Authenticity of the Qur'an

[Uthman]

Let's keep to discussing the authenticity of the Qur'an and not get sidetracked. Thank you.

 

[- IqRa -]

May I dare ask why? I believe if you get evidence of something, your belief in that doctrine is enhanced. Isn't that the case?

Plus I have read so much negative stuff in this forum. I am wondering if I am at the right place or not? Are you guys open to discussion? Because I am more of a Muslim who is slowly moving away from his faith. I might come back to Islam duirng my course of study I might not.

Your religion is based on faith. In this way, you will be wanting evidence of Heaven and Hell, which you can never get - that is all based on faith. If you are wanting evidence, then you will start looking for evidence of Allah as well (naudhubillah-may Allah protect us from this), and then your mind will become that of an atheists, who says that "nothing is there until proven" and they can never believe that Allah can be proved. Comprehende?

 

[Hugo]

Another attempt by your person to deflect-- given you have no idea of the man or his work had I not actually written his name down here to google.. You are now an expert via google on pathology, microbiology and medical ethics?
the point has always been, having a grand title next to your name doesn't automatically a scholar make you or exempt you from error, except the people whose names you bring and allege scholarship are nothing but mere unread apostates and orientalist with an agenda not dissimilar to yours as such not even a title of scholarship has been bestowed upon them from a governing body for it to be taken away later as a matter of 'ethics' or research that is both unproved and unprovable!

It is YOU who brought in this Dr Martin as a way of deflecting or avoiding the argument. My I ask you:

1. What makes a scholar? Frankly, it looks like your definition is it is anyone who agrees with you or Islam.

2. Are ALL Orientalist bad scholars and if so do you know the name of the person who produce the worlds best Arabic lexicon, all 8 volumes of it used by scholars the world over whether Muslin or not?

3. Are all apostates and Orientalist automatically unread?

4. Is your view that the Qu'ran now in your possession that it has no faults whatever: grammar is perfect, poetry is perfect, rhythm is perfect etc. A plain yes or no will do.

5. Let us supposed that I or anyone can show that it is not perfect in any of these respects - what will you do, will your faith be in tatters?

 

[Uthman]

Off-topic posts discussing whether Islam is based solely on faith have been moved to this thread. Normally, off-topic posts would be deleted but I decided to move them to a new thread since deleting these particular posts would have been a waste. This is the second time I have had to do this. If it happens again, infractions will be issued and if it persists even then, this thread will be closed.

 

[جوري]

It is YOU who brought in this Dr Martin as a way of deflecting or avoiding the argument. My I ask you:

Indeed, to make a point, which you haphazardly googled to make yourself into an insta-scholar, which you are not!

1. What makes a scholar? Frankly, it looks like your definition is it is anyone who agrees with you or Islam.

depends in what field one gains scholarship into and ifs/he upholds with maintenance in said field, as such, bringing an example of someone who has gained scholarship and failed to uphold the integrity of said title for whatever reasons, monetary gain, personal gain, hateful agenda, or early onset dementia may have such privileges questioned openly.

2. Are ALL Orientalist bad scholars and if so do you know the name of the person who produce the worlds best Arabic lexicon, all 8 volumes of it used by scholars the world over whether Muslin or not?

One not only questions the titles you bestow so freely but its extension to other fields. Say I accept that he produced the world's 'best Arabic lexicon' by what token does that extend itself to the Tawhid, fiqh, methodology, jurisprudence? further still by what rights is he able to produce conclusions for which there is no comparative studies? in other words where is his before that he so concludes differs in the after and what everyone else agrees upon?

3. Are all apostates and Orientalist automatically unread?

Those whose work I have come across are grossly absured, and can and have been easily refuted by others with actual knowledge in the field. You need only but browse the site given that any of you learned by 2nd hand usually happens at the hands of such apostates rather than learning at the source and come with the same cuts and pastes that elicit a merry guffaw from the rest.. Not merely for its strawman but for the bravado with which you display second hand wrong information.
Not only are you reading cliff notes, but reading the cliff notes of failures!

