Things in Islam I am curious about...

[Hugo]

Indeed a triumphant progression from one truth to the next.. you seem to know a different history than the rest of us and that is yours to keep in the dark crevices of the web which you frequent to' gain knowledge'

Can I be clear here.

1. Are you, is Islam claiming, that the revelation came in one coherent stream without a single fluctuation?
2. Are you saying that the many stories of the transmission are exactly coherent, not a shadow of a difference between any one them?
3. You imply elsewhere there were eyewitnesses to the revelation - do you mean that every single revelation had an eyewitness that both saw the messenger and or heard what he was saying?

I have challenged you to bring a flaw and you have failed and you'll fail again. A book that alleges to be from God should amongst other things be flawless..

There are many books that are flawless so we need more than that don't you agree?


all the best[/QUOTE]

 

[جوري]

Ill be waiting for you to finish your other claims!

Can I be clear here.

1. Are you, is Islam claiming, that the revelation came in one coherent stream without a single fluctuation?

The Quran was revealed as was appropriate!

2. Are you saying that the many stories of the transmission are exactly coherent, not a shadow of a difference between any one them?

The Quran as we have it, is as it was revealed, orally memorized, each verse written and given to the care of Hafsah, each verse written down was done so with the witness of two individuals, anything that was outside of that was destroyed!

3. You imply elsewhere there were eyewitnesses to the revelation - do you mean that every single revelation had an eyewitness that both saw the messenger and or heard what he was saying?

No, and there is no need for an eye witness to every revelation, what matters is that we have it, that it is undeniably the language of the Quran, that no poet at the time or since has been able to duplicate it or take credit for it, and it differs greatly from hadith and that it flows to meet divine revelation!




all the best

 

[Hugo]

The author of the Quran is God, that is what we know and believe, the onus is on you to disprove that if you can if you are the one raising objections!

all the best

That you believe it I can understand. It cannot be disproved, there is no way that I know of to do that so it is not a question that can be answered TRUE or FALSE, it is a matter of faith resting on whatever evidence you consider acceptable. As a question it is no different that saying there are fairies at the bottom of my garden - you cannot disprove it can you?

 

[جوري]

That you believe it I can understand. It cannot be disproved, there is no way that I know of to do that so it is not a question that can be answered TRUE or FALSE, it is a matter of faith resting on whatever evidence you consider acceptable. As a question it is no different that saying there are fairies at the bottom of my garden - you cannot disprove it can you?

I can always come to your garden and check of course!
question remains why do you ask rhetorical questions then if you can't come out and disprove them?

I am still waiting on you to complete the two others tasks you've set out for yourself!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Go ahead and use khas and 3amm and mushtarak etc. to show us how the Quran is undertsood differently! I'll be waiting! all the best

If we look at Mu'awwal and sura 108:2

Sale - wherefore pray unto they Lord; and slay (the victims)
M. Ali - So pray to the Lord and sacrifice

The word "slay" is in Arabic inhar, from the root nahr, which has several meanings. Abu Hanifa translated it as "sacrifice" adding the words "the victims" in parenthesis. However, Ibn Ash-Shafii says it means "placing the hands on the breast in prayer"

One might add that sentences in the Qu'ran are in two classes, Zahir, obvious and Khafi (or batin), hidden so it is not as you say and never has been and always interpretation is needed and your post about perfect understanding are misleading and not the correct Islamic position.

 

[Hugo]

I can always come to your garden and check of course! question remains why do you ask rhetorical questions then if you can't come out and disprove them?

Which of course is more than I can do for the supposed Qu'ranic revelation. The point about all this is that to me you are building an unsustainable structure of perfection around everything that is Islamic and that cannot be a rational or credible position and only held onto by a suspension of reason.

 

[جوري]

If we look at Mu'awwal and sura 108:2

Sale - wherefore pray unto they Lord; and slay (the victims)
M. Ali - So pray to the Lord and sacrifice

The word "slay" is in Arabic inhar, from the root nahr, which has several meanings. Abu Hanifa translated it as "sacrifice" adding the words "the victims" in parenthesis. However, Ibn Ash-Shafii says it means "placing the hands on the breast in prayer"

One might add that sentences in the Qu'ran are in two classes, Zahir, obvious and Khafi (or batin), hidden so it is not as you say and never has been and always interpretation is needed and your post about perfect understanding are misleading and not the correct Islamic position.

