are indeed articles that one has to accept on faith.. but even if I didn't have faith, I wouldn't find them as absurd as three people into one with all the previous illogical events that one can't accept on faith or otherwise as they are completely counter intuitive and not in concert with one another.. i.e god preaches something someone else not appointed by god but self appointed abrogates it .. atheists stand in the met and throw their pennies in the pool by the temple and make wishes.. it doesn't change the fact that they are still atheists.. but you wouldn't find them accepting that 1+1+1=1..
I am not sure you've been or would be effective evangelizing nonetheless, do what you will!

Why would I want to 'prove' your beliefs to be wrong, I regard them as personal to you I am not looking for scalps. We discuss but for me its about sharing not destroying and I have learned a good deal in this board. My concern is that you accepts that others can hold their beliefs as strongly as you do with perfect rationality so there is no need to mock or abuse one another is there?

I told you before, I have no reservation if you want to worship cow dung or three gods in one.. I believe this thread and most abusive erroneous queries were started by your own person, and I have in fact given you ample opportunity to just walk away.. what would I care how you live your life?

{5:105] O ye who believe! guard your own souls: if ye follow (right) guidance, no hurt can come to you from those who stray. The goal of you all is to Allah: it is He that will show you the truth of all that ye do.
​

Hugo - I explained the meaning, you don't accept it then there is little I can do

That is a meaning satisfactory to you only, as with the three gods in one, it is illogical to have two verses opposing and accept them both as truth. They nullify each other, or you are left to your own devices to choose which is more correct.. It isn't a matter of simply finding you objectionable.. I find what you preach disagreeable with logic.

Hugo - no Christian worthy of the name would say that the law is not important or ignore the 10 commandments and so strive to live holy and useful lives devoted to God's service on that we can agree. No Christian would say God loves us so we can do what we like and still get forgiveness, if we love God then we cannot even think it would be right to abuse his love in any way and to do so would only prove you have no love for God - do you agree?.

No, I don't agree.. they are just words like 'Jesus is bigger than Allah' or painting crosses on the Quran as they have done in Iraq.. I know how christians behave as I deal with them every day.. In fact the only practicing christians are on board if at all, they only sprout zeal in public when they want to mock the towel heads, not because they have any understanding of why they believe as they do but just to be really patriotic or whatever else like 'freedom and 'democracy' and other chants they can't beging to understand past the utterance of their lips... I hazard say if a towel headed jesus or a covered up mary walked into town, they'd crucify them for real this time around!

Hugo - I am sure they do but I don't think of not doing wrong or engaging in acts of worship as an obligation, I think of it as a demonstration that I love God and want to please him and be useful in all I do. When I first met my wife I would have done anything for her not out of any obligation but out of love and the love she showed me. To hurt her in any way would cause me the utmost pain - do you see what I mean?

I don't like analogies that make god akin to a wife or a kid, nonetheless, I'll play along, Why would anyone do anything for good out of obligation? I think it is rather easier to discard all those rituals and profess love. Dear God, I can't fast today, I know you meant for me to feel as the others do, but I have given two dollars to st. jude's children hospital, out of love for you and the children, and thus I am exempt from duty.. listen, I honestly have no reservation on how you worship or what you believe.. but don't try to convince me of the logic in that, as I see none.

Hugo - you must go your own way and do what you think is right for you. I have no other comment here.

Great, here is to hoping this is the last of your comments then!

No one but you and I would have any idea what the above section is about and that is how it should remain. As always in this board there is no compulsion to join in and any one can ignore anyone else without a crime being committed.

Peace and blessing upon you.

indeed, and peace to you!

all the best

 

[YusufNoor]

Back to the authenticity of the Quran-

It doesn't matter if you had the original writing on the rocks, bones and leaves- you still have to prove that it was Gabriel that spoke to Mohammad [you can't, it is just one guy saying it is, no witnesses of any kind], that he remembered all the verses correctly and the scribes took down the verses correctly.

we don't need "to prove" anything. for us, we have reliable witnesses going back to the 1st day of revelation. the "original writings" you mention were written down contemporaneously; that makes them admissible as evidence and more than good enough for us.

Although that would help because then we would know if the verses had truly come down intact from the first time the verse was written down.

the Qur'an guaranteed that the Prophet of allah would remember the verses correctly

Who took which verse from Mohammd and wrote it down?

we do not have that information, nor do we feel that we need it. by comparison, we still trump your book all to heck!

Why aren't the verses recorded in chronological order?

there actually is a reason for the order that the verses came down, but discussing the issue with the likes of you would be like, "casting pearls before swine!"

