Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Simple Question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    We find more circular reasoning in Siam’s reply, which is unsurprising. Must non-Muslims actually convert to islam first, to be able to believe in the Koran’s preservation?

    That is a very unconvincing and unreassuring answer to the ‘holes in the standard narrative” problem exposed by sheikh Yasir Qadhi in his June 8 YouTube interview.


    The Muslims’ favorite mantra/chant and propaganda is the so-called “perfect preservation of the Koran”. It is in fact, nothing more than just a mantra which they have to chant to drum this polemic and theory into desperate minds. It is the foundation, reason and whole basis for the validity and authenticity of Islam’s existence and the Koran’s continued currency. The reality is that the Koran was not preserved properly, much less perfectly as the experts (and Muslim ones) will tell us. Orthodox islamic sources tell us that there were Korans with different chapter totals that the companions used and circulated, one version - Abdullah ibn Masud's had 111 chapters/surahs, another koran version of Ubai b. Kab - had 116 chapters & todays version mostly settled for 114 chapters! There is nothing same or preserved in all these different chaptered korans from the 'mother of the Book'

    Unfortunately for missionaries like Siam, who has to now resort to verbal acrobatics and abstract, intellectual gymnastics to persuade detractors and unbelievers that it is so, just falls down dead on to arid, dry ground even though it is all obfuscations and more baseless propaganda.

    Simply because even the well known Muslim intellectuals and researchers into “Koranic preservation” admit such a claim is rather impossible to prove factually and that “the standard narrative has holes in it.”
    This is the narrative of proper and perfect Koranic preservation. Which then turns out finally into a myth.

    Dr. Yasir Qadhi of Houston Texas, himself admits in his lectures that the Koran’s qiraats and ahruf have differences, not only in readings (recitings) but also in whole letters and words.

    Dr. Shady Nasser is more straightforward in his lecture and admits that the readings / qiraats have different VOCABULARY, sentences, words structure and recitings. Such different vocabulary and words only mean differences in meanings in the same verses & passages.

    He also disclosed that during one of the stages of Koranic canonization, seven qiraats / styles were chosen arbitrarily from 40-50 different ones by ibn Mujahid in 936 A.D. Then, over 490 years later in 1429 AD, another three qiraats were further taken from the remaining unchosen styles by ibn al-Jazari who conducted the Koran’s third canonization. Making a total of TEN different qiraats. Which one(s) of the above cherry-picked ones is/are actually, the authentic & original Koran “sent down to Muhamed”??

    Why were seven, and then ten chosen over the fifty pre-existing DIFFERENT readings & qiraats? Did ANY of these 2 canonizers follow a divine order or authenticated guidelines to select these 7, then 10 variant qiraats over the OTHER 40-plus to ensure real originality? What’s so special of these 10+ selected qiraat over the other 30-40 qiraat that did NOT get chosen?

    These points were brought to public attention by Shady Nasser, a Muslim and not by a westener, non-muslim "kafir" or infidel in Muslims' eyes!



    Originally posted by siam View Post



    Trying to explain about an orange to someone who has never seen anything other than an apple is tricky...rather than clarity, it can cause confusion....but I will try to make one last attempt.....

    From the Muslim perspective---There has always been only ONE Quran---there is no criteria such as "Uthmani codex"---only "Quran". The term Uthmani codex is used in our conversation only for the sake of clarity because you are a non-Muslim.

    Semitic language is multi-dimensional. One scholar described the Quran as a cube or a polyhedron---there is only one polyhedron but it has different sides. Now imagine this polyhedron as rotating and it has different colored lights. What happened after the death of the Prophet is that the rotation of the polyhedron stopped. Because it is no longer rotating---the audience can see only some dimensions of the polyhedron. However, some multi-dimensionality of the Quran is still audible (Qirat/readings)---represented with the colored lights. As time progresses forward---some colors of the light reduce in intensity and others become more intense so that eventually the more intense colored lights are more visible (readings = audible). However, such "development" over time does not change the fact that there is only ONE polyhedron (Quran).

    From the perspective of a scholar (Linguist, Philologist, Paleologist)---each dimension of a polyhedron is "different" and the detailed study and specificity of each "face"/dimension advances their particular type of knowledge. Because they are not looking at the polyhedron as a whole but studying individual "faces" their language/terms define differences for clarity and specificity. Such discourse can lead to the misunderstanding that such a person is talking about a different polyhedron altogether---instead of a different "face" of the SAME polyhedron.

    I have doubts that what I said has clarified matters---so I will try to give an example---but understand that we are using 2 very different language systems so the examples in English language system cannot represent or be transferred to the Arabic language system.