I am enjoying your brand of Arabic.. whether zhair or batin how does it change things?.. both events occur one does sacrifice (eid al'adha) which is the traditional understanding of the word.. and one does pray with their hands upon their breasts..Both the act of prayer and act of sacrifice are perfectly elucidated so there is no mystery!

فيه خمس مسائل : الأولى : قوله تعالى : " فصل " أي أقم الصلاة المفروضة عليك ; كذا رواه الضحاك عن ابن عباس . وقال قتادة وعطاء وعكرمة : " فصل لربك " صلاة العيد ويوم النحر . " وانحر " نسكك . وقال أنس : كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ينحر ثم يصلي , فأمر أن يصلي ثم ينحر . وقال سعيد بن جبير أيضا : صل لربك صلاة الصبح المفروضة بجمع , وانحر البدن بمنى , وقال سعيد بن جبير أيضا : نزلت في الحديبية حين حصر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن البيت , فأمره الله تعالى أن يصلي وينحر البدن وينصرف ; ففعل ذلك . قال ابن العربي : أما من قال : إن المراد بقوله تعالى : " فصل " : الصلوات الخمس ; فلإنها ركن العبادات , وقاعدة الإسلام , وأعظم دعائم الدين . وأما من قال : إنها صلاة الصبح بالمزدلفة ; فلأنها مقرونة بالنحر , وهو في ذلك اليوم , ولا صلاة فيه قبل النحر غيرها ; فخصها بالذكر من جملة الصلوات لاقترانها بالنحر " .
قلت : وأما من قال إنها صلاة العيد ; فذلك بغير مكة ; إذ ليس بمكة صلاة عيد بإجماع , فيما حكاه ابن عمر . قال ابن العربي : فأما مالك فقال : ما سمعت فيه شيئا , والذي يقع في نفسي أن المراد بذلك صلاة يوم النحر , والنحر بعدها . وقال علي رضي الله عنه ومحمد بن كعب : المعنى ضع اليمنى على اليسرى حذاء النحر في الصلاة . وروي عن ابن عباس أيضا . وروي عن علي أيضا : أن يرفع يديه في التكبير إلى نحره . وكذا قال جعفر بن علي : " فصل لربك وانحر " قال : يرفع يديه أول ما يكبر للإحرام إلى النحر . وعن علي رضي الله عنه قال : لما نزلت " فصل لربك وانحر " قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لجبريل : [ ما هذه النحيرة التي أمرني الله بها ] ؟ قال : [ ليست بنحيرة , ولكنه يأمرك إذا تحرمت للصلاة , أن ترفع يديك إذا كبرت , وإذا رفعت رأسك من الركوع , وإذا سجدت , فإنها صلاتنا وصلاة الملائكة الذين هم في السموات السبع , وإن لكل شيء زينة , وإن زينة الصلاة رفع اليدين عند كل تكبيرة ] . وعن أبي صالح عن ابن عباس قال : استقبل القبلة بنحرك ; وقاله الفراء والكلبي وأبو الأحوص . ومنه قول الشاعر : أبا حكم ما أنت عم مجالد وسيد أهل الأبطح المتناحر أي المتقابل . قال الفراء : سمعت بعض العرب يقول : منازلنا تتناحر ; أي تتقابل , نحر هذا بنحر هذا ; أي قبالته . وقال ابن الأعرابي : هو انتصاب الرجل في الصلاة بإزاء المحراب ; من قولهم : منازلهم تتناحر ; أي تتقابل . وروي عن عطاء قال : أمره أن يستوي بين السجدتين جالسا حتى يبدو نحره . وقال سليمان التيمي : يعني وارفع يدك بالدعاء إلى نحرك . وقيل : " فصل " معناه : واعبد . وقال محمد بن كعب القرظي : " إنا أعطيناك الكوثر . فصل لربك وانحر " يقول : إن ناسا يصلون لغير الله , وينحرون لغير الله ; وقد أعطيناك الكوثر , فلا تكن صلاتك ولا نحرك إلا لله . قاله ابن العربي : والذي عندي أنه أراد : اعبد ربك , وانحر له , فلا يكن عملك إلا لمن خصك بالكوثر , وبالحري أن يكون جميع العمل يوازي هذه الخصوصية من الكوثر , وهو الخير الكثير , الذي أعطاكه الله , أو النهر الذي طينه مسك , وعدد آنيته نجوم السماء ; أما أن يوازي هذا صلاة يوم النحر , وذبح كبش أو بقرة أو بدنة , فذلك يبعد في التقدير والتدبير , وموازنة الثواب للعبادة . والله أعلم .
الثانية : قد مضى القول في سورة " الصافات " في الأضحية وفضلها , ووقت ذبحها ; فلا معنى لإعادة ذلك . وذكرنا أيضا في سورة " الحج " جملة من أحكامها . قال ابن العربي : ومن عجيب الأمر : أن الشافعي قال : إن من ضحى قبل الصلاة أجزأه , والله تعالى يقول في كتابه : " فصل لربك وانحر " , فبدأ بالصلاة قبل النحر , وقد قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في البخاري وغيره , عن البراء بن عازب , قال : ( أول ما نبدأ به في يومنا هذا : نصلي , ثم نرجع فننحر , من فعل فقد أصاب نسكنا , ومن ذبح قبل , فإنما هو لحم قدمه لأهله , ليس من النسك في شيء ) . وأصحابه ينكرونه , وحبذا الموافقة .