Who else heard Gabriel?

the act of the Revelation was witnessed in many cases even if the words were not, HOWEVER, unlike your testimony on Paul's "meeting with Jesus," there are not conflicting accounts!

The only thing that can give any proof that it is from GOD is prophecy given and then later fufilled.

As Salaamu alaykum Sister Skye and any other brothers and sisters that continue to deal with these shayalteen!

we'll have to call this one Ibn Abu Jahl. lets deal with his very last statement and see if he REALLY believes it! for as he writes it, then prophesies NOT fulfilled are a proof that something is NOT from God. that being the case, although probably better done in another thread, i offer the following evidence AGAINST the corrupted scriptures in "the Bible."

Matthew 24:15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time.

26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

THAT generation passed away, and no one saw, "the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." therefore, it is a false prophecy and the J"esus that these Christians worship" is not only NOT God, but is not FROM God at all!

we can assume this won't stop the little Shaytan, so let's add:

The Sign of Jonah [Mathew 12]
38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."

39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one[e] greater than Jonah is here. 42The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.

Jonah was praying in the belly of the fish, and thus alive for " three days and three nights," now Chrisitans claim that Jesus was only in the "belly of the earth" for 2 nights, i day plus an odd hour. ON TOP OF THAT, they claim that Jesus was dead. so NOT like Jonah.

ANOTHER false prophecy!

what about Paul?

1 Thessalonians 4 The Coming of the Lord
13Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.

Paul appears to be preaching that, much like Jesus, the coming of the son of Man is immanent and that he thinks that he will be alive to see it!

CLEARLY this cannot be from God!

now the other shaytan, Ibn Abu Lahab, wants to discount Dr Azami for an [in his opinion] error, claiming that this alleged error, disqualifies him to discuss the Qur'an even though he feels this error is related to available intact manuscripts. well, as i'v said before, this little shaytan is not qualified to discuss the topic either! here's why:

Hugo - look at you own words; "If I take the Qur'an...unerring ..." If this is what you believe then I applaud it but since it cannot be shown to be true or false (unerring and divine) it is a fallacy to argue in this way. It will not become scietifically true, unquestionably true by you repeating yourself?

Who ignores the OT as you say, its part of every Christian Bible. You say for example, you believe in the Torah but I don't see it attached to the Qu'ran and as I have said elsewhere by way of example, there are 631 laws in the Torah and many are outdated now because the circumstance and institutions they referred to do not now exist. Just to be silly about it, you are not suggesting that a leper present himself to the priest to check his disease because that is one command? So what are you talking about?

Originally Quoted by Hugo - You say you believe in a Bible, an uncorrupted one that no one now can see and where is there any rationality in that?

Hugo - one supposes I can ask you the same question? I do value the Torah but I like most Jews know there are 631 laws and regulations commanded by God BUT as I have said before on many occasions that often the circumstances and institutions to which they apply now no longer exist. We all adhere to the 10 commandments, the moral laws and one cannot do better that that - would you not agree? It must one suppose be the same in Islam, you have laws about slavery for instance but slavery now no longer exists does it so those laws are now museum pieces - is that not so?.

well, i know of not a single Jew who believes that there are 631 Mitzvahs in the Torah. NOT ONE! WHY? see:

what is a Mitzvah?

A. A Mitzvah (pronounced MITZ-vah) is a Hebrew word which means “commandment” and “connection.” A Mitzvah is a commandment. If I command you to serve me lunch, that’s a Mitzvah from me to you. The Mitzvahs are G-d’s commandments to the Jewish people in the Torah.

B. There are two types of Mitzvahs mentioned in the Torah: Positive Mitzvahs and Negative Mitzvahs. Positive Mitzvahs tell you, “Do this!”: give charity, eat Matzah, return a lost object. Negative Mitzvahs tell you, “Don’t do this!”: don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t eat on Yom Kippur. There are 248 Positive Mitzvahs and 365 Negative Mitzvahs, for a total of 613.

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/411,99/What-is-a-Mitzvah.html

why Ibn abu Lahab would lie about a thing is a strange matter indeed, but it does call to mind an old saying, "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, then baffle them with B.S"

now as far as:

We all adhere to the 10 commandments, the moral laws and one cannot do better that that - would you not agree?

except minus the "have no other gods before me," "make no graven images" and "honor the sabbath!?"

so, if by "the ten commandments," he means six or seven, i guess...

wa Salaam Brothers and Sisters, don't waste too much of your time with these shayalteen. there is little purpose in it.

:wa:

 

[Uthman]

It seems unlikely that there is any more room for constructive discussion on the topic of this thread. Consequently, this thread will be closed. If members have any objections, please direct them towards the Helpdesk.

:threadclo