a Surah the like thereof
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34457
Printed Date: 03 May 2024 at 1:53am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: a Surah the like thereof
Posted By: Ron Webb
Subject: a Surah the like thereof
Date Posted: 01 September 2015 at 11:30am
|
As evidence for the divine origin of the Quran, several people have quoted the following verse to me: "And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a Surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah , if you should be truthful." ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=23 - Quran 2:23 ) It is never made clear to me exactly what the challenge is here. What is meant by "the like thereof"? I can think of many possible scriptures, but it's really just a matter of opinion. Who decides whether something is like the Quran, and on what basis? I suggested the Book of Mormon, for example, which is similar to the Quran in its claim to being a revelation from God, given to a single person with no corroborating evidence, and building on earlier scriptures. It is also similar in style and content, pretending to speak in the voice of God, exhorting righteousness, demanding obedience, offering heaven and threatening hell, etc. Of course I could also point to the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Analects of Confucius, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text - dozens of others . All of them are similar in some respects and different in others. Another example which comes to mind is a sura which some claim was http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main?url=pf%3Ffile%3D15501052%26ct%3D31 - supposed to be part of the Quran , but was omitted (or do the Shias include it? I don't know): In the name of the bountiful and merciful God. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Replies:
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 05 September 2015 at 8:32am
|
I am starting to answer your question as to the evidence for the divine origin of the Quran. While browsing the web I came across this admission by someone who saw evidence of the divine. Here it is.
FINGERPRINTS OF AUTHENTICITY I share some sentiments which once upon a time tore at the mind of an ardent student and critic of the Quran. After a consistent and prolonged assault to his faculties, he finally became convinced that God had indeed spoken... Below are but a few examples of an immense ocean of scattered thoughts. Verse 6:35 ------------- Were these really the words of a false Prophet who attempted to rebuke himself in front of an existing hostile and critical audience by calling himself 'jahil', or were these the words of a higher authority admonishing him? 006:035 "And if their aversion is grievous to you, then, if you can, seek a way down into the earth or a ladder to the sky so that you may bring to them a sign (to convince them all)! If God willed, He could have brought them all together to the guidance. THEREFORE BE NOT OF THE IGNORANT / FOOLISH (JAHIL)." Jahil - ignorant / foolish / silly Question - 'Fingerprints' of authenticity or a false scripture? Verse 93:7 ------------- An admission of being astray / in error or a case of merely being 'lost' as softened by translations? 093:007 "And He found you erring / in error / astray (Arabic: dall), so He guided" Please note how the same Arabic word (dall) is used in Surah Fateha verse 7 as read by potentially billions of Muslims every day. They know very well its meaning in that verse yet oft fail to apply its meaning to verse 93:7. If faithful followers have attempted to 'lighten' the implication of the word, why would a false messenger make use of such strong language against himself in the tacit hope to appeal to an audience that was once critical of him? Or was this once again, a manifestation of truth by a higher authority? Question - 'Fingerprints' of authenticity or a false scripture? Verse 42:52 -------------- An admission � Whilst many later historians recount events which surround the prophet in hagiography before and during his ministry, the Quran seems to present quite a different narrative. Given the disparity of the sources with the Quran and what appears to be the inclination of the human mind to show themselves in the most positive light, would a false prophet willingly incline to admit that he never had real faith? 042:052 (part) "And thus did We reveal to you an inspired book by Our command. You did not know what the Book was, NOR THE FAITH (Arabic: la imaanu)..." Was this a dangerous attempt by a false Prophet at reverse psychology or a manifestation of truth by the presence of a higher authority? Question - 'Fingerprints' of authenticity or a false scripture? Verse 12:3 ------------- Would a false prophet intent on writing a false scripture expose their futility of yore in such a manner so publicly so as to have it preserved in posterity? 012.003 We narrate to you (Muhammad) the best of narratives in that We have inspired in you this Qur'an, although aforetime you were SURELY AMONG THE HEEDLESS (Ghafil)� Question - 'Fingerprints' of authenticity or a false scripture? Verse 66:1 ------------- Would a false Prophet expose their vulnerability in such a manner of public rebuke? Or is this once again, a manifestation of truth by the presence of a higher authority? 066.001 �O Prophet! Why do you prohibit / make unlawful / ban that which God has made lawful for you, seeking to please your wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful.� Verse 5:17 -------------- Some of those that remain committed in their pursuits to map and study the heavens know instinctively that a potential Creator of such an immense Universe must exhibit unfathomable prowess, total authority and need not be dependant on a human form or of human needs. If He indeed has spoken, His words must carry sentiments that are NOT 'earth-centric.' One may not be able to express all that God can be, but one can certainly express what God cannot be. A scripture which humanises God to make him dependant cannot be authentic. 005.017 �Certainly they disbelieved who said �Indeed, God, He is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say �Then who has power against God in anything if He intends to DESTROY (yuh�lika) the MESSIAH son of Mary, and HIS MOTHER and WHOEVER is in the EARTH?� And God's is the kingdom / dominion of the HEAVENS AND THE EARTH and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and God has POWER over ALL THINGS� Question - 'Fingerprints' of authenticity or a false scripture? It is in the multifaceted arguments that are posited by the Quran's narratives in the multitude of layers of wisdom that shines through its core teachings that one slowly comes to the ultimate realisation that God has in fact spoken. From the very few, isolated examples you read above, such sentiments would only �likely� to originate from a mind of a once critic. It is not the kind of sentiment that would �likely� emanate from the mind of some traditionalists who accept their religion blindly and venerate the Prophet to such a degree, that they fail to see that in what verses they �soften� and �hide�, it is where authenticity of the scripture is oft found. It is in what is hidden, that some of us find God. Ya�Allah I bear witness that you have indeed spoken to your servants by the Quran. On the Day my Lord, please count me as one of those who testify to this truth. https://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/216314685172333 You will be hearing from me again soon. In Sha Allah. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 06 September 2015 at 2:00am
|
@The Saint
Is this copy and paste from https://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/216314685172333 - here (without even quoting your source as usual!) all you have to offer ? Well..... Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 06 September 2015 at 10:32am
|
I have to say your response is very disappointing, Mr. Saint. You haven't even addressed my opening post. All you did is copy/paste some guy on Facebook, who lists a bunch of statements in the Quran that make him believe its authenticity. But surely if those are the sort of statements that make people like him believe -- and if the goal of a false prophet was to make people believe -- then those would be exactly the sort of statements one would expect to find in a Quran. Tell me why (in your opinion) the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Tao Te Ching, etc., are not "the like thereof" to the Quran. Tell me why the surah I quoted at the end of my opening post is not "the like thereof". ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 07 September 2015 at 1:10pm
|
May be it is time to continue the "likeof" discussion here.
In http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33734&PID=199079#199079 - this post I produced a poem that I consider as at least equal (if not superior) to any surah of the Quran. "The Saint" tried a couple of times to prove me wrong like http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33734&PID=199096#199096 - here , http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33734&PID=199126#199126 - there and http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33734&PID=199131#199131 - there but without providing any arguments (one could also say without any success). Is there anybody else that could respond to my challenge ? Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 10 September 2015 at 8:04am
|
Please look again! I have given the due credit.
And if you had read carefully at the top, I said I am beginning to..... ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 10 September 2015 at 8:38am
|
You must have patience. I move at my own pace and in the way I want to.
I chose a starter. I have just begun and you are resorting to cribbing. Let me assure you this is not the end. It is just the preamble, if you will, of what I am going to say. Here is some background to Quran's challenge which is the topic here. "Every Prophet was given �signs� because of which people believed in him. Indeed, I have been given the Divine Revelation that God has revealed to me. So, I hope to have the most followers of all the prophets on the Day of Resurrection." (Saheeh Al-Bukhari) The physical miracles performed by the prophets were time-specific, valid only for those who witnessed them, whereas the like of the continuing miracle of our Prophet, the Noble Quran, was not granted to any other prophet. Its linguistic superiority, style, clarity of message, strength of argument, quality of rhetoric, and the human inability to match even its shortest chapter till the end of time grant it an exquisite uniqueness. That is why the Prophet of Mercy hoped he will have the most followers of all the prophets, and prophesized that he would at a time when Muslims were few, but then they began to embrace Islam in floods. Thus, this prophecy came true. Why this Challenge? First, Arabs were poets. Poetry was their supreme ornament and their most representative form of discourse. Arabic poetry was rooted in the oral; it was a voice before it acquired an alphabet. Poets could compose intricate poems spontaneously and commit thousands of lines to memory. Arabs had a complex system of evaluating a poet and the poetry to meet rigid standards. Annual competition selected the �idols� of poetry, and they were engraved in gold and hung inside the Kaaba, alongside their idols of worship. The most skilled served as judges. Poets could ignite wars and bring truce between warring tribes. They described women, wine, and war like no one else. Second, the opponents of the Prophet Muhammad were strongly determined to quash his mission in any way possible. God gave them a non-violent approach to disprove Muhammad. History is a witness that the pre-Islamic Arabs could not produce a single chapter to meet the challenge of the Quran. Instead of meeting the challenge, they chose violence and waged war against him. They, of all people, had the ability and the motive to meet the Quranic challenge, but could not do so. Had they done so, the Quran would have proven false, and the man who brought it would have been exposed as a false prophet. The fact that the ancient Arabs did not and could not meet this challenge is proof of Quran�s inimitability. Their example is of a thirsty man next to a well, the only reason he dies of thirst is if he was unable to reach the water! Furthermore, the inability of previous Arabs to meet the challenge of the Quran implies later Arabs are less competent to meet the challenge, due to their lack the mastery of classical Arabic that the previous, �classical� Arabs had. According to linguists of the Arabic language, the Arabs before and during the time of the Prophet, in exclusion to subsequent generations, had the most complete mastery of the Arabic language, its rules, meters, and rhymes. Later Arabs did not match the mastery of classical Arabs. Lastly, the challenge is for Arabs and non-Arabs alike. If the Arabs cannot meet the challenge, the non-speakers of Arabic cannot claim to meet the challenge either. Hence, the inimitability of the Quran is established for non-Arabs as well. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 10 September 2015 at 8:42am
|
Are you a descendent of Don Quixote?
BTW, it is a sin to lie. You did not really produce that poem, you pinched it from somewhere! ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 10 September 2015 at 8:18pm
Take all the time you want; but skip the "preamble", because I'm not interested. Just answer the question: Tell me why the surah I quoted at the end of my opening post is not "the like thereof". And skip the copy-paste stuff as well. If http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/345/an-unmet-challenge/ - Imam Kamil Mufti wants to participate, I'm sure he can join the forum himself. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crib?s=t - cribbing : to pilfer or steal, especially to plagiarize (another's writings or ideas). ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
The Saint wrote:Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 11 September 2015 at 6:40am
|
Take all the time you want; but skip the "preamble", because I'm not interested.