الثالثة : وأما ما روي عن علي عليه السلام " فصل لربك وانحر " قال : وضع اليمين على الشمال في الصلاة ( خرجه الدار قطني ) , فقد اختلف علماؤنا في ذلك على ثلاثة أقوال : الأول : لا توضع فريضة ولا نافلة ; لأن ذلك من باب الاعتماد . ولا يجوز في الفرض , ولا يستحب في النفل . الثاني : لا يفعلها في الفريضة , ويفعلها في النافلة استعانة ; لأنه موضع ترخص . الثالث : يفعلها في الفريضة والنافلة . وهو الصحيح ; لأنه ثبت أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وضع يده اليمنى على اليسرى من حديث وائل بن حجر وغيره . قال ابن المنذر : وبه قال مالك وأحمد وإسحاق , وحكي ذلك عن الشافعي . واستحب ذلك أصحاب الرأي . ورأت جماعة إرسال اليد . وممن روينا ذلك عنه ابن المنذر والحسن البصري وإبراهيم النخعي .
قلت : وهو مروي أيضا عن مالك . قال ابن عبد البر : إرسال اليدين , ووضع اليمنى على الشمال , كل ذلك من سنة الصلاة .
الرابعة : واختلفوا في الموضع الذي توضع عليه اليد ; فروي عن علي بن أبي طالب : أنه وضعهما على صدره . وقال سعيد بن جبير وأحمد بن حنبل : فوق السرة . وقال : لا بأس إن كانت تحت السرة . وقالت طائفة : توضع تحت السرة . وروي ذلك عن علي وأبي هريرة والنخعي وأبي مجلز . وبه قال سفيان الثوري وإسحاق .
الخامسة : وأما رفع اليدين في التكبير عند الافتتاح والركوع والرفع من الركوع والرفع من الركوع والسجود , فاختلف في ذلك ; فروى الدارقطني من حديث حميد عن أنس قال : كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يرفع يديه إذا دخل في الصلاة , وإذا ركع , وإذا رفع رأسه من الركوع , وإذا سجد . لم يروه عن حميد مرفوعا إلا عبد الوهاب الثقفي . والصواب : من فعل أنس . وفي الصحيحين من حديث ابن عمر , قال : رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا قام إلى الصلاة رفع يديه , حتى تكونا حذو منكبيه , ثم يكبر , وكان يفعل ذلك حين يكبر للركوع , ويفعل ذلك حين يرفع رأسه من الركوع , ويقول سمع الله لمن حمده . ولا يفعل ذلك حين يرفع رأسه من السجود . قال ابن المنذر : وهذا قول الليث بن سعد , والشافعي وأحمد وإسحاق وأبي ثور . وحكى ابن وهب عن مالك هذا القول . وبه أقول ; لأنه الثابت عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم . وقالت طائفة : يرفع المصلي يديه حين يفتتح الصلاة , ولا يرفع فيما سوى ذلك . هذا قول سفيان الثوري وأصحاب الرأي .
قلت : وهو المشهور من مذهب مالك ; لحديث ابن مسعود ; ( خرجه الدارقطني من حديث إسحاق بن أبي إسرائيل ) , قال : حدثنا محمد بن جابر عن حماد عن إبراهيم عن علقمة عن عبد الله قال : صليت مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ومع أبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما ; فلم يرفعوا أيديهم إلا أولا عند التكبيرة الأولى في افتتاح الصلاة . قال إسحاق : به نأخذ في الصلاة كلها . قال الدارقطني : تفرد به محمد بن جابر ( وكان ضعيفا ) عن حماد عن إبراهيم . وغير حماد يرويه عن إبراهيم مرسلا عن عبد الله , من فعله , غير مرفوع إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ; وهو الصواب . وقد روى يزيد بن أبي زياد عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى عن البراء : أنه رأى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حين افتتح الصلاة رفع يديه حتى يحاذي بهما أذنيه , ثم لم يعد إلى شيء من ذلك حتى فرغ من الصلاة . قال الدارقطني : [ وإنما ] لقن يزيد في آخر عمره : ثم لم يعد ; فتلقنه وكان قد اختلط . وفي ( مختصر ما ليس في المختصر ) عن مالك : لا يرفع اليدين في شيء من الصلاة . قال ابن القاسم : ولم أر مالكا يرفع يديه عند الإحرام , قال : وأحب إلي ترك رفع اليدين عند الإحرام .


