forahmad@no-spam (1MAN4ALL) wrote in message news:<ba13f877.0306222015.78aae49b@no-spam>...
> denis_giron@no-spam (Denis Giron) wrote in message
> > The Qur'an is, from what I can glean (though I am no expert) pretty
> > well preserved. However, preservation does not mean truth. One could
> > just as easily preserve fiction. Also, note that with the finding of
> > the scrolls at Qumran, we now know that the scroll of Isaiah has
> > undergone almost no significant changes over the last 2,000 years.
> > Differences between the Qumran Isaiah scrolls and our present Hebrew
> > text are very minor (mostly spelling differences), and the differences
> > that actually change the meaning of the corresponding sentence
> > probably number less than a dozen. I touched on this in more detail
> > here:
>
> Much of the "original" Torah had already been lost during the
> Babylonian captivity and was re-created from memory. The Qumran
> scrolls came much later.
I wasn't speaking of the Torah, but of Isaiah specifically, and how it
has been well preserved over the last 2000 years. I never said
anything about originals. The point is that preservation over 1400
years does not equate with truth.
> > Well, there's the claim that the moon physically follows/pursues the
> > sun in Soorat ash-Shams... that seems like an error, but oh well...
>
> The symbolism that Quran is using is one of LIGHT. The verses say:
>
> [91.1] I swear by the sun and its brilliance,
> [91.2] And the moon when it follows the sun,
> [91.3] And the day when it shows it,
> [91.4] And the night when it draws a veil over it,
> [91.5] And the heaven and Him Who made it,
> [91.6] And the earth and Him Who extended it,
> [91.7] And the soul and Him Who made it perfect,
> [91.8] Then He inspired it to understand what is right and wrong for
> it;
>
> What is meant by 91:2 is that the moon 'follows' the sun's brilliance
> or light. It has no light of its own and thus by its orbit around the
> Earth, which orbits around the Sun, it reflects Sun's light.
Cute, but of course the verse does not say anything like that. The
verb means to physically follow, pursue, ensue, be consecutive, et
cetera, thus the literal reading has the moon physically following the
sun (and indeed other portions of the Qur'an imply the sun moves, and
moves in a fashion similar to the moon, i.e. they have similar
orbits). But of course, as always, we see that an "error" in a
religious text is a slippery thing, since the believers (naturally)
will choose a different interpretation. It boils down to hermeneutics.
> > > The smallest chapter in the Qur'an is only 3 verses long (Chapter
> > > 108). The pagans at the time of the Prophet (saws) could not even
> > > produce something as small as this, and since then no one else has
> > > completed this impossible task.
> >
> > What are the criteria for this task? How can we objectively know if
> > and when we have a winner? Do we have the alleged attempts of these
> > "pagans"? Can we examine them for ourselves? On what grounds were they
> > not successful?
>
> There is nothing stopping anybody. They can go ahead and write their
> own religious book if they like.
The point is with regard to the criteria of the Soora like it
challenge. If I took this challenge, how would we objectively know if
I met the challenge or not?
> > > Ghulam Ahmed, the 'British
> > > stooge', claimed to receive revelation in cockney English!! Such
> > > foolishness could never compare to the beauty of the Qur'an with its
> > > clear and beautiful Arabic language.
> >
> > The flaw in the reasoning above is that it tries to pass off the
> > subjective as objective. The beauty of a language is a wholly
> > subjective value judgement. The above is analogous to a man saying
> > "Abu Alwafa thinks his 55 kg wife is more beautiful than my 110 kg
> > wife; he's nuts!" Are skinny women more beautiful than corpulent
> > women, or vice versa? Is Arabic more beautifal than Latin or even
> > Cockney English? Beauty is subjective - there is no set logic to
> > aesthetics.
>
> I think the style of Quran was best described by A.J.Arberry who
> translated the Quran: "Using the language of music, each Sura is a
> rhapsody composed of whole or fragmentary 'leitmotivs'; the analogy is
> reinforced by the subtly varied rhythmical flow of the discourse." He
> also referred to the "radiant beauty" and "thrilling rhythms" of the
> Quran. A.J. Arberry also stated that "Many Christian Arabs speak of
> its style with warm admiration, and most Arabists acknowledge its
> excellence."