    In the English language system---gender terms are used---"he" is male and when an r is added it becomes "her" for female or when and s is added, it becomes "she" for female. In English common usage---the Moon is an "it", however, in lyrics for poetic usage, a Moon could be written as she/her or if some context or lyric composition required, the "s" or "r" could be dropped to gender the Moon as male. In terms of the song/lyrics itself such differences do not change anything---the song still conveys the same meaning---but from the perspective of a linguist/philologist---these "differences" are worthy of study...because that is what their field of scholarship requires of them.

    The average Muslim is reading/eciting the Quran for religious purposes---NOT for the study of linguistics/philology/paleology.

    My apologies if I have been unable to clarify matters---but at this point its the best I can do with a very complicated subject.

    Comment


    • #47
      Since you brought up the issue of tricky ....

      Originally posted by siam View Post
      Trying to explain about an orange to someone who has never seen anything other than an apple is tricky...rather than clarity, it can cause confusion....
      Trying to convince someone that an apple is an orange is even trickier and often is the cause of even more confusion. And that is analogous to the job of the Islamic apologists.

      Comment


      • #48
        Yup, Trucker, that's quite true.

        Non-muslims who have questions about koranic "preservation" have no need keep to "crossing the red line" alluded to by Yasir Qadhi or any other muslim e.g. Siam and other islamic propogandists.

        How would the non-muslims ever believe all such propoganda claims, without any clear and convincing proofs for the "preservation" as claimed by islam and muslims?? It is apparent that Muslims themselves only believe these things DESPITE the ABSENCE OF FACTS and valid, convincing proofs.

        This is also called BLIND FAITH.

        So, there is no good reason whatever for any non-Muslim to convert to islam nor to its central claim that their Koran "is perfectly preserved" for today. Even Muslim scholars that are more honest admit and confess to the imperfect historical preservation of their Koran! To believe this, one must DO SO JUST IN BLIND FAITH Only!










        Originally posted by Trucker View Post
        Since you brought up the issue of tricky ....



        Trying to convince someone that an apple is an orange is even trickier and often is the cause of even more confusion. And that is analogous to the job of the Islamic apologists.

        Comment


        • #49
          Some addition to the 7, Then 10, then some more qiraats about the quote below:


          "Dr. Shady Nasser is more straightforward in his lecture and admits that the readings / qiraats have different VOCABULARY, sentences, words structure and recitings. Such different vocabulary and words only mean differences in meanings in the same verses & passages.

          "He also disclosed that during one of the stages of Koranic canonization, seven qiraats / styles were chosen arbitrarily from 40-50 different ones by ibn Mujahid in 936 A.D. Then, over 490 years later in 1429 AD, another three qiraats were further taken from the remaining unchosen styles by ibn al-Jazari who conducted the Koran’s third canonization. Making a total of TEN different qiraats. Which one(s) of the above cherry-picked ones is/are actually, the authentic & original Koran “sent down to Muhamed”??

          "Why were seven, and then ten chosen over the fifty pre-existing DIFFERENT readings & qiraats? Did ANY of these 2 canonizers follow a divine order or authenticated guidelines to select these 7, then 10 variant qiraats over the OTHER 40-plus to ensure real originality? What’s so special of these 10+ selected qiraat over the other 30-40 qiraat that did NOT get chosen?:



          Some years AFTER the standardization of the TEN, another FOUR were taken from the remaining 30+. Making the TOTAL 14 i.e. Fourteen Qiraats.

          So, are all these 14 qiraats, now, still the same Koran?

          Why don't just make ALL the 40+ qiraats of the current Koran - with all their differences of vocabularies, spellings and consonantal divergences, the same Quran??

          It just fails to make sense.

          NO wonder hundreds of Muslims are apostasing, leaving and turning their backs on Islam. It is the only right thing to do!






          Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
          We find more circular reasoning in Siam’s reply, which is unsurprising. Must non-Muslims actually convert to islam first, to be able to believe in the Koran’s preservation?

          That is a very unconvincing and unreassuring answer to the ‘holes in the standard narrative” problem exposed by sheikh Yasir Qadhi in his June 8 YouTube interview.


          The Muslims’ favorite mantra/chant and propaganda is the so-called “perfect preservation of the Koran”. It is in fact, nothing more than just a mantra which they have to chant to drum this polemic and theory into desperate minds. It is the foundation, reason and whole basis for the validity and authenticity of Islam’s existence and the Koran’s continued currency. The reality is that the Koran was not preserved properly, much less perfectly as the experts (and Muslim o


          nes) will tell us. Orthodox islamic sources tell us that there were Korans with different chapter totals that the companions used and circulated, one version - Abdullah ibn Masud's had 111 chapters/surahs, another koran version of Ubai b. Kab - had 116 chapters & todays version mostly settled for 114 chapters! There is nothing same or preserved in all these different chaptered korans from the 'mother of the Book'


          Unfortunately for missionaries like Siam, who has to now resort to verbal acrobatics and abstract, intellectual gymnastics to persuade detractors and unbelievers that it is so, just falls down dead on to arid, dry ground even though it is all obfuscations and more baseless propaganda.