so go ahead and bring me an example that is really going to shake me and will make this matter!

all the best..

P.S 'Nahr' as you have written not as is written in Arabic means both river and to scold not to sacrifice or pray with your hands upon your breast and I can tell I am really going to enjoy this

it is نحر not نهر that you are looking for.. you know just between us in the future if you wanted to impress an Arabic speaker I'd try harder!

 

[جوري]

Which of course is more than I can do for the supposed Qu'ranic revelation. The point about all this is that to me you are building an unsustainable structure of perfection around everything that is Islamic and that cannot be a rational or credible position and only held onto by a suspension of reason.

rationale and credible really don't become you.. I am glad that you are persistent in spite of repeated public disgraces you seem to always want to come back for more.. if you really had something rational to say it would have stood the test of time and you wouldn't come up so empty, even your examples are so petty and easily disassembled!

all the best

 

[Insaanah]

Originally Posted by Insane Insaan
And therein lies the difference. Substance is subjective, and you seem to be sticking to what appears to be your "measure" of "substance". If your measure of substance is a god that can die, our measure of substance is an eternal, immortal God. If your measure of substance is rules that can be turned on their head from one day to the next, our measure of substance is rules that stand the test of time. If your measure of substance is a book with various human authors, with different versions, our measure of substance is a book that is 100% God's word, unchanged by any human.

What we are speaking of is substance in your answers

See above.

here for example, you simply make claims that cannot be substantiated either for your own beliefs

As I have said before, I don't need to substantiate my beliefs to you or anyone else. This thread is for you to ask questions, not for quibble and debate if you don't like the answers, and not for us to prove or substantiate what we believe as if having to justify ourselves!

and a lack of understanding of mine.

Aah, sorry, I thought Christian belief was that God did die, and that the Bible did have many human authors. I must have that wrong. I'll go to the Questions about Christians thread then to get the correct answers for those.

who is the verifiable author of the Qu'ran?

Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He!

Sale - wherefore pray unto they Lord; and slay (the victims)

Please use a credible translation and not an obscure one that suits your purpose, especially one written by a non-Muslim hostile to Islam!