4. Is your view that the Qu'ran now in your possession that it has no faults whatever: grammar is perfect, poetry is perfect, rhythm is perfect etc. A plain yes or no will do.

Yes, it is perfect. The indisputable word of God!

5. Let us supposed that I or anyone can show that it is not perfect in any of these respects - what will you do, will your faith be in tatters?

No! my faith won't be in tatters

 

[Hugo]

my pleasure indeed.. for a better more thorough read may I recommend a history of Quranic text from revelation to compilation by Dr. Al-Azami

I have looked art Dr Al-Azmai's book and it is well produced and referenced and his Islamic and other qualifications are impeccable. According to Dr Azami the book is 1/3 about the Bible and 2/3 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.

Page xvi and xvii where either his bias causes him to loses his objectivity or he is simply a bit careless but either way he is very selective in his words.

He quotes Bruce Metzger who was (he died a few years ago) a distinguished New Testament scholar and here Azami tries to show that the Gospels are a 10th century creation for he (Azami) writes:

.. the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospels were written c. the 10th century...

but Metzger states within a section in his book that lists the important witnesses to the text of the New Testament and this manuscript goes by the designation "S"

This is one of the earliest[/B] dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospel; a colophon states that is was written by a monk named Michael .....

One has to wonder why in his text Azami leaves out the word "one" and neither does he tell us that a colophon was involved. Frankly it looks like he is misleading deliberately or unintentionally the reader into thinking that all NT text are 10th century or later and one wonders what he understood by the words "were written" and is he trying to imply that the monk wrote the Gospels whereas the colophon inclusion makes it clear that what is meant here by written is copied?

There are many other issues in the text of this book if anyone wants to discuss it.


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)

 

[جوري]

I have looked art Dr Al-Azmai's book and it is well produced and referenced and his Islamic and other qualifications are impeccable. 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.

lol, from which website did you leech your 'critique'?..
in fact from page 1-211 is dedicated entirely to the Quran. 211 on he discusses history of biblical scriptures, then the orientalist motivation in a book that is 339 pages I'll leave it to the discerning reader to do the math.
And in fact he is allowed to address other very pertinent topics a good book doesn't simply address one subject but espouses objectively other points of interest..

Page xvi and xvii where either his bias causes him to loses his objectivity or he is simply a bit careless but either way he is very selective in his words.

His preface is excellent and very objective.. I must admit you've tickled me pink with that comment. Do you just like subjects that appeal to your desired views even if they have no bearing in reality and especially when gauging a topic that is completely outside your sphere of expertise?

He quotes Bruce Metzger who was (he died a few years ago) a distinguished New Testament scholar and here Azami tries to show that the Gospels are a 10th century creation for he (Azami) writes:

.. the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospels were written c. the 10th century...

but Metzger states within a section in his book that lists the important witnesses to the text of the New Testament and this manuscript goes by the designation "S"

What exactly does that mean? What does S signify?

This is one of the earliest[/B] dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospel; a colophon states that is was written by a monk named Michael .....

One has to wonder why in his text Azami leaves out the word "one" and neither does he tell us that a colophon was involved. Frankly it looks like he is misleading deliberately or unintentionally the reader into thinking that all NT text are 10th century or later and one wonders what he understood by the words "were written" and is he trying to imply that the monk wrote the Gospels whereas the colophon inclusion makes it clear that what is meant here by written is copied?

Page 151 he doesn't simply Quote metzger, he also cites Ernest Wurhwein, the text of the old Testament 2nd edition 2- Bart D. Ehrman. Orthodox corruption of the scriptures. Which he delves into with expansive detail in later chapters. so I am afraid the point you are trying to make here is lost to me and very moot at that!

There are many other issues in the text of this book if anyone wants to discuss it.