I am interested. And I also believe it is necessary for you to know the context. It is never made clear to me exactly what the challenge is here. What is meant by "the like thereof"? I can think of many possible scriptures, but it's really just a matter of opinion. Who decides whether something is like the Quran, and on what basis? Like I said please be patient. You will get all the answers you want. Just answer the question: Tell me why the surah I quoted at the end of my opening post is not "the like thereof". Are you sure what the phrase, "the like thereof" means? And skip the copy-paste stuff as well. If Imam Kamil Mufti wants to participate, I'm sure he can join the forum himself. No, I will not skip anything. You have posted a question, wait for the answer/s. It is not for you to decide how the answers come. It is not even polite to say do this and do that. cribbing: to pilfer or steal, especially to plagiarize (another's writings or ideas). "I'm not familiar with it myself, French, but it appears in the OED and isn't marked as 'Indian': crib v. b. To complain, to grumble. colloq. Cf. crib-biter. It goes on to give a quote from L.P.Hartley, an eminently respectable English novelist: 1957 L.P.Hartley Hireling xi. 90 She calls on the neighbours, she's out half the time and doesn't answer the telephone, and when I start cribbing she just laughs." http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/crib-complain-indian-english-be-etc.1370836/ ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 11 September 2015 at 7:56am
I already know the context, thanks.
Yeah, once you find them on the Internet. 
Yes I am, but I regret having chosen the Sahih International translation because others may not be sure. Maybe we should go with the Shakir translation, "produce a chapter like it." Which I believe I did in my opening post.
It is not polite to copy others' writing without attribution. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 11 September 2015 at 8:39am
|
I already know the context, thanks.
Very well, please explain. Yeah, once you find them on the Internet. Or, wherever else! As if.......... 
Yes I am, but I regret having chosen the Sahih International translation because others may not be sure. Maybe we should go with the Shakir translation, "produce a chapter like it." Which I believe I did in my opening post. Will you recognise one if you saw it? It is not polite to copy others' writing without attribution. You are not even pretending to be remorseful! And cribbing does mean complaining! No regrets here either. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 11 September 2015 at 9:02am
I'm sure you already know the context as well. I'm not going to waste your time, or mine. Just answer the question.
If it's part of your belief system that the Quran is a miracle, one might hope that you would already know why you think so, without having to hunt down the answer on the Internet.
I believe I did, in the opening post. Are you ever going to address it? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 12 September 2015 at 3:46am
|
I'm sure you already know the context as well. I'm not going to waste your time, or mine. Just answer the question.
No. I need to know what is the depth of your understanding on the subject. If it's part of your belief system that the Quran is a miracle, one might hope that you would already know why you think so, without having to hunt down the answer on the Internet. There are hundreds of reasons I must have given you in the past few months but you have obdurately rejected them all. Therefore, I continuously widen my search. You cannot believe how much the Quran has to offer. I believe I did, in the opening post. Are you ever going to address it? You mean the noble verse you quoted in the opening post demonstrates your understanding of the phrase, the like thereof? But that does not answer my question. I asked you the meaning of the phrase in your own words. Just so that I know you understand what you are asking? Rest assured I am coming to the answer itself, very shortly. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 12 September 2015 at 5:49pm
No, you need to quit stalling and answer the question.
Hundreds of reasons, but not a single valid one. I've shot them all down, one by one.
No, I mean I believe I recognized "a sura the like thereof" in the passage I quoted (in green) in the opening post.
It's not my phrase. It's the phrase that appears in the Quran, and since you are the one touting it as a "miracle", I'm asking you what you think it means. As far as I can see, the green passage in the opening post is like the Quran in every important respect. If you disagree, then tell me how it is different, and why that difference matters. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 14 September 2015 at 5:44am
Ron @ The Saint
Et le silence fut.... Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 15 September 2015 at 8:27am
|
No. I need to know what is the depth of your understanding on the subject.
No, you need to quit stalling and answer the question. Stalling? Wallah, you are so presumptuous! But I shan't answer until.........you have grown more impatient and made a fool of yourself again. Hundreds of reasons, but not a single valid one. I've shot them all down, one by one. I know. You have a gun and you use it often. Mostly indiscriminately and wildly, irresponsibly and usually quite childishly. But never intelligently! No, I mean I believe I recognized "a sura the like thereof" in the passage I quoted (in green) in the opening post. You mean, according to you it is a surah, the like thereof? It's not my phrase. It's the phrase that appears in the Quran, and since you are the one touting it as a "miracle", I'm asking you what you think it means. So, you are admitting you haven't the foggiest......and you are just trying to project yourself as a know-all. Obviously, you are out of your depth here: "As evidence for the divine origin of the Quran, several people have quoted the following verse to me: "And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a Surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah , if you should be truthful." (Quran 2:23) I knew you were pretending knowledge that you did not possess. However, let me tell you this verse does not prove the divine origin of the Quran. It contains a challenge. That if anyone could produce a surah like any in the Quran they would be considered truthful. Now, I know you are confused as to what, a surah the like thereof means? I think I can just fit in here, a brief explanation. To begin with; the Arabic language and Arab speech are divided into two branches. One of them is rhymed poetry. It is a speech with metre and rhyme, which means every line of it ends upon a definite letter, which is called the 'rhyme'. This rhymed poetry is again divided into metres or what is called as al-Bihar, literally meaning 'The Seas'. This is so called because of the way the poetry moves according to the rhythmic patterns. There are sixteen al-Bihar viz; at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria'. Each one rhymes differently. For metres of Arabic poetry please see please see Lyall's book Translations Of Ancient Arabian Poetry, Chiefly Pre-Islamic.[1> He discusses al-Kamil, al-Wafir, al-Hajaz, at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Khafif and al-Madid briefly. The other branch of Arabic speech is prose, that is non-metrical speech. The prose may be a rhymed prose. Rhymed prose consists of cola ending on the same rhyme throughout, or of sentences rhymed in pairs. This is called "rhymed prose" or sajc. Prose may also be straight prose (mursal). In straight prose, the speech goes on and is not divided in cola, but is continued straight through without any divisions, either of rhyme or of anything else. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 September 2015 at 6:02pm
In many ways, yes.
It doesn't matter what I think it means. Frankly, I think the phrase is pretty much meaningless without criteria attached, but never mind. What matters is what you think it means. As I keep reminding you, it's your miracle, not mine. You're right that I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by that, but given your inability to answer the question, I'm beginning to think you don't know either.
More http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ijaz.html - anonymous copy/paste ; but in this case I'm not sure you even read it carefully, because you omitted the next sentence, which is crucial (bold and underline added): "So, the challenge, as Abdur Rahim Green mentions, is to produce in Arabic , three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen al-Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook." So apparently the challenge is to produce what is now called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_verse - free verse , i.e. lines that do not follow any particular metre or rhyming pattern. Really? That's supposed to be difficult? Isn't that what I'm doing right now? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 17 September 2015 at 1:44am
|
@The Saint
After pages and pages of asking for it, this is for the first time that criterias are given (even if you did not cite your sources as usual and Ron had to find out where you copied and pasted it from). Since according to the given criteria (as Ron stated) it doesn't seem to be particular difficult to find superior prose, I guess that the selection rules will get quickly tightened. I dare to make a guess on what we will end up with: - The prose has to be written in old Arabic. - Only authors that carry the name Mohamed can be accepted and he/she got to be illiteral. - The competitor has/had to be born in Mecca - The prose must be more than 1350 years old. In case that any other equally qualifying poem can be produced (under above rules) it is the one that has been invented in a cave that will win. Now, at least, the rules for this contest are finally clear. Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 22 September 2015 at 3:47am
|
In many ways, yes.
So, that is your understanding of the Quranic challenge. Let me then ask you why you think so? It doesn't matter what I think it means. Frankly, I think the phrase is pretty much meaningless without criteria attached, but never mind. What matters is what you think it means. As I keep reminding you, it's your miracle, not mine. You do not need to remind me at all. But as I keep asking you for a clear statement indicating your understanding of the Quranic intent, I am asking you again. Particularly, since you began the thread. So, surely you must have a clear notion as to what it means. You're right that I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by that, but given your inability to answer the question, I'm beginning to think you don't know either. Ok, so you accept that you do not have the foggiest idea about what that challenge means and you still started the thread? And I think I have already shown you what is meant by the challenge. More anonymous copy/paste; but in this case I'm not sure you even read it carefully, because you omitted the next sentence, which is crucial (bold and underline added): "So, the challenge, as Abdur Rahim Green mentions, is to produce in Arabic , three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen al-Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook." If it had been anonymous how would you have known I had missed a sentence.......LOL So apparently the challenge is to produce what is now called free verse, i.e. lines that do not follow any particular metre or rhyming pattern. You really think it is just free speech? I am amazed you started the topic with such abysmal ignorance on the subject! Really? That's supposed to be difficult? Isn't that what I'm doing right now? That, Webb, is called brazenness! ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 22 September 2015 at 5:41am
|
Hey Saint!
Any news on the criterias or do you accept the ones I gave ? Besides bashing Ron your not very eloquent on this subject. A short bulleted list will suffice ! still waiting: Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 22 September 2015 at 1:48pm
Because if that sura had actually appeared in the Quran, I wouldn't be able to distinguish it from the others.
I think it's meaningless.
So far you've shown me that the challenge is to write free verse. Not much of a challenge, really.
I know because I check sources. But just to be clear, by "anonymous" I usually mean that the Web page is anonymous, i.e. that the page itself does not credit the original author, not just that you haven't done so.
Free verse, not free speech.
I started the topic to ask you and others what this great "miracle" of the Quran is. It's becoming clear that you are just a "abysmally ignorant" as I am in that regard. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 22 September 2015 at 2:16pm
Here is a passage from the Egyptian Book of the Dead:See, is it not written in this scroll? Read, you who will discover it in future ages, if God has given you the power to read. Is this not "a sura the like thereof"? Why not? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 23 September 2015 at 1:07pm
|
@Ron:
Actually I've never read the Egyptian Book of the Dead, but I found this passage much more touching than anything else I've seen in the Quran. Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 24 September 2015 at 3:30am
|
@The Saint
After pages and pages of asking for it, this is for the first time that criterias are given (even if you did not cite your sources as usual and Ron had to find out where you copied and pasted it from). You have the criteria and you understand it? Since according to the given criteria (as Ron stated) it doesn't seem to be particular difficult to find superior prose, I guess that the selection rules will get quickly tightened. I dare to make a guess on what we will end up with: - The prose has to be written in old Arabic. - Only authors that carry the name Mohamed can be accepted and he/she got to be illiteral. - The competitor has/had to be born in Mecca - The prose must be more than 1350 years old. In case that any other equally qualifying poem can be produced (under above rules) it is the one that has been invented in a cave that will win. I had no idea you could be so funny, as well. Do you do roadside comedy shows? Or, are you just a couch potato? Now, at least, the rules for this contest are finally clear. I did not know this was a contest. Did Ron tell you that? Did he advise you as wife or husband? ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 24 September 2015 at 5:05am
I did and I already gave you a poem better than any verse of the Quran. -----------------------------------------------------
You're probably right. For a contest you need criterias which neither Mohamed nor you did ever give. So I guess Quran 2:23 is meaningless. In case I'm mistaken: I'm still waiting for a list from your side (and not another funny link). Any news on this subject ? Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 24 September 2015 at 7:25am
|
Any news on the criterias or do you accept the ones I gave ?
