Authenticity of the Qur'an

[جوري]

I think it helps if you read what was posted and its context. The lexicon in question is one by Lane and it is the very best there is and no scholar of Arabic or Islam would be without it's 8 volumes. My point was that it is simply foolish to suggest that only Islamic literature is of value.

We are not discussing literature, we are discussing Islamic methodology, jurisprudence, monotheism. on the Comparative section of an Islamic board.. what were you hoping to discuss here? A Woman Waits For Me by Walt Whitman?

You say about great Islamic scholars but we don't have any lexicons from them do we as far as I know. The Arabic we are talking about is as it was spoken and written 1,400 years ago. It follows that to understand it you have to tune in to the use of the language back then.

Not the case, the Arabic of Quyerish is the standard Arabic that is taught in classes. In fact anyone wanting to learn proper grammar can use the Quran for its mere language if nothing else. You can learn proper i3rab simply using the Quran. Nonetheless, I am not familiar with 'greatest book' of Arabic lexicon, I wouldn't deny anyone 8 volumes of hard work in the field of 'vocabulary'-- I still don't see the relations between that and its extension to the science of the Quran and Hadith? Or why any Muslims scholar or Arabic speaker would use it in lieu of the fund of knowledge that we have. Al Azhar is THE OLDEST AND FIRST UNIVERSITY IN THE WORLD. Which is where Many Muslim scholars graduate from. Any Ivy League school was actually adopted after Al-Azhar!

So Lane when he compiled his lexicon would have looked at every bit of Arabic literature he could find (including non-Islamic sources such as Poetry of which there was a good deal) of whatever kind to see how a word was used and hence define its meaning. If you look at the lexicon it not only gives the meaning but also examples from the literature of the time. The Arabic of the Qu'ran was just ordinary everyday Arabic of the time otherwise no one could have understood it. So to understand it now we need lexicons.

That is not true, that last conclusion is your own. Any Arabic speaker can understand the Quran. see above reply on the fact that the Quyerishi Arabic is the standard form of Arabic, hardly any of us, use 'Lane' if at a loss for meaning, and I am not aware of any Scholar that has either. When Leopold Weiss translated the Quran, he did so after living in Saudi Arabia and with Bedouins for 22 years, he was able to capture some of the more elusive terms and gave quite an expansive commentary in his ' The Message of the Quran'

which gets 5 star reviews. He didn't use 'The best Arabic Lexicon' to do so.

 

[Hugo]

You have such audacity to make such claims....!!
Do you think any of the Islamic scholars really use laine's lexicon, are you kidding or something? Is it being taught in Al - azhar or anywhere else, do you think they don't have better sources? They have been taught by people who were taught by people who did talk and live the language. Did Ibn kathir and the likes need laine's lexicon in writing his tafseer? Does Imam al sha'rawi use this lexicon in writing his tafaseer? What in the world are you talking about?

Hugo - perhaps you should look at one of the most respected and widely used English translations of the Qu'ran, that by Yusuf Ali and see what he says in foot notes. One does not teach a lexicon and simply saying that betrays a lack of understanding of what such a tool is. If you are knowledgeable about Al Azhar then tell me what lexicons they use or recommend or if they have Lane's in their library? Go and ask them what their view of it is?

In answer to your question, Ibn Kathir did not use Lane as he was long dead but he was 700 years later that the Prophet so he must have used something. But I guess Al Sha'rawi did since he was born after Lane died. You cannot possibly be suggesting that lexicons are of no value or that every Qu'ranic word is taught at al Azhar one at a time, all 2,822 of them. You cannot seriously be suggesting that the language was passed on one to one without it ever occurring to anyone to write it down as a dictionary or lexicon?

If there is any audacity here it seems to be your view that a lexicon, whoever good has no value unless its written by a Muslim. I suppose you do not accept penicillin as it was not invented by a Muslim or the iPod or cars, or lasers, or text books .....?