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)

The issues unfortunately are your own and ironically you don't see them as such when quoting orientalists that have been thoroughly annihilated in Dr. Al-Azami's excellent book!
but you are certainly welcome to address them!

all the best

 

[rk9414]

Is the Quran Perfectly Preserved - Zawadi vs. Qureshi - 01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWK1xv0Bt-A&feature=channel_page

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQJwGK0vKfA&feature=channel

 

[Hugo]

lol, from which website did you leech your 'critique'?.. in fact from page 1-211 is dedicated entirely to the Quran. 211 on he discusses history of biblical scriptures, then the orientalist motivation in a book that is 339 pages I'll leave it to the discerning reader to do the math.
And in fact he is allowed to address other very pertinent topics a good book doesn't simply address one subject but espouses objectively other points of interest..

I take exception to your remarks as they are totally unjustified and uncalled for. I have a copy of the book and have read it. If there are sites which critique this book then tell us where they are as I know of none and have searched for none.

In this case there are many points I would like to discuss and that is why I made the post. If you wish to discuss them then please do and refrain from making scurrilous accusation.

 

[جوري]

Is the Quran Perfectly Preserved - Zawadi vs. Qureshi - 01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWK1xv0Bt-A&feature=channel_page

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQJwGK0vKfA&feature=channel

he is not interested in all of that.. he is interested in dots and imaginary manuscripts that he can't find, yet ironically unable to subject his own biblcal forgeries to the similar critique if at all!

 

[جوري]

I take exception to your remarks as they are totally unjustified and uncalled for. I have a copy of the book and have read it. If there are sites which critique this book then tell us where they are as I know of none and have searched for none.

In this case there are many points I would like to discuss and that is why I made the post. If you wish to discuss them then please do and refrain from making scurrilous accusation.

Actually it is very justified and I have proven it above with simple math, and simple citations from said page.


all the best

 

[Hugo]

His preface is excellent and very objective.. I must admit you've tickled me pink with that comment. Do you just like subjects that appeal to your desired views even if they have no bearing in reality and especially when gauging a topic that is completely outside your sphere of expertise?

What exactly does that mean? What does S signify?

Page 151 he doesn't simply Quote metzger, he also cites Ernest Wurhwein, the text of the old Testament 2nd edition 2- Bart D. Ehrman. Orthodox corruption of the scriptures. Which he delves into with expansive detail in later chapters. so I am afraid the point you are trying to make here is lost to me and very moot at that!

The issues unfortunately are your own and ironically you don't see them as such when quoting orientalists that have been thoroughly annihilated in Dr. Al-Azami's excellent book! but you are certainly welcome to address them!
all the best

Dealing with you points

1. You have to show it's objective and I have given one example where his objectivity is called into question.

2. All New Testament manuscripts are given an identifying code and in the one referred to by Dr Azami in the Metzger quote is commonly labelled "S"

3. I am aware that Dr Azami quotes many sources but in my post I cited one and gave you the page number and it seems to me in this case (we can look at others later) Dr Azami has been selective in order to imply an unjustified conclusion. If you see it differently then that is fine but please explain how you read that part of the text.

I mention this point and I will mention others because they call into question the scholarly even handedness of what Dr Azami is saying and how he make his case. I see nothing wrong in doing that in order to find out if Dr Azami can be trusted or not. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Hugo]

Actually it is very justified and I have proven it above with simple math, and simple citations from said page.

all the best

I was talking about your accusation - "from which website did you leech your 'critique'?" and I object to it because I gave clear and exact references. Your point about math is justified but if you look you will see I corrected my post as soon as I realised I had put 1/3 and 2/3 backwards but I was referring to Dr Azami's own words on page xv.

 

[جوري]

Dealing with you points

1. You have to show it's objective and I have given one example where his objectivity is called into question.

There is more to objectivity, than your mere subjective view of it.
You have actualyl done no such a thing as 'shown me'-- firstly you've failed to understand the book with a pre-conceived brusque dismissal of its veracity resting on the failure of the NT. Which is in fact not true at all. Anyone who have merely opened the book will not only see side by side comparative early manuscripts, evolution of Arabic pre-dating Aramaic, with inscriptions on early rocks all throughout Arabia, as well different styles of writing, from Cursive, Kufi.. to Arabic paleography and orthography.. and a very well detailed account of the early hafith, the dissemination of the Quranic text and the institutionalizing of scholars to teach the content therein.
Yet you have the audacity to sit there and tell me how the Quran's authenticity rests on the failure of the OT as per this book? Without any regard to later chapters the book has gone into dates, names and account from pre-Islamic Arabia to Muslim conquests, leads me to one of two conclusions
1- You've never read the book
2- You have bought and dismissed it because you don't like the truth therein!