Besides bashing Ron your not very eloquent on this subject. A short bulleted list will suffice ! I wouldn't give your suggested criterias the respect they definitely do not deserve. They are the rantings of a drunken/intoxicated/drugged ignoramus. But I am in the process of putting together the criterias in terms that even you can understand. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 24 September 2015 at 8:31am
|
I have been hoping that one of you or all of you will come up with the term Ijazul Quran. But I am deeply disappointed at you google warriors. You could not find the term. It means the Inimitability of the Quran.
You will find a good article at wikipedia. If you are still at sea as to the meaning or evidences of the Inimitability of the Quran then you can ask me again. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 24 September 2015 at 1:05pm
|
Ah,
you're back to the "find yourself" business ? Next step will be another dodgy website. A propos, website, googling for "inimitable Qu'ran" yields for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1vm9du/is_the_quran_really_inimitable/ - this link. Is it this what you mean ? Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 September 2015 at 9:41pm
|
I am not really interested in the Arabic term you use to describe it. Theists love to give names to things, and pretend they have explained it -- as if, for instance, saying that Allah created the universe somehow explains how it was created. Okay, i'jaz ul Qur'an means "inimitability of the Quran"; but what I want to know is why you consider it inimitable. If by "a good article at Wikipedia" you mean the one on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijaz - I'jaz (in which case why didn't you link to it?), I'm afraid it isn't much help. It lists a whole lot of conflicting opinions from a variety of scholars, without favouring one opinion over another. That's what a good Wikipedia article should do, of course, but it doesn't help me to know what your opinion is. I am looking forward to your list of criteria that you think defines the miracle/inimitability of the Quran. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 30 September 2015 at 1:25pm
The Saint
Any progress with your criteria list ? More than eager to see the result: Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 02 October 2015 at 6:45am
|
Actually I've never read the Egyptian Book of the Dead, but I found this passage........................
You also find men more attractive than women. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 02 October 2015 at 6:59am
|
Ah,
you're back to the "find yourself" business ? Next step will be another dodgy website. Actually, I never left the said business!Someone has to tell you what you should be doing. A propos, website, googling for "inimitable Qu'ran" yields for example: this link. Is it this what you mean ? No! I am surprised you could not find this: http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/three-lines-the-changed-the-world-the-inimitability-of-the-shortest-chapter-in-the-qur%E2%80%99an/ ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 02 October 2015 at 7:04am
|
I am looking forward to your list of criteria that you think defines the miracle/inimitability of the Quran.
Ok, here it is: Based on the smallest chapter in the Quran. 1. Unique Literary Form 2. Unique Linguistic Genre 3. Abundance of rhetorical devices/features: - Emphasis - Multiple Meaning - Iltifaat � Grammatical shift - Word order and Arrangement - Ellipsis - Conceptual Relatedness (Intertextuality) - Intensification - Choice of words & Particles - Phonetics - Semantically Orientated Repetition - Intimacy - Exaggeration - Rebuke and contempt - Conciseness - Flexibility - Prophesy/Factual You can read all at: http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/three-lines-the-changed-the-world-the-inimitability-of-the-shortest-chapter-in-the-qur%E2%80%99an/ ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 02 October 2015 at 7:29am
|
In case I'm mistaken: I'm still waiting for a list from your side (and not another funny link).
Well, here it is: http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/three-lines-the-changed-the-world-the-inimitability-of-the-shortest-chapter-in-the-qur%E2%80%99an/ ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 02 October 2015 at 11:35am
The first two we have already seen. They amount to nothing more than free verse. As for an abundance of rhetorical devices, that is a matter of opinion (what is "abundance"?), but I can find plenty of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_device - rhetorical devices in the hypothetical "sura" I quoted in my opening post, as well as the passage from the Book of the Dead and for that matter in virtually all poetry. There is nothing unique about rhetorical devices. So that's it? The challenge is to produce free verse with an abundance of rhetorical devices/features? Really? Perhaps http://www.bardweb.net/grammar/02rhetoric.html - Shakespeare was a prophet!  ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 04 October 2015 at 11:49am
|
And the one I posted is also better...
Bad luck: Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 05 October 2015 at 3:00am
|
The first two we have already seen. They amount to nothing more than free verse.
If that is what you have understood so far, your intellect is pitiable! As for an abundance of rhetorical devices, that is a matter of opinion (what is "abundance"?), but I can find plenty of rhetorical devices in the hypothetical "sura" I quoted in my opening post, as well as the passage from the Book of the Dead and for that matter in virtually all poetry. There is nothing unique about rhetorical devices. Since you are bent-upon making a fool of yourself. Show me examples of all types of rhetorical devices, or the devices used in the verse you posted in your opener. And while you are at it please show me examples of the use of these devices in the Book of the Dead or other texts that you might know of. So that's it? The challenge is to produce free verse with an abundance of rhetorical devices/features? Really? Perhaps Shakespeare was a prophet! LOL No. It is not that at all. The challenge, has nothing to do with free verse. Your approach is very simplistic and connived naivete. You have to do some really serious studies. Start with learning Arabic. That is the only way to comprehend nuances and subtleties, depths and alternative meanings of words of the language. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 05 October 2015 at 11:21am
I told you already that the poem I posted the other day is better than any surah of the Quran. I think you should first learn Finish in all its subtleties, to really comprehend nuances, depth and alternative meanings of the words of this magnificent language. Than you will finally understand: Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 05 October 2015 at 6:09pm
Here you go. I've only provided one example of each, but in most cases there are several examples to choose from. There are also numerous rhetorical devices not mentioned by Tzortrzis. I'm not sure if this was supposed to be a complete list or merely illustrative. In any case, they are easy enough to find. Emphasis From paragraph 5: "certainly, my punishment is violent and severe". The word "certainly" adds emphasis, and the choice of first person singular ("my") rather than the more usual plural form ("our") makes the punishment more personal, implying that the offence is to God directly. Multiple Meaning From paragraph 4: "It is God who illuminated the heavens and the earth". The word "illuminated" suggests both the literal meaning of providing light from the sun, and also the metaphorical meaning of revealing the heavens and earth, and making them known to us. Iltifaat � Grammatical shift From paragraph 15: "he hopes to merit the reward of his Lord". The reference to "his Lord" is from Ali's point of view; and yet later in the same paragraph He directs Muhammad to say "the chastisement which I prepare for them". A lesser writer might have said "which your Lord prepares", to be consistent; but in His infinite wisdom, God has chosen the word "I", again emphasizing the personal nature of their affront to Him and of His retribution. Word order and Arrangement From paragraph 1: "As to myself, I understand and I know." For humans, knowledge precedes understanding -- one gains specific knowledge of details in order to attain understanding of the principles underlying them. God chose to reverse these two concepts to show that He has no such restrictions. His understanding of the world is separate from specific factual knowledge of its parts; indeed, He made the parts in accordance of His understanding of the whole. Ellipsis From paragraph 8: "O prophet! my advertisement arrived (at its destination); perhaps will they act (conformably to it)." The words in parentheses are understood from the context, rather than being part of the text itself. (Note that there is no example of ellipsis given in the Tzortzis analysis of al-Kawthar. Apparently he overlooked it.) Conceptual Relatedness (Intertextuality) From paragraph 4: "It is God who illuminated the heavens and the earth" This is related to the so-called "Verse of Light" in the Quran (24:35): "Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth." It is also internally related to paragraph 2, which mentions "the two lights, Muhammed and Ali". Indeed, light is a metaphor that appears frequently in the Quran. Intensification From paragraph 17: "they shall be safe in the kiosques of paradise." The word "kiosques" (kiosks) denotes a small space, usually open on one side -- not an obvious place of safety and refuge, nor one which would normally be associated with the grandeur of Paradise. The contrast in meaning intensifies the promise of God to keep them safe even in what might otherwise be seen differently. Choice of words & Particles From paragraph 3: "the gardens of delight" Although God seems to take delight in detailing the tortures inflicted on the damned, He prefers generalities in describing heaven, to allow our imaginations to provide whatever images might delight each of us personally. However, in this passage God makes an exception. The metaphor (and it clearly is just a metaphor) of a garden calls to mind the peacefulness as well as the bounty of heaven, to which I think we all can relate. Phonetics From paragraph 11: "Their habitation shall be hell". The word "habitation" may be an unusual choice for a place of torture, but the use of this word forms an alliteration to strengthen the message and draw the listener's attention to it. Semantically Orientated Repetition From paragraph 3: "they shall be thrown into hell"; from paragraph 7: "certainly, hell is their habitation"; from paragraph 11: "Their habitation shall be hell". Three times God warns that sinners shall be sent to hell, and there are many other passages that present the same semantic idea in different words (2, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16). This drives home the main message, that your loving and merciful God intends to torture disbelievers endlessly. Intimacy From paragraph 15: "He passes the night prostrate before God." In addition to indicating Ali's piety, God chooses to mention this to show his intimate relationship and knowledge of Ali's habits, even when he is alone at night. Exaggeration From paragraph 9: "their enemy is the Imam of sinners." Whether this is a reference to an historical leader, or perhaps to Satan, the title "Imam" is obviously undeserved; but to use such an epithet heightens the degree of animosity and threat that he poses. Rebuke and contempt From paragraph 12: "Among them we changed some into apes and hogs; we cursed them until the day of resurrection." References to apes and hogs are clear expressions of contempt, and there can be no stronger rebuke than the curse that God imposes here. Conciseness From paragraph 5: "God had already destroyed Ad and Tamud, on account of their crimes." Rather than provide a long list of crimes and their consequences, God simply refers to two tribes which would have been known at the time the Quran was revealed. Flexibility I have no idea what rhetorical device Tzortzis means by "flexibility", and he doesn't give an example himself, so neither will I. Prophesy/Factual From paragraph 16: "We have announced to thee a progeny of just men" The "just men" referred to are the Twelve Imams also mentioned in the Quran (5:12). Later in the paragraph they are described as "living or dead", in reference to the Mahdi. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 06 October 2015 at 1:27pm
|
Wow Ron !
I'm impressed: You just won a 1400 Years old contest ! Congratulations: Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 09 October 2015 at 8:31am
|
I told you already that the poem I posted the other day is better than any surah of the Quran.
I know what you said. I do not remember if I responded but I must say that you do not know what you are talking about. I think you should first learn Finish in all its subtleties, to really comprehend nuances, depth and alternative meanings of the words of this magnificent language. At present, I have no interest in Finnish. Although, I am sure it is a good language. However, the the subject of our discussion is Arabic. Quranic Arabic, to be precise. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 09 October 2015 at 8:43am
|
Here you go. I've only provided one example of each, but in most cases there are several examples to choose from. There are also numerous rhetorical devices not mentioned by Tzortrzis. I'm not sure if this was supposed to be a complete list or merely illustrative. In any case, they are easy enough to find.