          Simply because even the well known Muslim intellectuals and researchers into “Koranic preservation” admit such a claim is rather impossible to prove factually and that “the standard narrative has holes in it.”
          This is the narrative of proper and perfect Koranic preservation. Which then turns out finally into a myth.

          Dr. Yasir Qadhi of Houston Texas, himself admits in his lectures that the Koran’s qiraats and ahruf have differences, not only in readings (recitings) but also in whole letters and words.

          Dr. Shady Nasser is more straightforward in his lecture and admits that the readings / qiraats have different VOCABULARY, sentences, words structure and recitings. Such different vocabulary and words only mean differences in meanings in the same verses & passages.

          He also disclosed that during one of the stages of Koranic canonization, seven qiraats / styles were chosen arbitrarily from 40-50 different ones by ibn Mujahid in 936 A.D. Then, over 490 years later in 1429 AD, another three qiraats were further taken from the remaining unchosen styles by ibn al-Jazari who conducted the Koran’s third canonization. Making a total of TEN different qiraats. Which one(s) of the above cherry-picked ones is/are actually, the authentic & original Koran “sent down to Muhamed”??

          Why were seven, and then ten chosen over the fifty pre-existing DIFFERENT readings & qiraats? Did ANY of these 2 canonizers follow a divine order or authenticated guidelines to select these 7, then 10 variant qiraats over the OTHER 40-plus to ensure real originality? What’s so special of these 10+ selected qiraat over the other 30-40 qiraat that did NOT get chosen?

          These points were brought to public attention by Shady Nasser, a Muslim and not by a westener, non-muslim "kafir" or infidel in Muslims' eyes!




          Comment


          • #50
            The orthodox Muslim scholars who are well-known and with established followings - like at-Tabari, Qurtubi and Zamakshari NEVER taught about the so-called "perfect preservation of the Quran"

            That polemic was used to preach and propogandize islam to unsuspecting and ignorant people who never actually knew the proper history of the Koran, which is now spilling out, THANKS to the exposes and talks by MUSLIM scholars like Shady Nasser, Asma Hilali and the like.

            That is one of the reasons why sheikh Yasir Qadhi himself has to state and admit that "the standard narrative (or Quranic preservation) has HOLES IN IT" (on June 8, 2020)!

            Watch this talk Yasir Qadhi gave to Muslims in Singapore, and his desperate admission of the Quran's uncertainty..:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RoRIE-TLZ4



            Comment


            • #51
              Such a heavily edited video is only proof of propaganda....

              Also... Islamic history is transparent. It has always been open to study by anyone---and only recently has Western Academia been interested---(mostly because of grants) While speculative revisionism was popular in the beginning ---a more thorough study and closer look at evidence has led most respected Non-Muslim Western scholars to move away from such historical revisionism.

              As I have already explained---there is only One Quran and it has been preserved until today. Actual physical evidence links it upto what is called the Uthmani codex---but Islamic tradition links it upto the Prophet (pbuh). The traditional account may not yet have physical evidence---but it has documentary evidence---the names of reciters, scribes, and witnesses...not just names but there are also genealogies and biographies of such persons.

              This also means that any writings/scriblings that are not authorized by the Prophet (pbuh) are NOT the "Quran" (as in official authorized Quran). However, this understanding need not apply to those in the field of philology...etc---they may have their own working definition or criteria for what they "call" Quran. For example---what Muslims call Quran (as in official and authorized) is referred to as "Uthmani codex" in Western Academia. These different terms are referring to the same object....the book/text in use today. There is a printed text in Arabic of what is called "Quran" in a museum, that has errors in it (Paganini)---such a book cannot be considered a "Quran" by Muslims---but might be by those who employ the term more loosely for academic or research purposes.... It is necessary to understand terms and definitions in order to make sense of context and circumstance.

              By the way---Arabic speaking Christians have had access to this material (Traditional account) for 1,400 years---If anything had been amiss...(such as a big fat conspiracy) ...they would have noticed.

              It is safe to say that the "traditional account" of the Quran and its preservation is good enough.

              (....and overturning it will require much more solid evidence than propaganda videos or speculative historical revisionism.)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by siam View Post
                Such a heavily edited video is only proof of propaganda....