2. All New Testament manuscripts are given an identifying code and in the one referred to by Dr Azami in the Metzger quote is commonly labelled "S"

Again, I don't see the applicability of this to the discussion!
Do you have a passage at hand that is a reality that he has passed off as forgery?

3. I am aware that Dr Azami quotes many sources but in my post I cited one and gave you the page number and it seems to me in this case (we can look at others later) Dr Azami has been selective in order to imply an unjustified conclusion. If you see it differently then that is fine but please explain how you read that part of the text.

Actually, you are the one who is selective since you have failed to mention the other two scholars on the same page and their comments to a particular passage!

I mention this point and I will mention others because they call into question the scholarly even handedness of what Dr Azami is saying and how he make his case. I see nothing wrong in doing that in order to find out if Dr Azami can be trusted or not. Do you have a problem with that?

I have a problem with prevaricators yes, but in this case it is quite easy to point out where...
in the future and for your own sake, try to spend more time on subject matter than adhoms and red herrings, as you have seen in this case the circuitous route has failed to avail you!...


all the best

 

[جوري]

I was talking about your accusation - "from which website did you leech your 'critique'?" and I object to it because I gave clear and exact references. Your point about math is justified but if you look you will see I corrected my post as soon as I realised I had put 1/3 and 2/3 backwards but I was referring to Dr Azami's own words on page xv.

You have corrected it as soon as you realized, I have the book at hand and can leaf through it. I'd choose what I write from now on very wisely.. taking us for a ride on the country side in this case isn't going to work in your favor.. and in fact if you are willing to lie and see if you can get away with it 'once', well foreshadows your ethics in general.. except, I have actually known that all along, despite of admin's attempts to prove to me that you are a scholar and not a troll!


all the best

 

[جوري]

page 151 the one in question and let me quote:

" The first of these relates to the OT, the others to the NT. All three meticulously categorize mistakes of this nature with terms like transpositions, haplography, and dittography. Occasionally probing into the very mind of the now deceased scribe to show what distraction must have flashed through his mind as he committed his silly mistakes thousands of years ago 1 refer to pp. 243-4 and 287-9
but the same testament isn't afforded the Quran. And in fact many errors-- obvious scribal blunders resulting from exhaustion-- are treated as genuine variants, as evidence of corruption in the Muslim holy book.

True that it is difficult to ascertain whether an error is intentional or deliberate, let's us therefore tackle the two possibilities. etc etc etc...

care to show me how the 'S' in Metzger's work relates to what is written in the page you've cited and left out the other two mentioned?

 

[Hugo]

There is more to objectivity, than your mere subjective view of it. You have actualyl done no such a thing as 'shown me'-- firstly you've failed to understand the book with a pre-conceived brusque dismissal of its veracity resting on the failure of the NT. Which is in fact not true at all. Anyone who have merely opened the book will not only see side by side comparative early manuscripts, evolution of Arabic pre-dating Aramaic, with inscriptions on early rocks all throughout Arabia, as well different styles of writing, from Cursive, Kufi.. to Arabic paleography and orthography.. and a very well detailed account of the early hafith, the dissemination of the Quranic text and the institutionalizing of scholars to teach the content therein.
Yet you have the audacity to sit there and tell me how the Quran's authenticity rests on the failure of the OT as per this book? Without any regard to later chapters the book has gone into dates, names and account from pre-Islamic Arabia to Muslim conquests, leads me to one of two conclusions
1- You've never read the book
2- You have bought and dismissed it because you don't like the truth therein!Again, I don't see the applicability of this to the discussion!
Do you have a passage at hand that is a reality that he has passed off as forgery?
Actually, you are the one who is selective since you have failed to mention the other two scholars on the same page and their comments to a particular passage!
I have a problem with prevaricators yes, but in this case it is quite easy to point out where...
in the future and for your own sake, try to spend more time on subject matter than adhoms and red herrings, as you have seen in this case the circuitous route has failed to avail you!...
all the best

One hopes that you will read the post but:

1. I pointed out an inconsistency in Azami's book on page xv and xvi and gave my interpretation. You are now free to look at the same text and agree or offer a different account.