You have forgotten to quote full references for all your quotes. Can you kindly do that. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 09 October 2015 at 10:40am
No, look at the title of the thread first before writing such nonsense. Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 09 October 2015 at 7:42pm
I'm not sure what references you're looking for. The quotes are obviously from the "surah" itself, which is contained in the http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34457&PID=199106#199106 - opening post , along with a http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main?url=pf%3Ffile%3D15501052%26ct%3D31 - link to the source . ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 12 October 2015 at 6:52am
|
The Noble Quran is in Arabic and its Surahs are also in Arabic.
And the subject "a Surah the like thereof" is also in Arabic. So, think before you speak. Always. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 12 October 2015 at 6:56am
|
I'm not sure what references you're looking for. The quotes are obviously from the "surah" itself, which is contained in the opening post, along with a link to the source.
I want the reference from the Quran for the verse you have quoted while defining the alleged various criteria of Quranic imitability. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 12 October 2015 at 8:41am
Aside from a passing mention of Quran 24:35 under "Conceptual relatedness", I don't think I quoted from the Quran. The alleged criteria were yours, which you copied from http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/three-lines-the-changed-the-world-the-inimitability-of-the-shortest-chapter-in-the-qur%E2%80%99an/ - Tzortis . C'mon, Mr. Saint. You're stalling. Airmano says I won the contest! When do I get my prize? 
------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 13 October 2015 at 8:06am
What did I write again http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34457&PID=199421#199421 - here:
It's easy to be a prophet. Airmano Ps: waiting for my second prediction to come true: Only authors that carry the name Mohamed can be accepted and he/she got to be illiteral. ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 14 October 2015 at 6:21am
|
I think I asked a very simple question and a simple straight answer is in order.
Give me references of the verses/instances you have quoted to show Quranic criteria fulfilled as challenged. Where are the verses/text from? ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 14 October 2015 at 6:33am
|
Give me references of the verses/instances you have quoted to show Quranic criteria fulfilled as challenged.
What did I write again here: I do not know. If you want me to know you may kindly tell me. However, what is your point? What are trying to say? Airmano (citing myself): Since according to the given criteria (as Ron stated) it doesn't seem to be particular difficult to find superior prose, I guess that the selection rules will get quickly tightened. Tightened? The rules are there for anyone to read. Are you saying you still do not know? I dare to make a guess on what we will end up with: - The prose has to be written in old Arabic.... Do you have the ability to compare Arabic with Sanskrit or Latin? Do you or Webb, even now understand what you are required to do? What the challenge is? ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 14 October 2015 at 7:44am
Where?
We're saying that you do not know. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: chalky
Date Posted: 16 October 2015 at 8:06am
| Interesting discussion but the challenge seems worthless. Who would bother to try to reproduce a book with no chronology, no narrative sequence and very often no context |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 17 October 2015 at 8:36am
|
Here you go. I've only provided one example of each, but in most cases there are several examples to choose from. There are also numerous rhetorical devices not mentioned by Tzortrzis. I'm not sure if this was supposed to be a complete list or merely illustrative. In any case, they are easy enough to find.
Emphasis From paragraph 5: "certainly, my punishment is violent and severe". The word "certainly" adds emphasis, and the choice of first person singular ("my") rather than the more usual plural form ("our") makes the punishment more personal, implying that the offence is to God directly. Multiple Meaning From paragraph 4: "It is God who illuminated the heavens and the earth". The word "illuminated" suggests both the literal meaning of providing light from the sun, and also the metaphorical meaning of revealing the heavens and earth, and making them known to us. Iltifaat � Grammatical shift From paragraph 15: "he hopes to merit the reward of his Lord". The reference to "his Lord" is from Ali's point of view; and yet later in the same paragraph He directs Muhammad to say "the chastisement which I prepare for them". A lesser writer might have said "which your Lord prepares", to be consistent; but in His infinite wisdom, God has chosen the word "I", again emphasizing the personal nature of their affront to Him and of His retribution. Word order and Arrangement From paragraph 1: "As to myself, I understand and I know." For humans, knowledge precedes understanding -- one gains specific knowledge of details in order to attain understanding of the principles underlying them. God chose to reverse these two concepts to show that He has no such restrictions. His understanding of the world is separate from specific factual knowledge of its parts; indeed, He made the parts in accordance of His understanding of the whole. Ellipsis From paragraph 8: "O prophet! my advertisement arrived (at its destination); perhaps will they act (conformably to it)." The words in parentheses are understood from the context, rather than being part of the text itself. (Note that there is no example of ellipsis given in the Tzortzis analysis of al-Kawthar. Apparently he overlooked it.) Conceptual Relatedness (Intertextuality) From paragraph 4: "It is God who illuminated the heavens and the earth" This is related to the so-called "Verse of Light" in the Quran (24:35): "Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth." It is also internally related to paragraph 2, which mentions "the two lights, Muhammed and Ali". Indeed, light is a metaphor that appears frequently in the Quran. Intensification From paragraph 17: "they shall be safe in the kiosques of paradise." The word "kiosques" (kiosks) denotes a small space, usually open on one side -- not an obvious place of safety and refuge, nor one which would normally be associated with the grandeur of Paradise. The contrast in meaning intensifies the promise of God to keep them safe even in what might otherwise be seen differently. Choice of words & Particles From paragraph 3: "the gardens of delight" Although God seems to take delight in detailing the tortures inflicted on the damned, He prefers generalities in describing heaven, to allow our imaginations to provide whatever images might delight each of us personally. However, in this passage God makes an exception. The metaphor (and it clearly is just a metaphor) of a garden calls to mind the peacefulness as well as the bounty of heaven, to which I think we all can relate. Phonetics From paragraph 11: "Their habitation shall be hell". The word "habitation" may be an unusual choice for a place of torture, but the use of this word forms an alliteration to strengthen the message and draw the listener's attention to it. Semantically Orientated Repetition From paragraph 3: "they shall be thrown into hell"; from paragraph 7: "certainly, hell is their habitation"; from paragraph 11: "Their habitation shall be hell". Three times God warns that sinners shall be sent to hell, and there are many other passages that present the same semantic idea in different words (2, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16). This drives home the main message, that your loving and merciful God intends to torture disbelievers endlessly. Intimacy From paragraph 15: "He passes the night prostrate before God." In addition to indicating Ali's piety, God chooses to mention this to show his intimate relationship and knowledge of Ali's habits, even when he is alone at night. Exaggeration From paragraph 9: "their enemy is the Imam of sinners." Whether this is a reference to an historical leader, or perhaps to Satan, the title "Imam" is obviously undeserved; but to use such an epithet heightens the degree of animosity and threat that he poses. Rebuke and contempt From paragraph 12: "Among them we changed some into apes and hogs; we cursed them until the day of resurrection." References to apes and hogs are clear expressions of contempt, and there can be no stronger rebuke than the curse that God imposes here. Conciseness From paragraph 5: "God had already destroyed Ad and Tamud, on account of their crimes." Rather than provide a long list of crimes and their consequences, God simply refers to two tribes which would have been known at the time the Quran was revealed. Flexibility I have no idea what rhetorical device Tzortzis means by "flexibility", and he doesn't give an example himself, so neither will I. Prophesy/Factual From paragraph 16: "We have announced to thee a progeny of just men" The "just men" referred to are the Twelve Imams also mentioned in the Quran (5:12). Later in the paragraph they are described as "living or dead", in reference to the Mahdi. What are these? And from where? Please answer. I need a clear and direct answer. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 17 October 2015 at 8:39am
|
Interesting discussion but the challenge seems .................
One more seemingly ignorant critic! ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 17 October 2015 at 8:49am
|
Tightened? The rules are there for anyone to read.
Where? Here. Here is a sample. One I have already given you before. What makes the shortest chapter in the Qur�an inimitable? To start, below is a summary of chapter al-Kawthar�s literary and linguistic features: 1. Unique Literary Form 2. Unique Linguistic Genre 3. Abundance of rhetorical devices/features: - Emphasis - Multiple Meaning - Iltifaat � Grammatical shift - Word order and Arrangement - Ellipsis - Conceptual Relatedness (Intertextuality) - Intensification - Choice of words & Particles - Phonetics - Semantically Orientated Repetition - Intimacy - Exaggeration - Rebuke and contempt - Conciseness - Flexibility - Prophesy/Factual Example of each feature in the Ayah is given below, in detail. And the verse is SURA 108. Kauthar, or Abundance 1. To thee have We granted the Fount [of Abundance>. 2. Therefore to thy Lord turn in Prayer and Sacrifice. 3. For he who hateth thee, he will be cut off [from Future Hope>. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 17 October 2015 at 10:28am
These are examples of the literary features that you/Tzortzis listed as criteria. They are all found in the candidate "surah" I quoted in the opening post. http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34457&PID=199902#199902 - I told you that already , as if you didn't already know. You're still stalling. I met all the criteria in the opening post, and I want my prize!
Yes, I know, and I have already answered them. These are not difficult criteria to meet, by the way. Any decent writer knows how to use them. I've even seen them in your own writing. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 19 October 2015 at 7:07am
|
These are examples of the literary features that you/Tzortzis listed as criteria. They are all found in the candidate "surah" I quoted in the opening post. I told you that already, as if you didn't already know.
Oh, I see now! I had no idea that you would pick-up some unknown text from somewhere and post it as the answer to the Quranic challenge. But that is exactly what you did. And I kept thinking that you were still searching for a text that would fulfill the challenge. Let me ask you about the first two points: 1. Unique Literary Form 2. Unique Linguistic Genre I am sure you know that the third point and its sub-points can only be eligible for consideration if the first two are met? and I noticed that you started with 'emphasis': Emphasis From paragraph 5: "certainly, my punishment is violent and severe". The word "certainly" adds emphasis, and the choice of first person singular ("my") rather than the more usual plural form ("our") makes the punishment more personal, implying that the offence is to God directly. Can you kindly tell me where is paragraph 5? The text at the fifth para does not match the text you have posted? More soon. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 19 October 2015 at 7:44am
| Would Yoda in Star Wars count since he did very much have a unique way of speaking? |
Posted By: chalky
Date Posted: 19 October 2015 at 8:26am
|
If verses have multiple meanings one wonders how we might discover them and know they are valid? I thought the Quran was supposed to be clear but now it clearly is not because it can have multiple meanings, presumably all of which can be true at the same time.
But I think you exaggerate as if only the Quran can have literary merit. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 October 2015 at 8:53am
Why would I keep on searching if I've already found a suitable candidate? By the way, according to the book in which I found it, this sura was originally part of the Quran, but "Osman" (Uthman?) threw it out because it favoured the Shias.
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34457&PID=199389#199389 - Already answered.