                Also... Islamic history is transparent. It has always been open to study by anyone---and only recently has Western Academia been interested---(mostly because of grants) While speculative revisionism was popular in the beginning ---a more thorough study and closer look at evidence has led most respected Non-Muslim Western scholars to move away from such historical revisionism.

                As I have already explained---there is only One Quran and it has been preserved until today. Actual physical evidence links it upto what is called the Uthmani codex---but Islamic tradition links it upto the Prophet (pbuh). The traditional account may not yet have physical evidence---but it has documentary evidence---the names of reciters, scribes, and witnesses...not just names but there are also genealogies and biographies of such persons.

                This also means that any writings/scriblings that are not authorized by the Prophet (pbuh) are NOT the "Quran" (as in official authorized Quran). However, this understanding need not apply to those in the field of philology...etc---they may have their own working definition or criteria for what they "call" Quran. For example---what Muslims call Quran (as in official and authorized) is referred to as "Uthmani codex" in Western Academia. These different terms are referring to the same object....the book/text in use today. There is a printed text in Arabic of what is called "Quran" in a museum, that has errors in it (Paganini)---such a book cannot be considered a "Quran" by Muslims---but might be by those who employ the term more loosely for academic or research purposes.... It is necessary to understand terms and definitions in order to make sense of context and circumstance.

                By the way---Arabic speaking Christians have had access to this material (Traditional account) for 1,400 years---If anything had been amiss...(such as a big fat conspiracy) ...they would have noticed.

                It is safe to say that the "traditional account" of the Quran and its preservation is good enough.

                (....and overturning it will require much more solid evidence than propaganda videos or speculative historical revisionism.)
                While you may say that Islamic history is transparent it seems evident that many are discouraged from studying it and those that do are told to ignore it.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by siam View Post
                  As I have already explained---there is only One Quran and it has been preserved until today. Actual physical evidence links it upto what is called the Uthmani codex---but Islamic tradition links it upto the Prophet (pbuh). The traditional account may not yet have physical evidence---but it has documentary evidence---the names of reciters, scribes, and witnesses...not just names but there are also genealogies and biographies of such persons.
                  What you claim to be the one Qur'an is the Uthman Codex. People contemporary to the events who should know claimed much of the original was missing from Uthman's work. You know it and we know it. Then there is the issue of those "Satanic verses". Tradition is one thing but facts are often another.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    A shortened version of a longer video is not necessarily propaganda as u insinuate.

                    It is another way of yours to cast aspersions on a summarized clip to dismiss valid points discussed. A lazy and convenient way to mindlessly and thoughtlessly avoid thinking critically and to investigate the facts about al-Koran that do not conform with Islamic polemics and propaganda.

                    Sura 16/103 claims the Koran was ‘revealed in “clear (or mubin) Arabic,”’ well, the seven, ten and then fourteen and even MORE qiraats / recitings – up to fifty recitations shows the flawed reasoning of that Koranic claim. Hahahaha, “clear” does not even BEGIN TO shed light on the darkness of these multiple qiraats or readings of your koran.

                    There is nothing clear whatsoever when Muslims read & recited the same verses of the Koran IN FIFTY DIFFERENT WAYS. This shows up clearly when the grammarian Ibn al-Jazari disagreed with ibn Mujahid’s selective renderings of 7 qiraats and after 480 years, selected additional qiraats to increase the “standard readings” to 10 qiraats.

                    Then came along another scholar cum grammarian later to standardize another 4 more so-called sound qiraats making it 14 standard recitings! This shows great confusion among all the grammarians and muslim theologians over 8 centuries in the Islamic calendar.

                    Are all these 14 the styles – or the 50 qiraats in the first century of Islam, found together in the ummul Kitab “Mother of the Book” or the so-called “lauh mahfuz” / ‘protected tablet’ next to the throne of Allah from whence the Koran came down to Muhamed??

                    Muslim academic Dr. Shady Nasser from Harvard university, gave a lecture at the University of Oregon that throws light on this question.

                    This is the full video recording of his lecture there.

                    https://islamicinitiative.uoregon.edu/projects/

                    It gets very interesting from the 13:30 time stamp onwards, where this sunni muslim scholar says:

                    1) there is a nearly 300 years gap between the first collection under caliph Uthman and the standardization under grammarian ibn Mujahid.

                    2) the first 200 years of islam’s “formative period” from 632 AD onwards is REALLY A BLANK. Nobody really knows what and how anything actually developed in Islam and its followers in this 200 year period. Due to the absence of ANY proper, written records that can be reliably verified by researchers and historians.