Like i said there are hardly any other pieces of ancient arabic literature that are non-Islamic, and if you think about it, it makes sense, in egypt where I live, the christian egyptians are for some reason very fond of the coptic culture and language, even their priests they are not well versed in classical arabic, in fact they hate it, and this is a well known fact, unlike the muslims Imams who or sheikhs who always speak it on radio programs, juma'a prayers etc etc.

Hugo - well I am not expert here I think you will find there is quite a lot of non-Islamic literature; would it be a good thing if there were none? What is wrong with being 'fond of coptic culture'; is that some kind of sin? Are you proud of your Egyptian heritage or would you wish it were all swept away because it is a pagan one? If your mind is so set on Islamic things as the only ones being of value then you are set to lose out in a big way.

Doesn't ever occur to your mind that people learn things orally from their teachers, in fact when it comes to language it is more effective. Again, you keep lying to yourself and make it seem like the arabic of the Qur'an is a dead language, but like I said previously, in all our congregational prayers, radio programs, etc etc, the imams, sheikhs speak that very same language, or almost it to be fair.

I am not aware that I said anywhere that the Qu'ranic language is dead, its old, its not what you use in daily conversations. All I said was that the Qu'ran was written in everyday Arabic of its time so don't invent things I said.

 

[MSalman]

All I said was that the Qu'ran was written in everyday Arabic of its time so don't invent things I said.

yet, they could not bring anything to match the Qur'an: the style, language, content, etc. strange, is it not?

 

[Hugo]

yet, they could not bring anything to match the Qur'an: the style, language, content, etc. strange, is it not?

I assume you mean here that 'at the time' was 1,400 years ago they (who exactly are "they") could not do it then so no its not strange at all but it is not true now is it?

 

[GreyKode]

Hugo - perhaps you should look at one of the most respected and widely used English translations of the Qu'ran, that by Yusuf Ali and see what he says in foot notes. One does not teach a lexicon and simply saying that betrays a lack of understanding of what such a tool is. If you are knowledgeable about Al Azhar then tell me what lexicons they use or recommend or if they have Lane's in their library? Go and ask them what their view of it is?

What are we debating here? I never said it is of no value, in fact I knows its great worth, I simply said that your claim that
"Every muslim and arabic scholar relies on it is simply not true", not beacuase he is a non-muslim, but because they have other sources which are probably more convenient to them, plus like I said earlier the scholars learn from their teachers in an oral fashion, like when you tell me i read this peice of info in one of einstein's books, i will tell you, i got this info when I listened to him personally in one of his lectures or i discussed this with him, obviously the second experience is richer.

In answer to your question, Ibn Kathir did not use Lane as he was long dead but he was 700 years later that the Prophet so he must have used something. But I guess Al Sha'rawi did since he was born after Lane died. You cannot possibly be suggesting that lexicons are of no value or that every Qu'ranic word is taught at al Azhar one at a time, all 2,822 of them. You cannot seriously be suggesting that the language was passed on one to one without it ever occurring to anyone to write it down as a dictionary or lexicon?

Do you even know who sha'rawi is???, like I said earlier, its like saying Maxwell, or say Max planck got his information from einstein.
What was the style of those old great scientists, everybody knows that their sources were highly fragmentary and most likely containing very rich and complex information, like say the works of Gauss etc...
That was the case with sheikh sha'rawi (rahimahullah) he wasn't the kind of person who would use the common man's material in doing his work, he must have referred directly to the sources of the sources.

If there is any audacity here it seems to be your view that a lexicon, whoever good has no value unless its written by a Muslim. I suppose you do not accept penicillin as it was not invented by a Muslim or the iPod or cars, or lasers, or text books .....?

Youre putting words in my mouth, I never said this and you know it, I NEVER SAID THE LEXICON IS OF NO VALUE, you are the one who said that it is the source for every Islamic scholars, this is what i object too like i said earlier the arabic language is embedded in Islam, and was introduced into egypt when Islam entered it, and that goes for Iran, pakistan etc etc

 

[GreyKode]

I assume you mean here that 'at the time' was 1,400 years ago they (who exactly are "they") could not do it then so no its not strange at all but it is not true now is it?