George Sale, a lawyer brought out his The Koran, commonly called The Al Koran of Mohammed (London, 1734).... Sale's exhaustive 'Preliminary Discourse', dealing mainly with Sira and the Qur'an, betrays his deep hostility towards Islam and his missionary intent in that he suggests the rules to be observed for 'the conversion of Mohammedans'.

As to the translation itself, it abounds in numerous instances of omission, distortion and interpolations.

The point about all this is that to me you are building an unsustainable structure of perfection around everything that is Islamic and that cannot be a rational or credible position and only held onto by a suspension of reason

Reason tells you that religion and books must be imperfect somewhere, because yours is. You are mistakenly and repeatedly assuming and expecting the same to be true in Islam.

We are explaining to you again and again, this thread is not the place to come if you want to disagree with or debate our beliefs. Please start another thread. I can understand your disbelief in your questions, from someone whose religious text and the word perfection do not go hand in hand, but if you want to debate and enlighten us with your knowledge, please start another thread as repeatedly requested.

Peace.

 

[Hugo]

As I have said before, I don't need to substantiate my beliefs to you or anyone else. This thread is for you to ask questions, not for quibble and debate if you don't like the answers, and not for us to prove or substantiate what we believe as if having to justify ourselves!

As I have said before there is no reason for me to accept your answers blindly is there - are you some kind of infallible scholar that know the answer to every question exactly? Every good scholar knows that their work has to be tested in the crucible of scepticism.

Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He!

And you know this in much the same way you know the effects of gravity. You can prove unequivocally, prove it in such a way that I cannot doubt it or indeed anyone else? Tell me how I might construct a test to falsify your claim in true scientific fashion, I can then apply the test. If what you say is true then like gravity I cannot avoid it.

Please use a credible translation and not an obscure one that suits your purpose, especially one written by a non-Muslim hostile to Islam!

Tell me which translation you regard as credible and tell me your level of expertise in languages and translation so I can trust what you say or will YOU pick a translation that suits your purpose?

Reason tells you that religion and books must be imperfect somewhere, because yours is. You are mistakenly and repeatedly assuming and expecting the same to be true in Islam.

This is arrogant, pompous and seriously flawed logic and amounts to arguing from bias and not any rational manner. To argue that every book in Islam is without flaw of any kind is laughable and to say it you are simply asking for Islam to be the subject of ridicule and the only possible was such a delusion can be sustained is by force.

We are explaining to you again and again, this thread is not the place to come if you want to disagree with or debate our beliefs. Please start another thread. I can understand your disbelief in your questions, from someone whose religious text and the word perfection do not go hand in hand, but if you want to debate and enlighten us with your knowledge, please start another thread as repeatedly requested.

Let me ask you again, are YOU an infallible scholar, can I be sure that you state the Islamic position correctly at all times?

 

[Hugo]

I am enjoying your brand of Arabic.. whether zhair or batin how does it change things?.. both events occur one does sacrifice (eid al'adha) which is the traditional understanding of the word.. and one does pray with their hands upon their breasts..Both the act of prayer and act of sacrifice are perfectly elucidated so there is no mystery! so go ahead and bring me an example that is really going to shake me and will make this matter!

This is NOT about shaking you its about your foolish notion that everything in the Qu'ran is perfectly clear. I gave an example using two major scholars and if you think you can do better than them then there is no point in talking to you. Just pick up ANY commentary and you will find endless discussion over what is or is not meant by this or that word.

I cannot see how any educated person could take such a position and any even cursory look at Qu'ranic exegesis will show it to be false. For instance Mushkil sentences are ambiguous, Mujmal sentences may have a variety of interpretation or contain rare words whose meaning is not clear. Even the prophet of Islam explained that salut 'might' mean the ritual public prayer, standing to say "God is Great" or standing to repeat a few verses of the Qu'ran or it might mean private prayer.

 

[جوري]

This is NOT about shaking you its about your foolish notion that everything in the Qu'ran is perfectly clear. I gave an example using two major scholars and if you think you can do better than them then there is no point in talking to you. Just pick up ANY commentary and you will find endless discussion over what is or is not meant by this or that word.