                    3) From 14:40 onwards, Shady Nasser tells us that ibn Mujahid in 936 A.D., chose 7 qiraats over 40-50 different ones that were floating around then, as the “standard recitings/readings/qiraats” to form the basis of reading the Koran. This is 300 years after Muhamed’s death (in 632).

                    4) Nasser tells us that the historical records document that ibn Mujahid got the muslims to submit to his qiraat selections by devious and forceful methods. 15:03 onwards, Nasser says that ibn mujahid used his political and court connections to force the Muslims to comply and submit to his 7 qiraats standard!


                    He got the courts to imprison and punish those who preferred OTHER recitings over his seven qiraat!

                    What a tyrannical way to force other qiraats out from the standard Koran recitation. And desperate TOO! LOL!!

                    5) From 15:50, Nasser mentions the intervention of another scholar - ibn al-jazari in 1429 AD, 480 years later to add 3 more qiraats as additional standard ones!

                    25:50 onwards he asks disturbing questions for muslims on the variations in the recitings.

                    Dr. Nasser admits there were not merely style differences of reading the 10 or 14 qiraats, BUT there were also differences in consonants, VOCABULARY and Grammar between those “official qiraats”and readings.

                    Obviously, this meant all those differences in vocabulary point to different meanings of the same passages in the Koran. Can they ALL be correct and hold the true meaning SIMULTANEOUSLY?

                    What a mess all this must be in the “Mother of the Book” per sura 13/39.. LOL! The koran is an unworthy book to follow...Obviously, Siam...







                    Originally posted by siam View Post
                    Such a heavily edited video is only proof of propaganda....

                    Also... Islamic history is transparent. It has always been open to study by anyone---and only recently has Western Academia been interested---(mostly because of grants) While speculative revisionism was popular in the beginning ---a more thorough study and closer look at evidence has led most respected Non-Muslim Western scholars to move away from such historical revisionism.

                    As I have already explained---there is only One Quran and it has been preserved until today. Actual physical evidence links it upto what is called the Uthmani codex---but Islamic tradition links it upto the Prophet (pbuh). The traditional account may not yet have physical evidence---but it has documentary evidence---the names of reciters, scribes, and witnesses...not just names but there are also genealogies and biographies of such persons.

                    This also means that any writings/scriblings that are not authorized by the Prophet (pbuh) are NOT the "Quran" (as in official authorized Quran). However, this understanding need not apply to those in the field of philology...etc---they may have their own working definition or criteria for what they "call" Quran. For example---what Muslims call Quran (as in official and authorized) is referred to as "Uthmani codex" in Western Academia. These different terms are referring to the same object....the book/text in use today. There is a printed text in Arabic of what is called "Quran" in a museum, that has errors in it (Paganini)---such a book cannot be considered a "Quran" by Muslims---but might be by those who employ the term more loosely for academic or research purposes.... It is necessary to understand terms and definitions in order to make sense of context and circumstance.

                    By the way---Arabic speaking Christians have had access to this material (Traditional account) for 1,400 years---If anything had been amiss...(such as a big fat conspiracy) ...they would have noticed.

                    It is safe to say that the "traditional account" of the Quran and its preservation is good enough.

                    (....and overturning it will require much more solid evidence than propaganda videos or speculative historical revisionism.)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post


                      Sura 16/103 claims the Koran was ‘revealed in “clear (or mubin) Arabic,”’ well, the seven, ten and then fourteen and even MORE qiraats / recitings – up to fifty recitations shows the flawed reasoning of that Koranic claim. Hahahaha, “clear” does not even BEGIN TO shed light on the darkness of these multiple qiraats or readings of your koran.
                      Muhammad declared that Arabic is the divine language (that is it is the language of Allah) and proclaimed on numerous occasions that the qur'an was sent down in Arabic (surahs 12:2; 13:37; 39:28; 42:7; 46:127[1]), and surah 41:44 is often put forth by Muslims as evidence that there are no non-Arabic words contained within the qur'an.

                      But the fact is that there are many foreign words and phrases that are used in the qur'an -- some of which have no Arabic equivalent, and others that do. For example the Egyptian word for king, "Pharaoh," is used used nearly 50 times and the Accadian word for garden, "Eden" (which does have an Arabic equivalent -- "Janna"), is used something like two dozen times.

                      Other words that have been borrowed from foreign languages include Assyrian (Abraham or Ibrahim, with an Arabic equivalent in "Abu Raheem), Aramaic, Greek, Persian, Romanian, Indian, Syriac, Hebrew, and Christian Ethiopic. All in all there are something like 270 foreign loanwords to be found in that so-called perfect Arabic document.