>
> Where can you find a book which is more than 1400 years old and is
> highly poetic/musical and covers hundreds of topics such as law,
> history, answers just about every questions that comes to mind
> regarding religion, and is scientifically accurate?
Cute, but you just glossed over the fact that aesthetics is a
subjective thing, not an objective thing. If you marry Angelina Jolie,
and I marry a fat bald girl with one eye, while many may think your
wife if more beautiful than my own, by what logic would we objectively
determine aesthetics? I like the example Imran Aijaz gave, where a man
organizes some flowers in a vase, and then challenges others to
produce a more beautiful arrangement of flowers.
> > If this passage from Soorat al-Anbiyaa' is, as the author would like
> > us to believe, a reference to the big bang, then it is in error, as it
> > implies that the earth existed before the big bang. The big bang
> > happened, and then literally billions of years later, the earth came
> > into existence.
>
> The verse says that Earth and heaven were all one mass or one unit of
> creation.
Not exactly. It says there were two pieces sewn together, not just one
mass. There is a difference. As I noted, it implies the earth existed
before the Big Bang (when in reality the earth came much later).
> > > "Allah has cast into the ground mountains standing firm so that it
> > > does not shake with you"
> > > (Surah Luqman 31:10)
> >
> > Right, this is the verse I was alluding to above. Something similar
> > can be found in Soorat an-Nahl 16:15. The relevant Arabic is "an
> > tameeda bikum," with tameed being from the mim-yaa-dal root for
> > shake/quake. Look up maydaan (mayadaan?) in an Arabic dictionary - it
> > means "quake". Of course mountains do not stop earth quakes.
>
> I think you have already lost this debate on soc.religion.islam.
Well then, if this is the case, it shouldn't be hard for you to copy
and paste the response in SRI that refuted the above. I'd love to see
it.
> > Amazed Keith Moore, but not enough for him to embrace Islam... that is
> > rather ironic. I would love to discuss embryology in detail in this
> > thread if any are interested. Surely throwing Keith Moore's name
> > around is not enough. In the mean time, one can read a rather long
> > discussion on embryology that is taking place in soc.religion.islam
> > right now:
>
> I think I have already this long discussion under the thread "Who
> Wrote the Quran? ("The Amazing Qur'an") by Gary Miller?"
With all due respect, you're being pretty vague. Could you maybe
repost some snippets?
> > Two quick objections: (1) This, even if we accept it, is like the
> > story in the New Testament where Jesus (allegedly) predicts the
> > destruction of the temple - so to prove this astounding claim, produce
> > evidence of this verse prior to 622. (2) "Lowest" is better translated
> > "near" (which is why every translator translated it that way!).
>
> I think number (1) is easy. The way the verse reads, it is obvious
> that Surah Al-Rum was revealed at the time when Romans had been
> defeated. If it had been revealed after they were victorious, then the
> kuffar would have said that this is old news.
This is a rather weak objection, as it presupposes we actually know
what the kuffaar at the time said in response to the Qur'an. With
regard to what non-Muslims thought about the Qur'an in 622 or prior,
we only have the claims of the Muslims themselves regarding what their
critics (allegedly) said. We cannot determine what the kuffaar
thought, or even that they were doing such a thorough consideration of
the Qur'an that they would definitely catch an interpolated verse. The
above is not evidence that the said verse existed prior to 622.
> As for (2), I think what you have stated is a valid objection. The
> word that is used in the Quran is "adna" which means "it is closer" or
> "lowest." I am of the opinion that "nearer" is better.
Thank you.
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:54:05 +1000
The first Quran still exists and is preserved. Nothing was lost, nothing
has been lost and nothing will be lost - that is a promise made by God
Himself in the Quran.