You have failed to demonstrate for me how whether the meaning is the first or the latter changes things and renders the Quran not perfectly clear.. until you do so you have no argument and indeed the Quran is perfectly clear and all is elucidated out in perfectly preserved passages from our earliest scholars!

I cannot see how any educated person could take such a position and any even cursory look at Qu'ranic exegesis will show it to be false. For instance Mushkil sentences are ambiguous, Mujmal sentences may have a variety of interpretation or contain rare words whose meaning is not clear. Even the prophet of Islam explained that salut 'might' mean the ritual public prayer, standing to say "God is Great" or standing to repeat a few verses of the Qu'ran or it might mean private prayer.

will show what to be false? again if you have specific examples bring them and we'll discuss them as we have above, although you didn't want to bother with two ancillary topics on the side that you couldn't defend.

Go ahead and bring me all the confusion you have and I'll sort it out for you in perfectly sourced perfectly scholarly exegeses!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Looking through this thread I see repeated assertion that 'we' must accept the answers given so may I ask a question.

1. Is every Muslim who answers assumed to be an expert?

2. I also notice that Muslims in this thread never accept that Islam has any faults or even weaknesses. Is this the Islamic position that all its writing, actions and history does not contain a single flaw or event deserving of criticism?

3. By extension if the answer to 2 is 'yes' it seems to imply that all Muslims are in some way perfect - is that the Islamic position?

 

[جوري]

Looking through this thread I see repeated assertion that 'we' must accept the answers given so may I ask a question.

We don't accept without learning proper methodology.. that is your own personal assertion simply because there is no room in Islam for the moronity of christians. You don't go teaching a mathematician the multiplication table when your own profession deals with cultivating sugar canes .. and that is exactly the sort of disparity between what we know and what you assert.. it is truly that laughable. You don't even understand half the words you write can't tell the difference between na7r and nahr and yet see fit to comment with such bravado and in an unsourced fashion as well and then fail to interweave all the fancy arabic words you've misused to show us where the Quran is in error!

1. Is every Muslim who answers assumed to be an expert?

you have to be a scholar in the field to be an expert but even the least learned Muslim here is still better learned than you when it comes to basics of Islam!

2. I also notice that Muslims in this thread never accept that Islam has any faults or even weaknesses. Is this the Islamic position that all its writing, actions and history does not contain a single flaw or event deserving of criticism?

How can we accept faults when there are none? look what happened with the last mishap of yours? you didn't even want to attempt to read the very large and concise account and historical comparison to all other literature speaking of the matter.. should we concede that there is fault because it will make you feel better?

3. By extension if the answer to 2 is 'yes' it seems to imply that all Muslims are in some way perfect - is that the Islamic position?

Islam is perfect for it is the religion of God, Muslims aren't for creation is prune to err!

all the best

 

[Insaanah]

As I have said before there is no reason for me to accept your answers blindly is there - are you some kind of infallible scholar that know the answer to every question exactly? Every good scholar knows that their work has to be tested in the crucible of scepticism

Firstly, I have never stated that I am an infallible scholar. This is what I said in a post on the previous page, which you will already have seen, and I quote:

Originally posted by Insane Insaan
P.S. I do not profess to be "learned". The average Muslim does not profess to be, even some the great scholars of Islam were fearful of calling themselves learned, and preferred to call themselves students of knowledge, as they considered themselves to be constantly learning, and thus not "learned".

Had you read that, you would not needed to have asked that question in the tone in which you did.

This thread is for you to ask questions as to what we believe on certain matters, not for us to have to justify ourselves as to why we believe something or to prove it. As such what you are saying is that no matter what I tell you that I believe in as a Muslim, you will consider me to not know what my own beliefs are, because I am not a scholar. If I tell you that this is my belief, you do not seem to have the ability to accept that as something I believe in.

I have already stated:

Originally posted by Insane Insaan
If you don't like the answer given to you, then I'm afraid that is tough. Asking the same question repeatedly to the same person despite them already having answered it the same number of times, really isn't going to miraculously and suddenly produce a different answer. If you want another answer, then please post a reply along the lines of: "I am not happy with the above given answer, please could somebody else provide me with a different answer", and if anybody has the burning desire to answer your question, they will.