                      Furthermore, while mentioned three times in the qur'an (suras 6:85; 37:123, 130) , Elijah is called Ilyas or Ilyasin, which has no connection with the original Hebrew name for the prophet, but rather is the same as the Greek and Syrian translation of his name. Similarly, Jonah, is mentioned four times in the qur'an and is referred to as Yunus, which comes from the Greek Septuagint version of his name (Yunas), whereas in Hebrew it is Yonah. So why are these prophets referred to in the Greek and Syriac translations of their names rather than their names in Hebrew? Didn't Allah know what their names were and was forced to use other versions of their Hebrew name?

                      So why are these words borrowed? Why are these words from other languages found in the supposedly pure Arabic qur'an? Was Allah unable to sufficiently express himself in the perfect language of Arabic? Considering the large number of foreign loanwords can it be honestly said that that the qur'an was written in the Arabic tongue?

                      Muslim scholars have sought to explain away this inconsistency by claiming, like the Arab philologist, lexicographer and founder of tajwid (rules for the correct pronunciation of words in the qur'an), Abu Ubaid al-Qasim bin Salam c.770-838 A.D. did, that those words had been incorporated into Arabic and therefore are Arabic. But these words only became considered to be Arabic after they were borrowed and used in the qur'an. That they were later considered to be Arabic does not help the claim that when it first written down it was in pure Arabic. That would be like Americans claiming that the incalculable number of non-English words incorporated into our language were English words before we adopted them.




                      1. All in all there are something like 9 places in the qur'an where this claim is made
                      Last edited by rogue06; 12-21-2020, 09:46 PM. Reason: Yunus/Yunas

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        There ARE SCORES of foreign, non-Arabic words in the Koran. Greek, Hebrew, Akkadian, Parsi, Ethiopian, syriac, Nabatean, Aramaic etc many more are found in the Koran. Dr.Arthur Jeffery has studied them and the lists he has documented are given below.

                        These are definitely NOT “clear Arabic”, are they?? (Sura 16/103)..

                        How did all these non-Arab words - claimed as Islam’s “heavenly language”, creep into the “mother of the book” or ummul kitab, per sura 13/39 etc?

                        And by that process, “became Arabic”. LOL!? Even Sunni muslim scholars are all lost at sea to give a sensible answer to that.

                        Thinking enquirers who seek reasonable answers are just forced to believe BLINDLY and stop asking more such questions. Just blind faith that is baseless in facts.

                        That is the best that Islam can offer? Many would rather look elsewhere for the REAL Truth.

                        Here are Dr.Arthur Jeffery’s Lists of non Arabic & foreign words and vocabulary the Koran borrowed and claimed as God’s word :

                        https://www.answering-islam.net/Books/Jeffery/index.htm

                        And-

                        https://www.answering-islam.net/Book...lary/index.htm


                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Deafening silence on this thread for over THREE Weeks now..What a revelation..

                          It is clearly obvious now that sunni Muslim scholar Dr. Shady H.Nasser’s lectures have given orthodox Muslims and missionaries (da'i) serious un-ease. After more than 3 weeks more precisely – 24 days, not even Siam tried to refute what Shady Nasser said!

                          Especially from his University of Oregon lecture:


                          https://islamicinitiative.uoregon.edu/projects/

                          From the 25:50 – 33.50 time stamps Dr.Nasser asks these disturbing questions for Islam and Muslims:
                          1. Classical (orthodox) muslim scholars asked: “if there is only ONE Koran, why are there so many codices, readings and variants in the readings ? “qiraats” that floated around then?
                          2. Did Allah/God give the ‘revelations’ in all the Arabic dialects represented in the 50 qiraats floating around in that period? Example western and eastern Arabic tongues simultaneously? Did Allah speak in dialects? LOL!
                          3. Were all these variations originate divinely? OR did people and humans create all these variations? And made them ‘divine’..?
                          4. When Muslims were allowed to recite the Quran in all these variant different reading forms and variations, WHY were some readings accepted and others were rejected as unacceptable? Were the criteria used to canonize the 7 qiraats, then the 10, and then others from the 50 variant readings VALID? Who authorised the 7, 10, 14 and more etc qiraats as ‘standardised’ and on what authority?
                          5. The standard narratives and accounts of the “preservation of the koran” are problematic and contradictory!
                          6. So, in Hadith al-Bukhari’s account there are contradictions to the notion of “mutawatir” or well-known verses and/or narratives of the Koran. The idea/theory/notion that only the well-known (commonly known & wide-spread) – as opposed to obscure and doubtful single verses/statements are called into question.
                          7. For instance, two verses which ultimately became the verse/ayat of sura 9/128 was found ONLY with abu Khuzaima and no one else. Therefore, it is definitely NOT mutawatir or widely known & accepted in all the other qiraats, Dr.Nasser finds.
                          8. How and on what/whose authorisation did 9/128 get canonized into the Koran?? It’s inclusion into the Koran flatly contravenes the muslim scholars’ own condition of well-accepted criteria of tawatur. This means the applying of double-standards and duplicity in the Koran and its standardization! 29:00 – 32:00 time stamps.
                          9. The STANDARD accounts of the standardization of the Koran has major contradictions eg Bukhari hadith with others and even in itself.
                          10. The original, written account of Bukhari’s story of 1) collecting and re-publishing the Koran (by Zaid b. Thabit) and 2) Uthman’s standardized codex (mushaf) sent out to 5 provinces and cities DOES NOT EXIST. Likewise, the 5 supposed standardised codices that were sent to the muslims in Mecca, Madinah, Damascus, Kura and Basra DO NOT EXIST. And MAY NOT have existed at all, that is their stories were only made up to prop up the “justification of the standardizing of the Koran” (Nasser’s words).
                          His research is based on expert grammarians in his time as well as ancient muslim sources. And also the Arabists who have documented their studies and theologians who have long looked for BUT have found NO INTELLIGIBLE answers to these contradictions and inconsistent justifications.