Sorry, I assumed you could count. 1. In the name of the bountiful and merciful God. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 21 October 2015 at 7:47am
|
Why would I keep on searching if I've already found a suitable candidate? By the way, according to the book in which I found it, this sura was originally part of the Quran, but "Osman" (Uthman?) threw it out because it favoured the Shias.
No, it is not even a candidate! Oh! BTW, I just caught you guilty of getting your history mixed-up. You know where you slipped-up so badly? At the time of Usman RA, shias had not yet happened! Already answered. No, it is not. Sorry, I assumed you could count. Your assumption is correct. But the supposed Bismillah is never counted as a verse. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 21 October 2015 at 10:08am
Why not?
Not according to the book I was quoting from. And not according to the Shias themselves.
(Well, except for the first sura.) But I was counting paragraphs, not verses. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 21 October 2015 at 2:13pm
May be because of my last http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34457&PID=199421#199421 - point(?): In case that any other equally qualifying poem can be produced (under above rules) it is the one that has been invented in a cave that will win. -------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Shia_Islam - Secular Sources say:
Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 26 October 2015 at 2:48am
|
Originally posted by The Saint
No, it is not even a candidate! Why not? Because it does not fulfill the criteria. All requirements must be met. Not according to the book I was quoting from. And not according to the Shias themselves. The division among the Muslims which created Shias had not happened till the time of Hazrat Usman RA. It happened after him. So, your book is historically wrong. Check your facts against known history. Well, except for the first sura.) But I was counting paragraphs, not verses. That is how, on yet another count it is different from the Quran. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 26 October 2015 at 7:28am
|
May be because of my last point(?):
In case that any other equally qualifying poem can be produced (under above rules) it is the one that has been invented in a cave that will win. There it is! The reference to a cave is a distasteful reference to Muhammad PBUH and the revelations he received in Ghare Hira. Secular Sources say: Shiism began for the first time with a reference made to the partisans of Ali the first leader of the Ahl al-Bayt (Household of the prophet).[7][7] In the early years of Islamic history there was no "orthodox" Sunni or "heretical" Shiite, but rather of two points of view that were drifting steadily until became manifest as early as the death of Muhammad the prophet of Islam. Actually, it was a man named Abdullah Ibn Saba, who saw an opportunity to exploit the disunity of the Muslims during the time of civil unrest during Uthman�s Caliphate. Ibn Saba �converted� to Islam, and tried to gain a following amongst Ali�s more extreme supporters. These followers of Ali were using him in their appeals to Caliph Uthman. They were already upset with Uthman, and thus they were the perfect target audience for Ibn Saba who would convince them of Ali�s superiority over Uthman. Ibn Saba first called the masses to show their love and devotion to the Ahlel Bayt (Prophetic Household). He then started claiming that none could exceed the Ahlel Bayt in status. When he gained some popularity at this, he boldly claimed that Ali was the most superior person after the Prophet. When he saw that some of his followers had indeed believed him, he confided in them that Ali was in reality the appointed successor of the Prophet, but that the Three Caliphs had usurped this right from him. Ibn Saba then unleashed a campaign of vilification against the Sahabah, and he is the first to start the practice of Tabarra, or ritualistic cursing of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. He then told his staunch supporters that Ali had powers above those of a normal human being. Up until then, Ali had not paid much attention to Ibn Saba�s antics, but once he heard of this news, Ali was furious. Ali threatened to burn all of Ibn Saba�s followers (called Saba�ites) to the stake including Ibn Saba; Ali asked them to repent and he would eventually exile them to Mada�in (modern day Iran) when he was Caliph. This and more at http://www.discoveringislam.org/origins_of_shiism.htm should tell you that Shiaism was the work of an evil individual who intended to divide Muslims. Most importantly, Hazrat Ali RA disliked and disapproved of Abdullah Ibn Saba. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 26 October 2015 at 11:49am
Which criteria? I already showed in painstaking detail how all of Tzortzis' criteria can be easily met.
Every source I have ever read says that the dispute over the succession arose right at the death of Muhammad. In fact, the story I remember is that Ali was absent from the meeting where Abu Bakr was elected, because he was preparing Muhammad's body for burial. I was going to find a link to support this, but then I had a wild thought: how about if you provide a reference to support your theory? What makes you think that Sunni/Shia dispute did not arise until later?
The verse numbers are not and were not originally part of the Quran. Different traditions numbered them differently. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 26 October 2015 at 2:22pm
Let me guess: Could it be that your case of the "linguistic superiority" of the Quran becomes more and more hopeless ? Now to "the cave": I know that Muslims can't stand the very thought of people "not seeing the divinity of the Quran". I can't help it and I really don't know how to pack it in more friendly words: For me it is sure and certain that the Quran is man made and served more of a political/personal purpose than spreading the word of God. Beyond any doubt. Now to the "Shia Business": I'm always impressed how quickly all those that do not share your point of view get a "misguided" or "deluded" stamp. I can only hope that this is not a general attitude in Islam. Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 28 October 2015 at 2:23am
|
Which criteria? I already showed in painstaking detail how all of Tzortzis' criteria can be easily met.
Yes, painstaking it was but not very honest. Firstly, you dismissed the first two listed criteria as already fulfilled assuming it was free verse that was asked for. Secondly, do you think that the verses you have posted match the linguistic genre of the Quran? Also do you have any idea that the criteria Tzortzis has given is for the smallest ayat of the Quran. I am sure you should be able to imagine the criteria that would be seen in bigger ayats? Every source I have ever read says that the dispute over the succession arose right at the death of Muhammad. In fact, the story I remember is that Ali was absent from the meeting where Abu Bakr was elected, because he was preparing Muhammad's body for burial. I was going to find a link to support this, but then I had a wild thought: how about if you provide a reference to support your theory? What makes you think that Sunni/Shia dispute did not arise until later? I have already given you a source, http://www.discoveringislam.org/origins_of_shiism.htm. Did you miss it? Yes, there were some differences as to who should succeed the Prophet PBUH but by no means was there a split among Muslims. The verse numbers are not and were not originally part of the Quran. Different traditions numbered them differently. I was not referring to the verse numbers in the Quran. I was referring to your numbering. I should also emphasise that every Surah in Quran except one begins, with a Bismillah but yours does not. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 28 October 2015 at 3:29am
|
Ah at the beginning you found my comments rather funny. Since I did not change anything from my initial list I can only conclude that your state of mind must have changed.
I can discern between a funny idea and an offensive one, even if you are unable to or are disabled by a befuddled mind. Let me guess: Could it be that your case of the "linguistic superiority" of the Quran becomes more and more hopeless ? The more you do your background studies, the more you search the web(to counter the claim), the more convinced you will become of the superiority of the Quran over every known text on the face of the earth. Now to "the cave": I know that Muslims can't stand the very thought of people "not seeing the divinity of the Quran". I can't help it and I really don't know how to pack it in more friendly words: For me it is sure and certain that the Quran is man made and served more of a political/personal purpose than spreading the word of God. Beyond any doubt. Yes, Muslims cannot believe that people can be so bigoted that they cannot see or hear or accept evidences that the Quran is the word of Almighty God. That its purpose is the guidance of all mankind. Let me see you quote examples from the Quran which you feel support the alleged political/personal motives of the Quran. Now to the "Shia Business": I'm always impressed how quickly all those that do not share your point of view get a "misguided" or "deluded" stamp. I can only hope that this is not a general attitude in Islam. Airmano Are you admitting that you, yet do not know Islam sufficiently? Or, are you saying that you are unable to understand Islam, because you have not tried hard enough? Or, you fail to realise that a disputing group, a minority may not be correct also? Are you capable of unbiased evaluation of facts? I know you will always be inclined to believe anything that opposes Islam. Which in effect tells me that your goal in life is to contradict and attack Islam, or organised religion, only. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 28 October 2015 at 4:24am
You don't present any actual evidence of this. The Koran does not set the ultimate example of how to write a poem. It's just not the best prose in the world. I know it's going to be impossible to say what is as it's all a matter of opinion but any prose written so long ago is at an instant disadvantage. If it worked so well back then it will be a little flat now just because we are more exposed to other prose. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 28 October 2015 at 2:53pm
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
Since I prefer guiding people to find the answer to their questions themselves I will help you a little bit: --------- Why was the Tenno's voice (and even more the person) unknown to the Japanese till he proclaimed capitulation ? --------- Why is Kim Jong Un (and the rest of the gang) always presented as God-like by the state propaganda machine ? ---------- Why were the Egyptian Pharaoh's considered as God-like ? --------- Than: Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 509, p. 477; book 61 Narrated Zaid-bin-Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yama-ma had been killed (i.e. a number of the prophets companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said to me, "Umar has come to me and said: `Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Qur'an (ie those who knew the Qur'an by heart) on the day of the battle of Yama-ma, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra on other battle fields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest that you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected'. I said to Umar, `How can you do something Allah's Apostle did not do?' Umar said, `By Allah, that is a good project'. Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest (persuaded me) for it and I began to realise the good idea which Umar had realised. God idea or not, Zayd's question "How can you do something Allah's Apostle did not do?" remains unanswered. Can you answer this question with your own thoughts ? (so without prior consultation of Islamic webpages which would stop you from thinking for yourselves ?) ----------------------------------------------------- To finish:
Fact is that there are [many] people that have informed themselves or even read the Quran and that remain by no means convinced. It seems to me that Muslims can not bear the very thought that many of those that did so, still feel no desire to adhere to this religion/ideology. So they try to explain it away by accusing them of being uninformed, deluded, misguided or simply st**id. You're a nice example for this logic because so far you've shown the full spectrum of these "please explain this problem away" attempts. Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 28 October 2015 at 4:00pm
Then tell me what the first two criteria are. Tzortzis only tells me what it isn't, i.e. it isn't one of the sixteen al-Bihar forms, and it doesn't use any particular cohesive devices.
I think it matches the genre, which I would describe as revealed scripture. As for "linguistic genre", I'm not sure what that means, and Tzortzis doesn't clarify. What do you think it means?
(I think you mean "surah" rather than ayat?) The criteria should be the same for all surahs. What's the point of having criteria, if they change from one surah to another?
You gave it to airmano, not to me. I tried to find the origin of that article, but all I found were dead ends. www.ahlelbayt.com is basically gone and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hashimi - Ibn al-Hashimi seems to be a scholar from the ninth century, so that can't be right. I think the name is used by several more recent people but no one of any reputation as far as I can tell. So once again, apparently you're just quoting some random guy on the Internet. Why whould we believe him?
http://www.islamicity.org/3239/sunni-shia-brief-history/ - Islamicity has an article which says that "The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad." That's good enough for me. It's not pertinent to the discussion anyway. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 30 October 2015 at 8:34am
|
You don't present any actual evidence of this.