I think I am saying this for the third or fourth time now, and I will say it yet again. This thread is not for you to debate with, scrutinize, cross-examine our beliefs, nor for us to have to prove them, submit them to you for your approval, or justify them.

If you do not accept our beliefs, then that is tough. Nobody is making you accept them. Had we said to you, Hugo this is what we believe and you MUST believe in this too, fair enough. But we haven't. We are simply explaining to you what we believe (which is the purpose of this thread in case you hadn't noticed), and you dispute everything we say as though we are lying about what we believe in. I must say, this thread has really not been very productive over the past few pages, all I seem to doing is repeating myself, answering the same disputes over and over again.

And you know this in much the same way you know the effects of gravity. You can prove unequivocally, prove it in such a way that I cannot doubt it or indeed anyone else? Tell me how I might construct a test to falsify your claim in true scientific fashion, I can then apply the test. If what you say is true then like gravity I cannot avoid it.

For the umpteenth time I do NOT need to prove my beliefs to you or anyone else. As I have submitted to you already MANY times now, please start another thread, and if anybody has a burning desire to engage with you, they will.

Tell me which translation you regard as credible and tell me your level of expertise in languages and translation so I can trust what you say or will YOU pick a translation that suits your purpose?

There are translations which are regarded as credible throughout the Muslim world, and also by non-Muslims genuinely interested in Islam. Pickthall is the one most highly regarded, though there are other good ones too. Even non-Muslims would not regard as reliable a translation shown to be erroneous written by a non-Muslim hostile to Islam. Genuine seekers of knowledge certainly wouldn't dig out an obscure translation written by a person with an agenda against the religion they were trying to find out about!

[This is arrogant, pompous and seriously flawed logic and amounts to arguing from bias and not any rational manner. To argue that every book in Islam is without flaw of any kind is laughable and to say it you are simply asking for Islam to be the subject of ridicule and the only possible was such a delusion can be sustained is by force.

It may seem laughable to you, but as I have said, that is my belief. Now you can make my belief the subject of as much ridicule as you like, you can call me deluded, you can say that I have been forced to believe something, that makes no difference to me because...

[2:212] Beautified is the life of the world for those who disbelieve; they make a jest of the believers. But those who keep their duty to Allah will be above them on the Day of Resurrection. Allah giveth without stint to whom He will.

Your assertion above does not strike me as being the mindset of a genuine seeker of knowledge.

When someone's "questions" and statements are littered with words such as: "potty", "deluded", "laughable", "subject of ridicule", etc, that says it all. Their words speak for themselves.

However, what your statement above does show me, is your desperation, and what you really think of Muslims beliefs.

Peace.

 

[Hugo]

Firstly, I have never stated that I am an infallible scholar. This is what I said in a post on the previous page, which you will already have seen, and I quote:

If you do not accept our beliefs, then that is tough. Nobody is making you accept them. Had we said to you, Hugo this is what we believe and you MUST believe in this too, fair enough. But we haven't. We are simply explaining to you what we believe (which is the purpose of this thread in case you hadn't noticed), and you dispute everything we say as though we are lying about what we believe in. I must say, this thread has really not been very productive over the past few pages, all I seem to doing is repeating myself, answering the same disputes over and over again.

Peace.

I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. I have no difficulty at all with you saying you believe something even if I think it nonsense, that is entirely a matter for you. However, you cannot at the same time demand as you seem to do that I or anyone accept the answer without comment as if it is categorically stating a truth and that is why I question what you say? This has nothing to do with desperation (exasperation possibly) but how can you be said to be a seeker after truth if all you do is simply accept what someone tells you?

For example you made a comment about the Sale translation but what you offered was copied from an article, a very good article, but nonetheless it is a matter of importance that you speak about what you know and in that case it does not look as if you have actually read Sale.

May I ask again, seriously, is it your policy shall I say to accept answers from any Muslim in this board or elsewhere and you would never question them? For example, one can look at the videos of say Mr Green which can be found everywhere and often cited in this board and he speaks about Islam all the time - do you ever think he might be wrong?