The Quraishi contemporaries of the prophet's time were unmatched Giants in the language, how can you possibly compare them to the people of our time??

 

[MSalman]

I assume you mean here that 'at the time' was 1,400 years ago they

yes.

(who exactly are "they")

I am sorry, but is that not clear - the Arabs, obviouslly. You claimed that Qur'an was revealed in their daily language, which in other words imply that the language of the Qur'an was not superior to Arabs language of that time. Which in fact is either an outright lie or ignorance of history or deliberate deception. If what you claim is true then it should have been very easier for them to match the challenge of the Qur'an. Do you not agree? If so, how come they could not produce anything like the Qur'an? In fact, the history tells us that they admitted their inability to meet the challenge of the Qur'an and thus claiming the superiority of the Qur'an. Now on whatever basis you disagree with those accounts is a whole different stroy

but it is not true now is it?

really, please try this on someone else. Again, like I have told you few times in the past: more evidence and less of your own assertions

 

[Uthman]

Somebody mentioned Yusuf Ali's translation. It must be made clear that Yusuf Ali had no formal Islamic education and is known to make many errors in his commentary. In his book An Introduction to the sciences of the Qur'aan, Yasir Qadhi writes:

The problem with this translation however, is Ali's footnotes. These are indicative of his "Soofi leanings, and smack of apologia and pseudo-rationalism." The Muslim World League released a pamphlet detailing the errors in these footnotes, but this pamphlet was not exhaustive. There have been 'revised' editions of Yusuf Ali's translation published, but even these are not free from error.
​

Yasir Qadhi goes on to expand further and refers to examples. Although not directly related to the topic, this information is relevant to anybody wishing to express a point using Yusuf Ali's work.

Unforunately, most popular does not equal most correct.

 

[Hugo]

What are we debating here? I never said it is of no value, in fact I knows its great worth, I simply said that your claim that
"Every muslim and arabic scholar relies on it is simply not true", not beacuase he is a non-muslim, but because they have other sources which are probably more convenient to them, plus like I said earlier the scholars learn from their teachers in an oral fashion, like when you tell me i read this peice of info in one of einstein's books, i will tell you, i got this info when I listened to him personally in one of his lectures or i discussed this with him, obviously the second experience is richer.

In answer to your question, Ibn Kathir did not use Lane as he was long dead but he was 700 years later that the Prophet so he must have used something. But I guess Al Sha'rawi did since he was born after Lane died. You cannot possibly be suggesting that lexicons are of no value or that every Qu'ranic word is taught at al Azhar one at a time, all 2,822 of them. You cannot seriously be suggesting that the language was passed on one to one without it ever occurring to anyone to write it down as a dictionary or lexicon?

Do you even know who sha'rawi is???, like I said earlier, its like saying Maxwell, or say Max planck got his information from einstein.
What was the style of those old great scientists, everybody knows that their sources were highly fragmentary and most likely containing very rich and complex information, like say the works of Gauss etc...
That was the case with sheikh sha'rawi (rahimahullah) he wasn't the kind of person who would use the common man's material in doing his work, he must have referred directly to the sources of the sources.

Let's agree that we both misundetstood each other and move on. My concern was that you should not dismiss books, ANY book that is good and has value simply because of who the authors is.

Yes, I know of sha'rawi, that is if you are talking about the famous Egyptian cleric? Interestingly it seems he came to fame because he could speak, so his biography goes 'to the common man'.

My own view of those who are learned is that they use everything and anything almost they can get their hands on. So we can learn from the very best textbooks or the dustman and although I know little of sha'rawi he seems a man who was able and willing to keep on learning whatever he was doing or whoever he met and that is one of the reasons he was so popular on TV, he was not content just to repeat but to add and explain. Of course he used the best sources but I am sure he did not neglect what others have said either.

Every Blessing

 

[crizon]

Ah the usual. Muslims claim the Koran is 100% original, while Christians claim the same about the bible.