2. You are right about the book being comparative but I was not referring to anything other that the page I cited. I made no comment about Arabic script, the veracity or otherwise for the NT, OT, hadith or Qu'ranic dissemination or authenticity, I have not dismissed the book indeed I have done none of the things you mention and I suggest you stop inventing and I ask that you simply read the post and respond on what was said if you wish to and can.

The book is about 375 pages long and no one can in all honesty deal with that in one post and that is why I started where I did and if there is any interest I will work through it bit by bit. Nothing else is reasonable is it?

3. On the page I mentioned only Metzger has any relevance to my point and you seem to be talking about page 151 and I did not mention that at all.

4. You seem to be suggesting that I am attacking Dr Azami at a personal level rather like you are attacking me here. But all I was doing was attempting to establish whether the work is an unbiased scholarly account and that is perfectly reasonable. I am sure you agree as you often attack Orientalists on the same ground.

 

[Hugo]

page 151 the one in question and let me quote:

"The first of these relates to the OT, the others to the NT. All three meticulously categorize mistakes of this nature with terms like transpositions, haplography, and dittography. Occasionally probing into the very mind of the now deceased scribe to show what distraction must have flashed through his mind as he committed his silly mistakes thousands of years ago 1 refer to pp. 243-4 and 287-9[/B]
but the same testament isn't afforded the Quran. And in fact many errors-- obvious scribal blunders resulting from exhaustion-- are treated as genuine variants, as evidence of corruption in the Muslim holy book.

True that it is difficult to ascertain whether an error is intentional or deliberate, let's us therefore tackle the two possibilities. etc etc etc...

care to show me how the 'S' in Metzger's work relates to what is written in the page you've cited and left out the other two mentioned?

This is a quotation from Azimi's book page 151 but I have no idea why you introduce it in response to my post because I never mentioned any of the ideas dealt with here in post 86. I will comment on this page later but can we stick to the pages I mentioned for the time being.

I have already explained what the designation "S" implies. It has no significance with regard to errors of any kind or authenticity, it is just the way that Biblical scholars refer to the particular manuscript mention by Metzger. I only mentioned it in case someone wanted to go a little deeper.

Post 86 asks why Dr Azami omitted a critical word with regard to what Metzger actually said and that is at the heart of my question in post 86.

 

[جوري]

One hopes that you will read the post but:

1. I pointed out an inconsistency in Azami's book on page xv and xvi and gave my interpretation. You are now free to look at the same text and agree or offer a different account.

Which part did you dislike? was it this?

Orientalists have often focused on the possibility of deep seated corruption crawling into the text within this time span. Strangely many biblical scholars deem the text of the OT to be historically viable even though some of the OT book were maintained purely as an oral tradition for up to 8 centuries source cited at the end of the page.
or orientalist spotlight has been on the Arabic script with discussions of its shortcomings, though it only took a half a century from the prophet's death for the text to evolve and extinguish its initial ambiguities? They blame this period again for triggering textual distortions, though in doing so they contradict themselves and negate their earlier emphasis on 'oral transmission' (which is a fact, in that people were memorizing the Quran even while they possessed it in written form) etc etc etc
​

To be quite honest, I am not seeing what you are seeing, he is clearly pointing out the hypocrisy of accepting an oral tradition as true to a T after 8 centuries while denying the same truth to Quranic text even whilst it was passed on orally, they possessed it in written form!

Perhaps there is something you've picked on that we have missed considering he doesn't speak of whim rather well sources all that he writes which ironically isn't even critiqued by Muslim scholars so we could dismiss their distortions as a leeway to perpetuate their own agenda!