                          There is no good or sound to believe the Koran was a Book that came down from heaven to be a guidance for Man. Even orthodox Muslim academics are honestly admitting to this reality!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post


                            There is no good or sound to believe the Koran was a Book that came down from heaven to be a guidance for Man. Even orthodox Muslim academics are honestly admitting to this reality![/FONT][/SIZE]
                            And that has been the cornerstone to the claim that the qur'an is authoritative because without it you have a book written by Muhammad where it changes to suit his whims and whatever he desires at the moment.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              corrections to assumptions...
                              1) Shady Nasser and the 10 questions
                              2) Surah 16 verse 103
                              3) "Foreign" words in Quran

                              1.


                              ... “if there is only ONE Koran, why are there so many codices, readings and variants in the readings ? “qiraats” that floated around then?
                              Qirat (reading) are simply variations on how a text is read/recited---it can be read in a monotone, in inflected tones...rhythmically ...etc. sometimes a long or short pronunciation can change a word for example in Surah Fatiha (1st surah) the Arabic word Malik can be understood in 2 ways depending on pronunciation. 1) as King or 2) as Master. Both understandings are accurate. This is because the intent of the communication is the same regardless of the synonyms pronounced/recited.
                              • Did Allah/God give the ‘revelations’ in all the Arabic dialects represented in the 50 qiraats floating around in that period?...
                              No.
                              Also dialects are NOT Qirat they are Ahruf (mode, dialect..etc)
                              When a Quranic recitation occurred during the time of the Prophet (pbuh)---people were called as audience/witness and scribes wrote down the recitation. The written works were read back to the Prophet who then validated it or corrected it. Only those Ahruf authorized by the Prophet himself and done so with witnesses are considered valid---all others are considered Tafsir (exegesis)---a Tafsir is NOT Quran.
                              • Were all these variations originate divinely? OR did people and humans create all these variations? And made them ‘divine’..?
                              The Quranic revelation did not occur in isolation but with the whole community as witnesses and participants as well as audience. Questions were asked, topics were discussed and/or debated...etc. This is all recorded in Islamic history. The Quranic revelations interacted with the emergent Muslim community. However, only revelations by the Prophet (pbuh) are considered Quran. Sayings (ahadith) of the Prophet are NOT Quran (have no revelatory authority.) The Quran is NOT "Divine" in the sense that it is not God---it is only a message from God. Therefore one might say it is sacred or holy but one cannot say it is God.
                              • When Muslims were allowed to recite the Quran in all these variant different reading forms and variations, WHY were some readings accepted and others were rejected as unacceptable?
                              Muslims recite (Qirat) the Quran according to the rules (Tajweed). These rules promote and protect correct enunciations so that errors do not occur.
                              • The standard narratives and accounts of the “preservation of the koran” are problematic and contradictory!
                              No they are not. They are straightforward and clear. However, people who want to confuse are free to do so with their own "narratives"/stories.
                              1st "canonization" occurred under caliph Abu Bakr which is soon after the death of the Prophet. The community, as well as the scribes were witness to this procedure and the first canonization procedure as well as text (mushaf) was used for what is called the "Uthmani codex"---which is the Quran we have today. This statement is acceptable for academics/scholars but for Muslims "canonization" (collection of authoritative text) occurs during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh)
                              • So, in Hadith al-Bukhari’s account there are contradictions to the notion of “mutawatir” or well-known verses and/or narratives of the Koran. The idea/theory/notion that only the well-known (commonly known & wide-spread) – as opposed to obscure and doubtful single verses/statements are called into question.
                              • For instance, two verses which ultimately became the verse/ayat of sura 9/128 was found ONLY with abu Khuzaima and no one else. Therefore, it is definitely NOT mutawatir or widely known & accepted in all the other qiraats, Dr.Nasser finds.
                              There is a confusion of terms here which renders the above statements nonsensical.
                              Qirat refers to (oral) recitation.
                              Hadith are NOT Quran
                              Mutawatir---is a classification category used for ahadith.
                              • How and on what/whose authorisation did 9/128 get canonized into the Koran?? It’s inclusion into the Koran flatly contravenes the muslim scholars’ own condition of well-accepted criteria of tawatur. This means the applying of double-standards and duplicity in the Koran and its standardization! 29:00 – 32:00 time stamps.
                              • The STANDARD accounts of the standardization of the Koran has major contradictions eg Bukhari hadith with others and even in itself.
                              • The original, written account of Bukhari’s story of 1) collecting and re-publishing the Koran (by Zaid b. Thabit) and 2) Uthman’s standardized codex (mushaf) sent out to 5 provinces and cities DOES NOT EXIST. Likewise, the 5 supposed standardised codices that were sent to the muslims in Mecca, Madinah, Damascus, Kura and Basra DO NOT EXIST. And MAY NOT have existed at all, that is their stories were only made up to prop up the “justification of the standardizing of the Koran” (Nasser’s words).
                              If you feel the need to imagine that the Quran doe not exist---that is fine with me. You are under no obligation to believe that the Arabic text known as the Quran--that Muslims all over the world recite--exists.
                              Last edited by siam; 01-22-2021, 12:30 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Continued....
                                (for those interested in further research on the above topic, perhaps see opinions of Dr Yasin Dutton....)