I did watch a documentary about a scientist who claimed that the Koran was altered on numerous occasions.. he received death threats though.

It's simply a matter of believe for most. No muslim would ever accept a statetment about an alteration of the Koran, even if the proof was solid, just like many people still think the theory of evolution is some sort of gigantic fraud.

 

[جوري]

This thread is about the 'Authenticity of the Quran'-- Do you have something of substance to impart on the matter or just parting wise pearls that you don't care to support?

 

[YusufNoor]

So far in my post I have not brought up the question of authenticity and my posts on Dr Azami's book are about his qualities as a careful scholar.

Let me ask you a question then as per your last sentence - who was the author of the Qu'ran and can you authenticate this person as the one who penned those pages, can you trace the writings back to him or her?

Well tell me where an original copy exist that was checked by prophet Mohammed?

in your very first post you attempt to cloud the issue of the "written" Qur'an when the Rasulullah never had it collected in one place as a book. it wasn't necessary as there were numerous Hafz who knew the Qur'an by heart. not only did they know the Qur'an by heart but there are various hadith on how limits were placed on how often the were allowed to recite the entire Qur'an. the limit was placed at every three days with 7 days being better. only after the martyrdom of dozens and dozens of Hafz and teachers of the Qur'an did Umar ibn Al Kittab even approach Abu Bakr with the idea of putting the "Recitation" together in book form.

IF you've done ANY research, you would know this so you know your question is nonsensical. we understand that you have Mushaff Envy and would like to make the Qur'an seem as questionable as your "Bible."

Hugo - that is fine but does that mean the Sister Skye is Omniscient?

here you are attacking Islam as well as Muslims. we don't assign the attributes of Allah to human beings. it is not correct in Islam, i understand the you Christians do it with various persons or entities, but it is unacceptable in Islam. furthermore, IF any Muslims do it, they are wrong and committing a form of shirk. but again if you've done any research, you already know that.

Interesting here that you confirm there was no collection during the time of the prophet and seem to make nonsense of other posts which say every verse was written down and confirmed by two people - but I suppose you also must know this is not the only tradition?

we'll leave you to explain why you cannot repeatedly understand the difference between Ayats of the Qur'an and the Qur'an as a whole.

Hugo - I know this tradition very well as well as a many others. But here you make logical nonsense. If the verses were all written down with such care why did he have to search at all? How do we know he found all the fragments? Why was the Qu'ran is such disarray, how did he know a fragments was a genuine one and so on. Because you do not read these traditions with care I think you are just creating a minefield for ridicule.

again, same thing. the verses were written down, copies were made to bring to the Sahabah so that they could learn the Ayats/Surah. many Ayats were individually revealed, Surat Al Baqarah has close to 300 verses, many individually, somem in pairs. where you you keep 150 pieces of bone fragments and various other bits IF YOU DIDN'T NEED THEM? and what would you call bone fragments?

Hugo - but how did he know he had every one? It make nonsense because other posts speak of verses being written down and verified by two people and that sounds like great care was taken but what you say looks like lets hope for the best.

written down and verified, then sent out to teach. and it IS possible for Zaid to make a mistake, that's why he didn't do it alone.

and this last bit is rich:

So far in my post I have not brought up the question of authenticity and my posts on Dr Azami's book are about his qualities as a careful scholar.

Let me ask you a question then as per your last sentence - who was the author of the Qu'ran and can you authenticate this person as the one who penned those pages, can you trace the writings back to him or her?

The Qur'an is from Allah and you ask "who is the author of the Qur'an?"] IMMEDIATELY after claiming the you haven't questioned it's authenticity, as well as asking if we can "authenticate Allah"!

i think we should give you a kunya. i dub you Hugo ibn Abee Lahab! may you share his fate!

but looking at your last sentence, you you plan to tell us "who was the author of the each and every book in the Bible and can you authenticate this person as the one who penned those Books, can you trace the writings back to him or her? cuz THAT would make history!

i eagerly await your report

 

[Ramadhan]

Ah the usual. Muslims claim the Koran is 100% original, while Christians claim the same about the bible.