Tell me, what kind of evidence would be actual? The Koran does not set the ultimate example of how to write a poem. It's just not the best prose in the world. Let us have some evidence to support your claims. I think you do not know what you are talking about. I know it's going to be impossible to say what is as it's all a matter of opinion but any prose written so long ago is at an instant disadvantage. If it worked so well back then it will be a little flat now just because we are more exposed to other prose. You are obviously completely at sea in this matter. It is like you telling an astronaut how to fly the space shuttle. Try and get some help from your superiors if they are any better than you. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 31 October 2015 at 3:55am
The best prose in the world would have to be obviously the best as considered so by all the world. I have just looked for the best examples of Koranic verse and drew a blank. I was going to quote some and have you decied which were the best. I was hoping you would chose the none-koranic ones I would have thrown in. Shame the world is less keen on showing how wonderful the Koran is as poetry. |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 31 October 2015 at 7:17am
|
You don't present any actual evidence of this.
For what? The Koran does not set the ultimate example of how to write a poem. It's just not the best prose in the world. How do you know? I know it's going to be impossible to say what is as it's all a matter of opinion but any prose written so long ago is at an instant disadvantage. If it worked so well back then it will be a little flat now just because we are more exposed to other prose. Your thinking is obviously limited by your ignorance. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 31 October 2015 at 7:57am
|
I forwarded this message to your God, he made me this way, so please shout at him.
Because, according to you, God does not exist, so you are either lying. Or, if you have begun believing in God you still do not believe He is all Good. So, what is it? Sure, what do you expect when you only consult Islamic webpages? I do not need Islamic web pages to tell me about Quran and its greatness. I read the Quran, everyday and I can feel its effects. The peace it brings to me. Evidence ? Did I read evidence ? I rubbed my eyes twice and I still can't believe what I read. You may do some more rubbing! But if your mind is closed you will not see the truth even if you are hit with it. The Quran has no motivation whatsoever, it's a book. It is the person(s) that edited it I'm talking about. How do you know he edited it? And how do you know what his intentions were? Why was the Tenno's voice (and even more the person) unknown to the Japanese till he proclaimed capitulation ? --------- Why is Kim Jong Un (and the rest of the gang) always presented as God-like by the state propaganda machine ? ---------- Why were the Egyptian Pharaoh's considered as God-like ? Because true divine guidance has not reached the concerned people or they ignored it as you are doing. Just as it has not reached Hindus, who have 300 million gods. Than: Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 509, p. 477; book 61 Narrated Zaid-bin-Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yama-ma had been killed (i.e. a number of the prophets companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said to me, "Umar has come to me and said: `Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Qur'an (ie those who knew the Qur'an by heart) on the day of the battle of Yama-ma, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra on other battle fields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest that you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected'. I said to Umar, `How can you do something Allah's Apostle did not do?' Umar said, `By Allah, that is a good project'. Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest (persuaded me) for it and I began to realise the good idea which Umar had realised. God idea or not, Zayd's question "How can you do something Allah's Apostle did not do?" remains unanswered. Can you answer this question with your own thoughts ? (so without prior consultation of Islamic webpages which would stop you from thinking for yourselves ?) I assume you meant to say good. Well, here's the answer. He trained his companions to continue the good work he began. He taught them also to acquire knowledge and to use it to spread Islam and make all efforts to see that it reached the farthest corners of the earth. Further during his time people were reading the Quran in the same manner it was revealed. But by the time of Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA perhaps, variant readings were reported. Therefore, because new tribes were being accepted into Islam and Islam was reaching new lands and peoples and because the Quran was until then not compiled into a book, he proposed the compilation just so that the originality and completeness of the Quran could be ensured and compacted. Btw, Qurra did die in the war with Musailama, not all perished. Many still remained, in fact there have been many in all ages and all times. That is the uniqueness of the Quran. Fact is that there are [many] people that have informed themselves or even read the Quran and that remain by no means convinced. I am aware of that. But I believe that either they were not thorough in their studies or they were not honest enough. I am hoping you will agree with those possibilities. It seems to me that Muslims can not bear the very thought that many of those that did so, still feel no desire to adhere to this religion/ideology. So they try to explain it away by accusing them of being uninformed, deluded, misguided or simply st**id. You're a nice example for this logic because so far you've shown the full spectrum of these "please explain this problem away" attempts. Yes, it is both amazing and unbelievable that non-Muslims remain unbelieving even after 'studying' the Quran they remain ignorant. It is also quite disappointing. Yet, it is still no cause to call names. After all, its God's business, so why should the Muslim get worked-up? Accusations as reported by you get thrown at you when you start denying things about the Quran that are patently false or incorrect. Because you forget that Muslims read the Quran also and know when you are lying or denying things. Therefore, my reactions are logical. But you do not like them. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 01 November 2015 at 12:27pm
And for the intentions: They are straightforward to see for all those who's eyes are not veiled by indoctrination. ---------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
I give you my thoughts: Uthman realized that there were many centrifugal forces where his competitors tried to pull their own advantage/justification (and in the end power) from the Quran. In order to take the wind out of their sails he did exactly the same but with more backing. BTW. you admit that there have been competing versions of the Quran. How do you know that the canonized form of Uthman is the right one ? --------------------------------------------------
And: I can't help it, but from all three Abrahamic religions, Islam seems by far the shakiest to me. ---------------------------------------------------
Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 04 November 2015 at 1:14am
Wow!! Can such a conclusion be called honest scholarship? |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 04 November 2015 at 5:52am
|
Then tell me what the first two criteria are. Tzortzis only tells me what it isn't, i.e. it isn't one of the sixteen al-Bihar forms, and it doesn't use any particular cohesive devices.
You missed the two criteria given below: 1. Unique Literary Form 2. Unique Linguistic Genre I think it matches the genre, which I would describe as revealed scripture. No. It is unique as its internal rhythm can not be described as any of the al-Bihar and its end rhyme and literary bonds differ from any Arabic prose. Therefore its literary form is unlike any known literary forms of the Arabic language.http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/three-lines-the-changed-the-world-the-inimitability-of-the-shortest-chapter-in-the-qur%E2%80%99an/ As for "linguistic genre", I'm not sure what that means, and Tzortzis doesn't clarify. What do you think it means? Like all other chapters in the Qur�an, chapter al-Kawthar marry�s together rhetorical and cohesive elements in every sentence. This is a unique use of the Arabic language as Arabic texts mostly employ cohesive elements in every sentence.http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/three-lines-the-changed-the-world-the-inimitability-of-the-shortest-chapter-in-the-qur%E2%80%99an/ So, the challenge, as Abdur Rahim Green mentions, is to produce in Arabic , three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen al-Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook. Indeed The Qur'an is not verse, but it is rhythmic. The rhythm of some verses resemble the regularity of sajc, and both are rhymed, while some verses have a similarity to Rajaz in its vigour and rapidity. But it was recognized by Quraysh critics to belong to neither one nor the other category. (I think you mean "surah" rather than ayat?) The criteria should be the same for all surahs. What's the point of having criteria, if they change from one surah to another? Yes, you are right, I meant Surah. I intended to convey to you that if a three line Surah was so complex as explained at http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/three-lines-the-changed-the-world-the-inimitability-of-the-shortest-chapter-in-the-qur%E2%80%99an/, there would be huge complexities of literary forms in bigger Surahs. You gave it to airmano, not to me. I tried to find the origin of that article, but all I found were dead ends. www.ahlelbayt.com is basically gone and Ibn al-Hashimi seems to be a scholar from the ninth century, so that can't be right. I think the name is used by several more recent people but no one of any reputation as far as I can tell. I think you and Airmano are the same person.I pointed you to Discovering Islam. How did you land-up at ahlelbayt? So once again, apparently you're just quoting some random guy on the Internet. Why whould we believe him? Even Tzortzis was just some guy before you read him! Now you are fine with him. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 04 November 2015 at 6:23am
|
All the books I know have been edited by someone [human], I see absolutely no reason to assume that the Quran is an exception to that rule.
And for the intentions: They are straightforward to see for all those who's eyes are not veiled by indoctrination. I have been repeatedly telling you all that the Quran is unique. But you are unable to accept the fact. All books are edited by someone because they were written by human beings. The Quran is NOT! That should be logically a good reason to make it an exception. As for the intentions of a man to project a book as divine, the first motive that comes to mind would be personal ambition or glory. But an unjaundiced look at the biography of Muhammad PBUH should tell anyone that he was a humble, kind, modest and sincere man. That's not an answer. Could you try again being a bit more serious ? I am very serious. You have a problem here because you have no idea what guidance is! I knew that you would give a flowery and embellishing answer. I thought I had stated plain and simple facts. I give you my thoughts: Uthman realized that there were many centrifugal forces where his competitors tried to pull their own advantage/justification (and in the end power) from the Quran. In order to take the wind out of their sails he did exactly the same but with more backing. Usman RA was an exalted companion of the Prophet PBUH, therefore, such a man could not not be expected to act in a questionable manner. Personal glory would be out of the question, as a motive. BTW. you admit that there have been competing versions of the Quran. How do you know that the canonized form of Uthman is the right one ? No, I never, ever said there were 'competing' versions of the Quran. It is pure humbug. I know because I expect a companion of the Prophet PBUH to be at the pinnacle of honesty and sincerity. The fact that you put 'studying' in quotation marks tells me that you still can't accept that people can seriously inform themselves about Islam/Quran without getting impressed by it. Dream on! I do not remember if I told you that it is the intention of a man, in Islam, that influences his efforts. It is how he/she approaches a project or assignment which determines success or failure. Therefore, I trust that anyone who approaches the Quran with the intention of learning or gaining from it, will get what they seek. Others will come away empty-handed. And: I can't help it, but from all three Abrahamic religions, Islam seems by far the shakiest to me. I am sure you have very good reasons to believe that. Tell me about them. I will wait for your response. I won't let you off the hook till you either show me where I said anything false about the Quran or till you excuse yourself for this statement. At the moment I do not remember the exact post. But I shall try to find it. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 November 2015 at 9:02am
Just as the example from my first post is unique in its internal rhythm and cannot be described as any of the al-Bihar. Which of the known literary forms is it?
Given that the Quran is not divided into sentences (originally it did not even have punctuation), I'm not sure what this means. However, my example does marry together rhetorical and cohesive elements, as I have shown.
My example is not in Arabic (nor was it written in a cave ), but you're welcome to translate it if you want. It is much more than three lines. It does not match any of the sixteen al-Bihar are, and it is not rhyming prose. Whether it is like the speech of the soothsayers is a subjective judgement; but since it is very much like the speech of the Quran, I am confident that it meets the criterion equally well. It is certainly not "normal speech" by today's standards. IMHO it is more comprehensible than many of the passages in the Quran.
The three line surah is not at all complex. Tzortzis makes a great fuss over the most mundane of "rhetorical devices", and so I followed suit; but really, things like word choice, word arrangement and choice of particle are just the everyday business of any decent writer.
How could you confuse us? Airmano is much more handsome than me. 
