Please give an example where my terminology is specialised or not appropriate? Does Dr Azami use 'special' terminology?
deflections such as these:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifi...rove-quran-very-words-god-23.html#post1276206
serve no purpose in a debate-- it doesn't lay the foundation to how you personally advance a topic, given the content of your queries and their application to your every day life. For surely no one who employs 'logic' 'fact' 'opinion' and 'truths' would remain a christian.. Would you like me to give you 'half-credit' for desiring and expecting such methodology from Muslims yet exempting yourself from it else why do you stick it in here and repeatedly?
Which ancillary topic are you thinking of?
I am talking about fixating on a preface rather than content and if you go a bit deeper then no further than the title!
What two titles have I extracted from Dr Azami's book? Is unorthodox opinion nothing more than another opinion? Even Dr Azami admits that even among Muslim sources there are differences of opinion. In what way am I a fraud and does that mean you are somehow whiter than white?
The book isn't meant to be present itself as an opinion, rather as established historical facts. Indeed your end of things are implausible opinion that can neither be backed up nor would they stand a chance save to coax you into believing you have some Achilles. It is the sort of thing that can work on like minds, maybe if you wanted to make members like Apple appear less obnoxious. There are no gradations in criminality when we get to the bottom line:
When you pose a question such as this:
Such a thing was impossible anyway as it would be impossible to get all existing manuscripts together to do it any fool knows that and Uthman did it for the Qu'ran did he not? Go and read Dr Al Azami's book Ch 11 called "causes of variant readings" and you will find words like "many errors", "scribal blunders" and so on - but of course he must be wrong must he?
obviously you didn't get past the title, to bother with my reply directly from the book:
me:
I must now question, whether you've read chapter 11 at all or merely glanced at the title?
in other words did you read:
''In this chapter I will try to negate the idea that dotless Arabic paleography could have resulted in any kind of distortion or tampering within the Quran''? pg 151-152 further leafed to pg 154 to see that the Quran is revealed in seven dialects and it doesn't change one iota, all you need to do is youtube the same sura by different reciters to see what we are talking about and that it doesn't change the Quran...
The chapter in its entirety focuses on debunking the laughable claims of orientalists, and you may certainly bank on the fact that a few members may defend the book not having read it, question is, why do you try that with me?
and again with Muhammad,
you:
It may be common knowledge for some Muslims there is only one Qu'ran but may I suggest you actually read Dr Al Azami's book and you will find it is also common knowledge that Abdulla bin Masud's copy had 111 suras not 114 or Ubayy bin Ka'b copy which had 116 suras? But that is a topic for another thread.
But the bottom line is this, you can also be charged just like me of only favouring something that will support your views.
to which I have replied again directly from the book in your possession:
me:
Let's examine chapter 13 of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud's and the alleged variances!
'' As mentioned Arthur Jeffrey examined 170 volumes to compile a list of variant readings which makeup roughly 300 pages in printed form, covering the so-called mushafs of nearly thirty scholars. Of this total he reserves 88 pages for the variations allegedly coming from Ibn Mas'ud's mushaf alone, with another 65 pages for Ubayy's muhaf, dividing the reminder (14) pages between the other twenty eight. The disproportionally high variance rate attributed to Ibn Mas'ud makes this mushaf worthy of closer inspection; some claims raised by Jeffrey are:
- That it differs from the Uthmani mushaf in its sura arrangement
- and in its text
- and that it omits three suras.
he levied all these charges though no one, including his sources, has ever witnessed a 'mushaf' with all these alleged variances. In truth none of his references even mentions a 'mushaf of ibn masud'; instead they use the word qar'aa ( قرأ= read), in the context of ''Ibn Masud recited such and such verse in this way'' A cursory glance at his sources yields two objections straight away. First, because they never state that Ibn Mas'ud was reading from a written copy we can just as easily assume that he was overheard reciting from memory, and how can we confidently deduce that the erroneous reading were not due to a memory slip? second (and this is a point I made earlier), the vast majority of Jeffery's references contain NO ISNAD whatsoever, making them inadmissible because they offer nothing but empty gossip'' Chapter 14 (the so-caled Mushaf of IBN Mas'ud and Alleged variances therein) p. 195
they weren't the only two times, however, I find it tedious to go back and forth to exhibit to our entranced audience here, the many ways in which you are a fraud posing as a scholar!
Reading the chapter title and pouncing on the orientalist manifesto doesn't make you a scholar, not even a scholar by proxy, and very dishonest at best to pose questions that are already answered in the book in your possession to folks you know haven't read the book. Not that it would matter because your garbled nonsense and theirs can be easily dismissed!
No one as far as I know has to read any of these posts so no one has to become tired and it is simply a lie that I want to force my views on anyone, how could I do that? All I ask, if I ask anything at all is that we all open our minds a little. I have not seen any solid rebuttals of anything so far. What you have seen from me and others is not a rebuttal of anything just a kind of request that you see there are alternatives views - nothing else is possible because so much of what we speak of it outside science and deals with the notion of God and the divine.
You have no alternative views that are supported by any sort of facts, what you have is a book that has amassed all the orientalists into one chunk and you chose at will from amongst them which is more believable than to come across as scholarly and read.. so sure the Mary eating dates and getting pregnant or the moon god scheme might not be right up your ally, you leave that to small folks like 'Apple 7' but you are no better than him for choosing a slightly more believable farce. Neither of you can back what you read or write with a sliver of evidence to save your dear life!
This thread is not about the Biblical Gospels is it? But for what its worth, I like every other Christians knows the Bible has been corrupted and almost any Bible you pick up will have glosses or foot notes that indicate various readings so nothing is hidden. The issue is have the originals been reconstructed and I am content to trust that they have. Frankly, to say that Bibles used between different denominations don't 'remotely resemble each other' is laughable and criminal ignorance.
What is criminal is to incorporate falsehood against God and turn it into the million sect religion each deeming the other heretical. And expect that anyone would hold it in any sort of regard or even honor a query to bring the Quran down to that low denominator, so that verity is equated with falsehood!
Let me ask you some questions to see if there is any room for discussions here. You say you have a copy of Dr Azami's book and you have read it so:
1. Does it contain any errors or unfairness or does he embroider some sections (if it does tell us what they are)
aside from minor editorial errors which I have linked to Dr. Hoffman in an earlier post, I find it an incredibly well written, well researched book!
2. Do you agree with every conclusion he reaches (if not say which ones)?
I think he produced excellent quality research and backed up what he wrote, and not merely dreamt it and passed it off as facts like many of the subjects in his book and in turn you by proxy!
3. Do you take the view that the book is about Islam, Dr Azami is a Muslim therefore everything he says must be correct, inn fact Dr Azami is infallible?
What a nonsense statement.. and you like to speak of poisoning the well? how many fallacies would you like to engage in to either deflect from discussing the subject matter rather than the subject or gauging in a little deeper than the title of the page and presenting it as your argument against the Quran?
To me a book is just a book to be read, to learn from and to critique to do anything else would mean I blindly accept anything put before me?
I do indeed think that you blindly accept anything that is put before you, so long as it stands in opposition of the Islamic perspective and I do think you are a fraud and you'll really have a heck of a time redeeming yourself as anything but!
all the best!