Christians claim the bible is 100% original? Really? In what sense?

I did watch a documentary about a scientist who claimed that the Koran was altered on numerous occasions.. he received death threats though.

It's simply a matter of believe for most. No muslim would ever accept a statetment about an alteration of the Koran, even if the proof was solid, just like many people still think the theory of evolution is some sort of gigantic fraud.

Please produce the 'solid proof' that Qur'an is altered.

 

['Abd-al Latif]

Ah the usual. Muslims claim the Koran is 100% original, while Christians claim the same about the bible.

I did watch a documentary about a scientist who claimed that the Koran was altered on numerous occasions.. he received death threats though.

It's simply a matter of believe for most. No muslim would ever accept a statetment about an alteration of the Koran, even if the proof was solid, just like many people still think the theory of evolution is some sort of gigantic fraud.

The Qur'an is the same Qur'an from the last 1400 years because countless Muslims have memorized the Qur'an in our day and age. And if person A makes a mistake or says something that isn't in the Qur'an whether this be an ateration, addition or whatever then person B will correct him, even if these two Muslims have never met. If you throw every last copy of the Qur'an into the river and then bring a person from germany, another from russia, another from america and another from australia who have memorized the Qur'an then we will have the same Qur'an back in our hands because this is an unaltered book that has been preserved through time. Thus, putting an end to your nonsense.

But perhaps some of us just want to believe that we were once monkies, mating without shame while the world watches on and then sleeping in our own waste. Maybe some of us want's to believe the proof for this lies in the fact they their physical appearence is similar to that of a human, and their emotions are similar to that of humanly emotions such as laughter and sadness, thus coming to the 'undeniable' conclusion that he is our dear father and mother.

Not me though. Common sense played a major part in teaching me otherwise :thumbs_up.

 

[Hugo]

Originally Posted by Hugo
So far in my post I have not brought up the question of authenticity and my posts on Dr Azami's book are about his qualities as a careful scholar. Let me ask you a question then as per your last sentence - who was the author of the Qu'ran and can you authenticate this person as the one who penned those pages, can you trace the writings back to him or her? Well tell me where an original copy exists that was checked by prophet Mohammed?

in your very first post you attempt to cloud the issue of the "written" Qur'an when the Rasulullah never had it collected in one place as a book. it wasn't necessary as there were numerous Hafz who knew the Qur'an by heart etc. IF you've done ANY research, you would know this so you know your question is nonsensical. we understand that you have Mushaff Envy and would like to make the Qur'an seem as questionable as your "Bible."

Hugo - if you had done any research you would know there are many traditions and they do not all agree. You simply accept this one without question and complain that others do not. In what way is the Bible Questionable since many of the stories are repeated in the Qu'ran so it must be questionnable also? To talk of 'envy' is an absurdity.

Hugo - that is fine but does that mean the Sister Skye is Omniscient?

Here you are attacking Islam as well as Muslims. we don't assign the attributes of Allah to human beings. it is not correct in Islam, i understand the you Christians do it with various persons or entities, but it is unacceptable in Islam. furthermore, IF any Muslims do it, they are wrong and committing a form of shirk. but again if you've done any research, you already know that.

Hugo - I cannot follow your logic here from my quote and perhaps if you examined the Qu'ran you might notice that Allah can see. Is it wrong to say address God as 'father' or describe God as a might fortress a rock or that he stretches out his hand and so on. I don't think I have attacked Islam but simply asked questions about it and there is a big difference. If you see every criticism or question as an attack that sounds like paranoia - do you see it like that.

Hugo - I know this tradition very well as well as a many others. But here you make logical nonsense. If the verses were all written down with such care why did he have to search at all? How do we know he found all the fragments? Why was the Qu'ran is such disarray, how did he know a fragments was a genuine one and so on. Because you do not read these traditions with care I think you are just creating a minefield for ridicule.

again, same thing. the verses were written down, copies were made to bring to the Sahabah so that they could learn the Ayats/Surah. many Ayats were individually revealed, Surat Al Baqarah has close to 300 verses, many individually, somem in pairs. where you you keep 150 pieces of bone fragments and various other bits IF YOU DIDN'T NEED THEM? and what would you call bone fragments?