2. You are right about the book being comparative but I was not referring to anything other that the page I cited. I made no comment about Arabic script, the veracity or otherwise for the NT, OT, hadith or Qu'ranic dissemination or authenticity, I have not dismissed the book indeed I have done none of the things you mention and I suggest you stop inventing and I ask that you simply read the post and respond on what was said if you wish to and can.

You wrote and pls allow me to Quote.

Originally Posted by Hugo
-- 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.

amongst other things, come on man, it was just last page.. If you have other intentions by your words then why not choose other words?

The book is about 375 pages long and no one can in all honesty deal with that in one post and that is why I started where I did and if there is any interest I will work through it bit by bit. Nothing else is reasonable is it?

You made a comment about one scholar in the book whom if I leaf simply through the index since I don't know the pages by heart, I find a brief mention of his name with two others, none of the text on said page is about the work of any of the three, and the fellow isn't mentioned elsewhere according to the index alone where his name is referenced on page 151.. how exactly would you like me to interpret that?
If the topic is too lengthy and you are not adept at discussing it at length, by all means, I promise I too have better things to do with my life, I'd have rather been completing my chapter on the physiology of heart contraction in my other lengthy thread if nothing else at all with the rest of my day, nonetheless you brought it up.. I didn't start this but I'll finish it.. It is just good manners!

3. On the page I mentioned only Metzger has any relevance to my point and you seem to be talking about page 151 and I did not mention that at all.

I know you left a name and as per above I followed the index to see how he is pertinent and found a mention of him on page 151 alone-- leaving me in a tizzy as to the pertinenece of s's and o's

4. You seem to be suggesting that I am attacking Dr Azami at a personal level rather like you are attacking me here. But all I was doing was attempting to establish whether the work is an unbiased scholarly account and that is perfectly reasonable. I am sure you agree as you often attack Orientalists on the same ground.

Not at all, I attack orientalist as per first pargraph on hypocrisy in dealing with Islamic text, which they can't seem to bestow similar integrity in loaning biblical text.. Nonetheless, not only are they far off, but they have also failed to show how in such a brief period of time Quranic text could have been corrupted or a before and after of the corruption, and as stated above, Dr. Al-Azami's book is more defensive than offensive, whatever 'offense' you might find therein is actually cited by western scholars, not Muslim ones...


all the best!

 

[جوري]

This is a quotation from Azimi's book page 151 but I have no idea why you introduce it in response to my post because I never mentioned any of the ideas dealt with here in post 86. I will comment on this page later but can we stick to the pages I mentioned for the time being.

I have already explained what the designation "S" implies. It has no significance with regard to errors of any kind or authenticity, it is just the way that Biblical scholars refer to the particular manuscript mention by Metzger. I only mentioned it in case someone wanted to go a little deeper.

Post 86 asks why Dr Azami omitted a critical word with regard to what Metzger actually said and that is at the heart of my question in post 86.

Go to the index of The History of The Quranic text, page 367
and follow it down to Metzger, Bruce M., 151
to put it in plain English, you mentioned this guy as having been misquoted or misrepresented in some form, which you failed to expound on as pertains to Dr. Al-Azami. I went to the index to see where Dr. Al'Azami made the error.. I found this fellow's name mentioned with two others and nothing in the following text pertinent to S's or O's in fact I have gone so far above as to write out the paragraph subsequent to their name mention.. either way I am still not sure even if he really did make a mistake, where it is, as you deliberately choose ambiguity and throw in random terminology from which the reader is to decipher what s/he may.. try to walk in the light Hugo.. one thing to be astray and another thing to lead the herd astray with you simply because you are banking on their ignorance of a topic where your own knowledge is quite superficial!

I don't want distillate if we are discussing issues of this caliber I'd like the finite details as per al-azami's book.. and you are welcome to walk free from it as well, as stated above, this is and has been a complete waste as you enjoy going thoroughly on tangentiality if not actual circumstantiality. It doesn't take a scholar to understand the text.. all one really needs is to sit down and actually read!


all the best!