Good grief! When are you going to learn to check your own sources?? Origins of the Shia SectThis is our edited version of an article written By: Ibn al-Hashimi www.ahlelbayt.com
No, I'm not "fine with him". You are quoting him and so I am responding to his criteria, but I don't know what authority he has, and I am not impressed by what I've read so far. I'm surprised that you are fine with him, though. Are you aware that he was caught in the http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ashley-madison-hack-islamic-preacher-hamza-tzortzis-found-leaked-list-1516688 - Ashley Madison leak? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 04 November 2015 at 11:38am
Hi Ron, I do see you pulling along this topic to nearly 11 pages. Huge discussion going on. So, let me add another perspective in an humble attempt to answer your quest. So, first of all, in my view, it is important to realize two things here. (a) The authenticity and accuracy of the contents of the verse matching the overall theme of the Quran (non self contradicting). (b) linguistically harmonious / matching with the other verses of Quran (in Arabic and not in its translation). So, here I can only discuss with you the part (a) and not the (b), as I am not an arabic speaker.
Now looking at this part of your evidence to match Quran, suffice is to say that none of these scriptures that you have quoted have any comparable authenticity as regards to their historically known authorship. Other issues of self contractions within these scriptures is yet another big topic for discussion elsewhere. Just as not to offend my Christian brothers, present day (NT) Bible is not even purporting to be of divine authorship. Now coming to your last presented evidence where you say
Again, applying the test (a), it is easily seen even through the translation that the verses are not only self contradicting but also from the overall theme of the Quran. Here are some of the errors within these verses. 1. In the verse "In the name of the bountiful and merciful God.", the definite article "the" is missing before the attributes of "merciful God". Here I am also willing to acknowledge that actually this passage might be in Arabic where translating it in English, such an error might have crept in. Nevertheless, I think I have made one of my point clear with this example. 2. In the verse "O you who have faith, believe in the two lights, Muhammed and Ali, whom we have sent, and who recite our verses to you, and put you on your guard against the chastisement of the great day. These two lights proceed the one from the other." there are number of errors with this part of the verses where it is suggesting divine assignment for the two personalities. Firstly, Hazrat Ali was a child of about 11 years when the Prophet Mohammad was assigned prophet-hood at his age of about 40. Nobody knows when and where these specific verses were revealed and on to whom? Secondly, all of the Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammad over a duration of about 23 years or so and none of the verses revealed through Hazrat Ali. Thirdly, through this part of the passage plurality in the divine assignment is seen but in the rest of the passage only singular is being addressed as Prophet and is not clear if this is "Ali" or "Mohammad". Again, no where else in Quran the name "Ali" is found but only in this passage it is found twice. Definitely there are many other such mistakes in this passage, but due to my own limited knowledge about the Characteristics of Quran, I would rather refrain myself highlighting them here. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 November 2015 at 2:34pm
Thank you, AhmadJoyia. I appreciate your contribution.
Sorry, I don't see the distinction. Surely if a surah matches the overall theme of the Quran and is non-contradicting, then it is harmonious and matching, and vice versa. And either way, if there were significant contradictions, they would be evident in translation as well.
We have no evidence of the authorship or authenticity of the Quran either. We only have Muhammad's word for it. The whole point of this challenge is to provide such evidence, by showing that no human could have been the author.
There are dozens of contradictions in the Quran as well. I won't link to any sources because Islamicity doesn't want to promote them, but you can easily find them by Googling "Quran contradictions".
The article "the" modifies the noun "God", not the adjectives. There should only be one. "In the name of the bountiful and the merciful God" would be incorrect.
The claim in the original source ( http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main?url=pf%3Ffile%3D15501052%26ct%3D31 - The Dabistan, or School of Manners ) is that these verses were revealed to Muhammad as part of the Quran, but that they were suppressed by "Osman" (Uthman?) when he compiled what became the single orthodox version. We have no way of knowing whether this is true or not, but IMHO it is quite plausible.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the surah was revealed through Ali.
Muhammad is rarely referred to by name in the Quran. References to the Prophet are assumed to be to him.
Why is that a problem? I understand that the Kaaba is mentioned in Surah 5, and in no other place in the Quran. I'm sure there are other words and names that occur in only one place. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 04 November 2015 at 8:18pm
The distinction is in sensitivity test of contradiction in comparison with the rest of the Quran. For a forensic analysis even a minutest evidence can sometimes lead to the whole fact. So, I think, it is not just good enough to be "significant" only. Secondly, you would better know that language translation is an irreversible transformation, especially once the original is not known. Perhaps this is one of the biggest trouble with the Bible or other scriptures that you have quoted. The more translations you have, more uncertainty you induce about the original.
Well, this type of argument lend itself to the debate of interaction between Infinite God and Finite humans. For Muslims and also for those among the people of the Book, one of the familiar way is through inspirational communication with a selected human being, known as the Prophet. So, if we agree on this point that Prophet Mohammad proclaimed himself to be a Prophet of God, then the authorship of Quran, as per this prophet's own statement, must be taken as the point of origin of the scripture for the humans in the form of a verifiable material associated to this historical figure. I am sorry to say, once it comes to applying the same methodology to all other scriptures, we don't find the originator (author) of the writings in the original language.
To my humble understanding, these all have also been very aptly (through the same methodology of higher criticism) responded with. However, if you have any specific one which you think is left unanswered, I think this the forum, we can definitely talk about it.
This piece of controversy has been settled long time ago in the muslim history where most of the Shia brothers including those living in Iran have agreed upon the originality of Hazrat Usman's recompilation work of Quran. Remember, Hazrat Ali have been the 4th mutually agreed upon Caliph of the Muslims. He could have very easily not only highlighted but also corrected upon the Written Quran. Secondly what about the oral Quran still existed in the hearts of Muslim Ummah, reciting it manadatorily once in year time at the time of Ramadhan. Such a blunder, if any, could not have gone unnoticed. Of course, who would know better than you about the freedom of speech where it is nearly impossible to convince 100% all. So, yes, we may find people like these to not agree with the rest. No compulsion at all in Islam.
Exactly this is the point here. If none of the verses of Quran are revealed through Hazrat Ali, there is a little reason to associate him with the divine assignment of prophet-hood. He can be the Most ardent companion of the Prophet, true, but not the Prophet-hood. Only single point of transmission of divine message. I guess, if this theological point is not well understood, the very nature of possibility of multi-source transmission of Quran would cause uncertainty in the message as has happened with almost all the other scriptures that have been quoted here.
Right. However, apart from the topic under discussion, the passage you quoted along with its purpose requires, as I said, once it comes to a forensic analysis, even the word combination and word selection in the contested writing has to be verified with the existing Quran. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 05 November 2015 at 9:00am
Human languages are not perfect. There will always be minor ambiguities, alternate interpretations, etc.; but I think by definition if a contradiction is not significant, then it would not signify a reason to doubt its authenticity.
I'm sorry, but we don't agree on this point. Lots of people proclaim themselves to be prophets. We can't just take their word for it. Anyway, the point is not to prove that the example surah in the first post is authentic. I agree, it is not authentic (at least, inasmuch as it is not a revelation from God). The point is that if the example is of human origin, and it is "the like thereof" to other surahs in the Quran, then there is no reason to assume that the Quran is not also of human origin.
Perhaps in another discussion.  My point here was simply that every religion finds flaws in every other religion's scripture. There are plenty of Christian responses to Muslim criticisms of the Bible too, and I'm sure the Christians feel that all of the contradictions in their scripture have been aptly responded to -- just as you feel about alleged contradictions in the Quran.
In English the words "bountiful" and "merciful" are adjectives, not nouns, and therefore cannot take articles. The translation you suggested would be understood as something like "in the name of Allah, the merciful [one], the bountiful [one]." But placing the adjectives in front of the noun ("Allah" or God") eliminates the need for the implied "[one]" nouns. Either translation would be fine, however. I don't see why one would be superior to the other. They both get the message across.
Why is "beneficent" a preferable word to "bountiful"?
Ali did not want to be caiph. Why would he have restored to the Quran a surah that seemed to appoint him as such? But again, we're drifting from the topic. The question is not whether the example surah is a revelation from God. We agree that it is not. The question is: is this example not "the like thereof" to the other surahs in the Quran? If it had been included in the Quran, how would you recognize it as significantly different from the others?
Prior to Uthman's compilation of the Quran, no one person knew the whole Quran. Some parts of it were known to only a few people. Zaid, whose task is was to gather the verses, reported in a hadith that a few verses were collected from only one person. If it was possible for one person to recite the entire Quran, then Zaid's work would not have been so necessary, or so difficult.
Multi-source transmission would only cause uncertainty if the sources said different things. If the sources agreed with one another, it would add certainty, not detract from it. In fact, IMHO we can never be certain of anything that has only a single source. I have always found it puzzling that sharia law requires multiple witnesses to attest to any legal matter, but a single witness (Muhammad) is considered sufficient to confirm the legitimacy of its most important document, the Quran. 
The example says only that Ali is a pious man, not a prophet. Aside from a couple of references to earlier prophets (plural), the word "prophet" appears throughout as a singular noun, and refers only to Muhammad. But even if it did, I'm not sure that would disqualify it. No offense intended, but who are you to tell God who He may or may not appoint as prophets? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 05 November 2015 at 3:40pm
It will be interesting to know as what do you mean by "minor ambiguities" and thus 'not significant'?
Ok! then the only example you gave is gone out of discussion.
Yes indeed looking forward to it.
Sorry, here I don't agree with your tit for tat argument and brings you back to the authenticity of each others' scriptures. Anonymous and purely faith based books can't be equated with systematically preserved book. What you are looking into Quran in this post (by picking up its challenge) is praise worthy, but have you gone into your own book/s to apply this test? May be just for a fun purpose?
The God among Muslims is known through His 99 names (which are also His attributes) including the most common Allah. So, once these attributes are used with the article 'the', these attributes becomes noun implying Allah. I hope you can google up these 99 Names on the internet. So, in here, this auspriciatory verse lets the reader know what is being conveyed has the authority of Allah, who is Al-Rahman (the Merciful) and Al-Rahim (the Compassionate / Beneficent). Without the article 'the', these attributes are not specific to Allah and you will find many Muslims with these names such as Mr Rahim or Mr Rahman etc.
The use of linguistic styles, figures of speech, the literary terms, the idioms and aphorism used in Quran are all well known to the community. A simple comparison between the two would not let the fake go undetected.
|
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 06 November 2015 at 2:38am
Just got another angle of thought on your reply, where you said
Yet, we see our christian brothers resist the concept of oneness of God conveyed to the humanity multinumourous times throughout the history of Prophets starting from Prophet Ibrahim till Prophet Mohammad including Prophet Jesus. Is this not evident? Setting aside all the differences, can we come to one common ground to agree that there is no god But God, one and only one God. The God who has neither Son nor Father. The God of all nations, all times and all spaces, truly an infinite one. What do you think? Cheers! |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 06 November 2015 at 7:18am
|
Just as the example from my first post is unique in its internal rhythm and cannot be described as any of the al-Bihar. Which of the known literary forms is it?