Hugo - you brought this up not me so please answer my questions. Here we have to ask was this done right from the first revelation, day one?

Originally Posted by Hugo - So far in my post I have not brought up the question of authenticity and my posts on Dr Azami's book are about his qualities as a careful scholar. Let me ask you a question then as per your last sentence - who was the author of the Qu'ran and can you authenticate this person as the one who penned those pages, can you trace the writings back to him or her?

The Qur'an is from Allah and you ask "who is the author of the Qur'an?"] IMMEDIATELY after claiming the you haven't questioned it's authenticity, as well as asking if we can "authenticate Allah"!

Hugo - let us be clear here, YOU brought up the question regarding authenticity in your post. All I am doing is following it with a question and I have an open mind on the issue. Here your answer must be based on a fallacy of the kind related to falsifiability - I cannot falsify your claim that the author of the Qu'ran is God and you cannot prove it. So we get nowhere in terms of enlightenment.

i think we should give you a kunya. i dub you Hugo ibn Abee Lahab! may you share his fate!

Hugo - I wonder what honorific I might apply to you - but then I don't resort to spiteful insults do I?

but looking at your last sentence, you you plan to tell us "who was the author of the each and every book in the Bible and can you authenticate this person as the one who penned those Books, can you trace the writings back to him or her? cuz THAT would make history! i eagerly await your report.

Answering your last question sis easy, I simply resort to the same fallacy you used "The Bible is from God and you ask "who is the author of the Bible?" Immediately after claiming the you have questioned it's authenticity, as well as asking if we can "authenticate God"! (incidentally do you know who wrote down each and every Qu'ran verse all 6000 or so?) [/COLOR]

 

[Hugo]

The Qur'an is the same Qur'an from the last 1400 years because countless Muslims have memorized the Qur'an in our day and age. And if person A makes a mistake or says something that isn't in the Qur'an whether this be an ateration, addition or whatever then person B will correct him, even if these two Muslims have never met. If you throw every last copy of the Qur'an into the river and then bring a person from germany, another from russia, another from america and another from australia who have memorized the Qur'an then we will have the same Qur'an back in our hands because this is an unaltered book that has been preserved through time. Thus, putting an end to your nonsense.

But perhaps some of us just want to believe that we were once monkies, mating without shame while the world watches on and then sleeping in our own waste. Maybe some of us want's to believe the proof for this lies in the fact they their physical appearence is similar to that of a human, and their emotions are similar to that of humanly emotions such as laughter and sadness, thus coming to the 'undeniable' conclusion that he is our dear father and mother.

Not me though. Common sense played a major part in teaching me otherwise :thumbs_up.

Why cannot Christians and Jews use the same argument, there are thousands upon thousands of manuscripts so getting them together would allow reconstruction?

Just as a matter of interest what on earth is the second paragraph about as it does not to me anyway seem to have the remotest connection to the subject of this thread? I also cannot quite fathom why common sense taught you otherwise - if Einstein had relied on common sense we would not have relativity?

 

[MSalman]

I have an open mind on the issue

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

I wonder what honorific I might apply to you - but then I don't resort to spiteful insults do I?

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

This is your methodology, let us talk about that and not issues which would make you avoid the core problem.

do you know who wrote down each and every Qu'ran verse all 6000 or so?

yes we do know. Now, do you know the unknown writers of the Bible? If you knew the authors they would not be unknown now, would they?

 

['Abd-al Latif]

Why cannot Christians and Jews use the same argument, there are thousands upon thousands of manuscripts so getting them together would allow reconstruction?

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

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

 

[جوري]

Hugo - if you had done any research you would know there are many traditions and they do not all agree. You simply accept this one without question and complain that others do not. In what way is the Bible Questionable since many of the stories are repeated in the Qu'ran so it must be questionnable also? To talk of 'envy' is an absurdity.