                                2) Surah 16 verse 103 (Yusuf Ali)

                                16:101 When we substitute one revelation* for another, -and God knows best what he reveals (in stages)
                                they say "you are but a forger" but most of them know not.
                                16:102 Say: The Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from your Lord, in truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a guide and glad tidings to muslims.
                                16:103 We know indeed that they say, "it is a man that teaches him" The tongue of him that they wickedly point to is notably foreign while this is clear Arabic (=mubeen)
                                16:104 Those who believe not in the signs of God,-God will not guide them. theirs will be a grievous chastisement.
                                16:105 It is those who believe not in the signs of God that forge falsehood: it is they who lie.


                                This is classified as a Meccan Surah (Meccan revelation is earlier than the Medinan ones). The Arabic word Mubeen means eloquent, clear. The root word ba-ya-noon has 2 meanings a) distinct/distant (far) and b) eloquent, clear.
                                both understanding/definition are valid in this instance---the Arabic used in the Quran is unique in its literary quality and has a depth of meaning. The Quran is also self-explanatory---in that, if needed, it defines the words and terms it uses. (it clarifies in itself)

                                The context here is an argument against accusations that the Prophet was "taught" by someone.
                                (with regards to previous scriptures in Greek or Hebrew, or.... the Quran is in Arabic)

                                Such accusations have been made most recently by "scholar" Christophe Luxemburg who theorizes (erroneously) that the Quran is originally a syriac/aramaic text/liturgy....the shoddy "scholarship" of this attention-seeking work does not contribute much and is easily dismissed.

                                3) Foreign words
                                The word mubeen is used both in Arabic and Persian language.
                                If one looks at the pre-Islamic historical geography of the Arabic penninsula---it had 2 empires as neighbors, the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire. The languages spoken in these areas were varied---for example, in the Persian Empire there were Greek speakers such as the Ionians and the Dorians as well as Aramaic speakers and those that spoke/used Persian or Avestan (old Persian language used in their scripture)
                                Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic are semitic languages while Persian, Greek were Indo-European languages (with similar vocabulary and grammatical structure). In this area (of Eurasia) there were also Turkic speaking peoples some of whom may have been Jews or Christians.
                                There were also Arabic speaking Jews and Christians...and because of trade routes (silk road to the north and the maritime spice route to the south) it would have been easy for various vocabs to intermingle even before the Quranic revelations. It would be incorrect to assume that the Quran uses "Foreign words" alien to the audience.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, 11-13-2020, 09:15 AM
                                65 responses
                                642 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Dan Zebiri  
                                Started by Trucker, 10-23-2020, 11:09 AM
                                78 responses
                                538 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Dan Zebiri  
                                Started by Dan Zebiri, 03-30-2019, 05:15 AM
                                132 responses
                                18,751 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Dan Zebiri  
                                Working...
                                X