I do not know which literary form it is. But by reading it and reading a verse from the Quran, I can compare both. They sound different. There are other differences as well. Given that the Quran is not divided into sentences (originally it did not even have punctuation), I'm not sure what this means. However, my example does marry together rhetorical and cohesive elements, as I have shown. It has both punctuation and sentences in its current form.Your example does nothing of the sort. However, if you insist present it here again. My example is not in Arabic (nor was it written in a cave ), but you're welcome to translate it if you want. I am surprised that you are still trying to compare English with Arabic. I am deeply disappointed at your absolute lack of sense! It is much more than three lines. It does not match any of the sixteen al-Bihar are, and it is not rhyming prose. Whether it is like the speech of the soothsayers is a subjective judgement; but since it is very much like the speech of the Quran, I am confident that it meets the criterion equally well. It is certainly not "normal speech" by today's standards. IMHO it is more comprehensible than many of the passages in the Quran. Ok, let us have an example of passages from the Quran that you feel are surpassed by your passage in English in terms of comprehension. No, your passage does not sound like the Quran. How can it? It is in English. Get its Arabic version then and only then is a comparison feasible. The three line surah is not at all complex. Tzortzis makes a great fuss over the most mundane of "rhetorical devices", and so I followed suit; but really, things like word choice, word arrangement and choice of particle are just the everyday business of any decent writer. Coming from a person who knows nothing about the Arabic language it is rather foolishly ambitious to claim a knowledge of the depth of the Surah in question. Tell us what do you know about the Arabic language? How could you confuse us? Airmano is much more handsome than me. Clown If both are clowns the disguise hides the physical attributes! Good grief! When are you going to learn to check your own sources?? You fail to realize that I am a practicing Muslim and there is little I need to know about Islam's basic. So, even if a site is misstating facts I will know. No, I'm not "fine with him". You are quoting him and so I am responding to his criteria, but I don't know what authority he has, and I am not impressed by what I've read so far. Since even God does not impress you, I am not surprised. Does Darwin impress you? Or, is it the noodle monster? I'm surprised that you are fine with him, though. Are you aware that he was caught in the Ashley Madison leak? He was? No, I do not know. But do tell me about it. Sounds like an imaginative yarn. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 06 November 2015 at 7:29am
|
The best prose in the world would have to be obviously the best as considered so by all the world.
Not necessarily! The best prose will first have to be read by everyone. I have just looked for the best examples of Koranic verse and drew a blank. I was going to quote some and have you decied which were the best. Do you know Arabic? Or, were you making a fool of yourself as usual? I was hoping you would chose the none-koranic ones I would have thrown in. ??????????? Shame the world is less keen on showing how wonderful the Koran is as poetry. It is the world's loss! ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 06 November 2015 at 7:52am
Hi Bro 'The Saint' Please don't get frustrated with my Christian Brothers when they don't understand the requirement of Arabic script to address the challenge presented by the Quran. This is not their sin; probably it is their intrinsic compulsion to emphasis that a translated scripture is good enough and no need for the original. Only this way, they want to remain faithfully happy with the existing Bible. For the Muslims at least, they are still from the people of the Book. Isn't it. This respect is given to them by the Quran, Muslims just can't take it away. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 06 November 2015 at 8:56am
Us atheists also don't see anything especially good about the prose in the koran either. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 06 November 2015 at 9:47am
|
Hi Ron Webb
Here is a little introduction to the literary style of Quran. Hope you would enjoy it. Cheers! Dr H Ahmad writes
Guillaumme writes about Quran in 'The Koran, Interpreted'
Goethe says:
John Penrice writes on the page 1 of preface (A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, Academic Publishers, 1987)
There are some more reviews as well but shall present some time later, Insha Allah. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 06 November 2015 at 1:24pm
Since we are already discussing the bismillah below ("in the name of Allah"), that would be a good example. See below.
Not at all. We are not discussing whether the surah is authentic, but whether it is "the like thereof" to the surahs in the Quran. Remember, the challenge is for humans to produce something like it, so of course it won't be authentic revelation.
Surely God can speak any language he wants. He spoke Arabic in the Quran because Muhammad and his companions spoke Arabic, but there is no a priori reason why revelation has to be in Arabic.
Of course you don't agree. I think that's my point. By the way, you seem to be assuming that I am Christian, but I am not. You will note that in my Islamicity profile I have called myself a http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/humanist_manifesto_iii - humanist .
Without getting too deeply into pedantry (I had a much longer reply but decided against it), let me just say that names and attributes are very different things. Names are nouns and attributes are (usually) adjectives. Sometimes attributes become so strongly associated with individuals that they are used in place of names (e.g., Alexander the Great instead of his proper name, Alexander III of Macedon). These phrases are called "epithets". The ninety-nine names/attributes of Allah could also be regarded as epithets, though I suspect that most of them are not used commonly enough to qualify. But really, does it matter whether they are names, or attributes, or epithets? Or whether we translate the bismillah as "in the name of the merciful God", or as "in the name of God, the Merciful"? These are just word games. They are not going to change your life or how you view God or how He views you.
But what are these "well-known" rhetorical devices, and are they truly unique to the Quran? No one can tell me. I don't accept that they are unique to Arabic, either, or that there is anything "magical" about the Arabic language. If the allegedly unique literary form of the Quran can be explained at all, there is no reason why it can't be explained in English.
No doubt parts of it were recited in his presence, but the whole thing? This would not have even been possible for most of Muhammad's life, because the whole Quran had not been revealed until shortly before he died. What evidence is there for this claim?
With all these people supposedly capable of reciting the whole Quran from start to finish, it ought to have been trivial to find two witnesses. And yet Zaid exclaimed, "By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an." ( www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/061-sbt.php#006.061.509 - al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 61, Number 510 ) Zaid also said: "I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him." How is this possible, if so many people knew the whole Quran by heart?
Yes, and it's an important "if", because it tests whether the sources are authentic. Obvious two legitimate sources will agree with one another, whereas false sources probably will not; but with only one source, how can you tell?
I don't ask it of Jesus, or of Allah. I ask it of humans who claim to speak for God.
The Quran has only one source: Muhammad.
None at all; but do you find emoticons offensive?
Why must it say that Ali is not a prophet? Many names are mentioned in the Quran. Does it always (or ever?) explicitly state that none of these are prophets? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 06 November 2015 at 10:53pm
Surely, we shall see that your translation can't be at par with the literary styles of Quran.
Ok! We shall soon see.
Moreover my dear brother, you would know better that with the translation (a) The original linguistic style/characteristic is not necessarily preserved. This is simply because of non conformal transformation due many reasons including differences in grammar and the alphabets as well as the variance in the vocalization of these alphabets between the two languages. (b) the interpretation and thus selection of words varies from person to person. There is another important point that must be kept in mind when studying styles of Quran. Recall that the Quran was revealed in the spoken colloquial Arabic. Who would know better than you that in every country, at all times, the spoken language is different from that which is written. The spoken language can't match the literary written language. On the other hand, the force of the colloquial cannot be retained in the formal niceties of the written language. What is spoken impinges on the moment, its impact and effect cannot be reproduced in the written language. The celestial melody and intrinsic merit of the Quran struck the listeners dumb when they first heard it as well as when it was written down word by word.
Oops!! My blunder! It will definitely be interesting to know how 'Humanist' evolved through 'Experiences' of ......('Believers'?) or what? I don't know if 'Humanist' also have an independent history? But of course not here. Definitely not under this topic.
This has definitely surprised me. I really thought, (nevertheless I still) that you are one of the literature experts that I have come across. Do you really think, the order of words they are arranged in a sentence, doesn't matter how this sentence is persuasive or not? With this, it seems like a long journey of explanations...But I think I can endure that.
The literary styles of Quran are definitely not unique, however, their combined usage to express a message in a convincing style, is. For further details, you may like to contact some of the references that I have provided you in my previous post to which you have not replied. Briefly stated here, they include 1.Takrar (Repetition); 2. Poetic but not poetry; 3. Rhyme and Rhythm; 4.Narratives; 5. Iltifat (Digression); 6. Tasreef (Presentation in various forms); 7. Hazaf (Ellipsis); 8. Ijaz (Brevity); 9. Detail after Epitome; 10. Structural reversal; 11. Parenthesis; 12. Swearings. Of course, I have yet to list down several kinds of 'Figure of Speech' utilized by the Quran. Once again, as Professor Leland Reyken observes "Literature is an art form, and one of the criteria by which we classify something as literary is the presence of beauty, form, craft and technique." Besides the Figure of Speech, the Quran utilizes several Terms, Idioms and Aphorisms.
Not to diverge from the main topic, Yes it took 23 years for the transmission of whole Quran. So even with this math, the average part share of last year of Quran is about 1/23. Secondly, also note that the order of the Sura' in Quran has also been dictated by the Prophet; they are not in their Chronological order and was only possible after all of it had been revealed. Of course, this is all documented. For references and details, please open it up under other relevant topic.
For the divine origin of Quran, one source is more than enough. Man! for Muslims its a matter of Faith. However, for you, you are already in the ring of challenge. Aren't you? Put forward your Arabic Script.
I am just a poor human! (of course not humanist).
you who have faith, believe in the two lights, Muhammed and Ali, whom we have sent, and who recite our verses to you, and put you on your guard against the chastisement of the great day. These two lights proceed the one from the the other. As to myself, I understand and I know." Here Ali is clearly equated with Mohammad for the divine appointment to recite verses for the faithfuls. Thus, later on once the word 'Prophet' is used, it is not clear, which one? Thus, the text creates ambiguity and vagueness. Thus fails the Challenge. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 06 November 2015 at 11:10pm
Welcome aboard. Please keep reading and don't hesitate to ask but try being relevant to the topic. Thanks! |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 07 November 2015 at 3:33am
I thougt that was the subject being discussed; That the Koran is obviously divinely inspired because it is so much better prose than anything else. If that's not the subject please tell me what it is. |
Posted By: The Saint
Date Posted: 07 November 2015 at 6:06am
|
Hi Bro 'The Saint'
Please don't get frustrated with my Christian Brothers when they don't understand the requirement of Arabic script to address the challenge presented by the Quran. This is not their sin; probably it is their intrinsic compulsion to emphasis that a translated scripture is good enough and no need for the original. Only this way, they want to remain faithfully happy with the existing Bible. If this alone was their sin I could easily forgive them. But it is their deliberately irreverent references to Allah SWT and Hazrat Muhammad PBUH and the Quran that causes me grief. For the Muslims at least, they are still from the people of the Book. Isn't it. This respect is given to them by the Quran, Muslims just can't take it away. Errr.......but people here are mostly atheists. And they carry the same amount of disdain for all Abrahamic religions. However, thanks for your advice shall bear it in mind. ------------- and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 07 November 2015 at 6:30am
You are most welcome brother. Another word of Caution; the appearances may be deceptive. Atheists are generally not zealots! This is from my personal experience. |
Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 07 November 2015 at 11:47pm
I said only in anticipation and not what you said in the past. I am really sorry for this. Hope you would forgive me. Best regards. |