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

Quote:

Hugo - I cannot follow your logic here from my quote and perhaps if you examined the Qu'ran you might notice that Allah can see. Is it wrong to say address God as 'father' or describe God as a might fortress a rock or that he stretches out his hand and so on. I don't think I have attacked Islam but simply asked questions about it and there is a big difference. If you see every criticism or question as an attack that sounds like paranoia - do you see it like that.

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

as per verse 3:7 and commentary:
He it is who has bestowed upon thee from on high this divine writ, containing messages that are clear in and by themselves - and these are the essence of the divine writ- as well as others that are allegorical. Now those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out [what is bound to create] confusion, and seeking [to arrive at] its final meaning [in an arbitrary manner]; but none save God knows its final meaning. Hence, those who are deeply rooted in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole [of the divine writ] is from our Sustainer - albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight.


According to most of the early commentators, this refers to the interpretation of allegorical passages which deal with metaphysical subjects - for instance, God's attributes, the ultimate meaning of time and eternity, the resurrection of the dead, the Day of Judgment, paradise and hell, the nature of the beings or forces described as angels, and so forth - all of which fall within the category of al-ghayb, i.e., that sector of reality which is beyond the reach of human perception and imagination and cannot, therefore, be conveyed to man in other than allegorical terms. This view of the classical commentators, however, does not seem to take into account the many Qur'anic passages which do not deal with metaphysical subjects and yet are, undoubtedly, allegorical in intent and expression. To my mind, one cannot arrive at a correct understanding of the above passage without paying due attention to the nature and function of allegory as such. A true allegory - in contrast with a mere pictorial paraphrase of something that could equally well be stated in direct terms - is always meant to express in a figurative manner something which, because of its complexity, cannot be adequately expressed in direct terms or propositions and, because of this very complexity, can be grasped only intuitively, as a general mental image, and not as a series of detailed "statements": and this seems to be the meaning of the phrase, "none save God knows its final meaning".


Q

Hugo - you brought this up not me so please answer my questions. Here we have to ask was this done right from the first revelation, day one?

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

Hugo - let us be clear here, YOU brought up the question regarding authenticity in your post. All I am doing is following it with a question and I have an open mind on the issue. Here your answer must be based on a fallacy of the kind related to falsifiability - I cannot falsify your claim that the author of the Qu'ran is God and you cannot prove it. So we get nowhere in terms of enlightenment.

Sure you can always falsify the claim. Either by bringing the names and dates of those who dictated the Quran to the messenger and account for every last verse, i.e those chapters that held no meaning except to modern times (for instance after the recent find of the lost city of ubar (the people of Aa'd) of whom for the longest time was dubbed as a Quranic fable. The stories of old, current, and future, as was also revealed years apart but put so in the order dictated by Gabriel (the way the verses were revealed) for instance the last two verses which go into the second chapter, or the first which go at the end. You'd need a computer or a filling cabinet and still be prune to major error. We all know that the Messanger died poor with his armor pawned to a Jew, so perhaps also a motive would be great or take the easiest route of all, and bring a forth a sura like it, which was the actual challenge of the Quran for those who have held doubt.
Bring a chapter albeit as long as the shortest one, and have it fulfil the criteria or rhyme, reason, syntax, lyricism and cover every aspect of man's life as such does the Quran, from politics, economics, social structure, inheritance, and spiritual guidance and call upon your own witnsses for comparison!

Answering your last question sis easy, I simply resort to the same fallacy you used "The Bible is from God and you ask "who is the author of the Bible?" Immediately after claiming the you have questioned it's authenticity, as well as asking if we can "authenticate God"! (incidentally do you know who wrote down each and every Qu'ran verse all 6000 or so?) [/COLOR]

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

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

all the best

 

[MSalman]

I cannot believe I missed this

if you examined the Qu'ran you might notice that Allah can see

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

describe God as a might fortress a rock or that he stretches out his hand and so on.

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