 

[Hugo]

We don't accept without learning proper methodology.. that is your own personal assertion simply because there is no room in Islam for the moronity of christians. You don't go teaching a mathematician the multiplication table when your own profession deals with cultivating sugar canes .. and that is exactly the sort of disparity between what we know and what you assert.. it is truly that laughable. You don't even understand half the words you write can't tell the difference between na7r and nahr and yet see fit to comment with such bravado and in an unsourced fashion as well and then fail to interweave all the fancy arabic words you've misused to show us where the Quran is in error!

you have to be a scholar in the field to be an expert but even the least learned Muslim here is still better learned than you when it comes to basics of Islam!

A paradox - If I understand this correctly almost no one who posts here is qualified to do so. By the same token no Muslim should speak about Christianity or indeed any other religion - they are simply not qualified to do so.

How can we accept faults when there are none? look what happened with the last mishap of yours? you didn't even want to attempt to read the very large and concise account and historical comparison to all other literature speaking of the matter.. should we concede that there is fault because it will make you feel better? Islam is perfect for it is the religion of God, Muslims aren't for creation is prune to err!

You can believe the impossible if you wish but even you own words here are nonsense and I look forward to your reference so I can follow up this VERY LARGE and CONCISE account.

 

[Hugo]

You have failed to demonstrate for me how whether the meaning is the first or the latter changes things and renders the Quran not perfectly clear.. until you do so you have no argument and indeed the Quran is perfectly clear and all is elucidated out in perfectly preserved passages from our earliest scholars!
[/COLOR]

May I follow this up as you seem to be confused over what words mean and what a sentence or passage means and how words make up sentences. So perhaps you will explain:

1. The distinction between the words Mushtarak and Mu'awwal when it comes to understanding a section of text?

2. In the same way perhaps you will explain the distinction with sentences described as Zahir or Kafi

3. Thirdly there seems something of a paradox here because on the one hand you say the Qu'ran is clear and on the other it required scholars to elucidate it which to my mind anyway means that you can only understand the Qu'ran with the aid of a commentary.

I should say these are not my arguments they are part of Islamic methodology, I did not invent these various classes, your own scholars did.

 

[جوري]

A paradox - If I understand this correctly almost no one who posts here is qualified to do so. By the same token no Muslim should speak about Christianity or indeed any other religion - they are simply not qualified to do so.

No paradox at all.. christianity is a collection of contradictory works spewed by men centuries after Jesus and in a language where there is no disputation for it isn't even the language of your god!

You can believe the impossible if you wish but even you own words here are nonsense and I look forward to your reference so I can follow up this VERY LARGE and CONCISE account.

I have no idea what this above drivel means? I understand that you are at a loss for words and unable to weave for us the two things you've learned and learned incorrectly at that to make a viable point for your position--perhaps you should reflect on what the message is you are trying to relay or at least finish the challenges you started before rushing to get something very akin to spam down on view.

all the best

 

[جوري]

[/COLOR]

May I follow this up as you seem to be confused over what words mean and what a sentence or passage means and how words make up sentences. So perhaps you will explain:

1. The distinction between the words Mushtarak and Mu'awwal when it comes to understanding a section of text?

You may not ask me for something you've started with the desire to prove something fallacious, you've posted the above and it is incumbent on you to weave for us how said words make the Quran wrong, or fallacious, or unclear or whatever your thought of the hour!

2. In the same way perhaps you will explain the distinction with sentences described as Zahir or Kafi

see above reply!

3. Thirdly there seems something of a paradox here because on the one hand you say the Qu'ran is clear and on the other it required scholars to elucidate it which to my mind anyway means that you can only understand the Qu'ran with the aid of a commentary.

I don't see any paradox, you don't enter a classroom after you've purchased a math book which is written in plain language and not expect a teacher to explain to you what it means!

I should say these are not my arguments they are part of Islamic methodology, I did not invent these various classes, your own scholars did.

And by that token you should elucidate for us how these parts of Islamic methodology make the Quran erroneous!

all the best