-Andre
Denis Giron wrote:
> forahmad@no-spam (1MAN4ALL) wrote in message news:<ba13f877.0306222015.78aae49b@no-spam>...
>
>>denis_giron@no-spam (Denis Giron) wrote in message
>>
>>>The Qur'an is, from what I can glean (though I am no expert) pretty
>>>well preserved. However, preservation does not mean truth. One could
>>>just as easily preserve fiction. Also, note that with the finding of
>>>the scrolls at Qumran, we now know that the scroll of Isaiah has
>>>undergone almost no significant changes over the last 2,000 years.
>>>Differences between the Qumran Isaiah scrolls and our present Hebrew
>>>text are very minor (mostly spelling differences), and the differences
>>>that actually change the meaning of the corresponding sentence
>>>probably number less than a dozen. I touched on this in more detail
>>>here:
>>
>>Much of the "original" Torah had already been lost during the
>>Babylonian captivity and was re-created from memory. The Qumran
>>scrolls came much later.
>
>
> I wasn't speaking of the Torah, but of Isaiah specifically, and how it
> has been well preserved over the last 2000 years. I never said
> anything about originals. The point is that preservation over 1400
> years does not equate with truth.
>
>
>>>Well, there's the claim that the moon physically follows/pursues the
>>>sun in Soorat ash-Shams... that seems like an error, but oh well...
>>
>>The symbolism that Quran is using is one of LIGHT. The verses say:
>>
>>[91.1] I swear by the sun and its brilliance,
>>[91.2] And the moon when it follows the sun,
>>[91.3] And the day when it shows it,
>>[91.4] And the night when it draws a veil over it,
>>[91.5] And the heaven and Him Who made it,
>>[91.6] And the earth and Him Who extended it,
>>[91.7] And the soul and Him Who made it perfect,
>>[91.8] Then He inspired it to understand what is right and wrong for
>>it;
>>
>>What is meant by 91:2 is that the moon 'follows' the sun's brilliance
>>or light. It has no light of its own and thus by its orbit around the
>>Earth, which orbits around the Sun, it reflects Sun's light.
>
>
> Cute, but of course the verse does not say anything like that. The
> verb means to physically follow, pursue, ensue, be consecutive, et
> cetera, thus the literal reading has the moon physically following the
> sun (and indeed other portions of the Qur'an imply the sun moves, and
> moves in a fashion similar to the moon, i.e. they have similar
> orbits). But of course, as always, we see that an "error" in a
> religious text is a slippery thing, since the believers (naturally)
> will choose a different interpretation. It boils down to hermeneutics.
>
>
>>>>The smallest chapter in the Qur'an is only 3 verses long (Chapter
>>>>108). The pagans at the time of the Prophet (saws) could not even
>>>>produce something as small as this, and since then no one else has
>>>>completed this impossible task.
>>>
>>>What are the criteria for this task? How can we objectively know if
>>>and when we have a winner? Do we have the alleged attempts of these
>>>"pagans"? Can we examine them for ourselves? On what grounds were they
>>>not successful?
>>
>>There is nothing stopping anybody. They can go ahead and write their
>>own religious book if they like.
>
>
> The point is with regard to the criteria of the Soora like it
> challenge. If I took this challenge, how would we objectively know if
> I met the challenge or not?
>
>
>>>>Ghulam Ahmed, the 'British
>>>>stooge', claimed to receive revelation in cockney English!! Such
>>>>foolishness could never compare to the beauty of the Qur'an with its
>>>>clear and beautiful Arabic language.
>>>
>>>The flaw in the reasoning above is that it tries to pass off the
>>>subjective as objective. The beauty of a language is a wholly
>>>subjective value judgement. The above is analogous to a man saying
>>>"Abu Alwafa thinks his 55 kg wife is more beautiful than my 110 kg
>>>wife; he's nuts!" Are skinny women more beautiful than corpulent
>>>women, or vice versa? Is Arabic more beautifal than Latin or even
>>>Cockney English? Beauty is subjective - there is no set logic to
>>>aesthetics.
>>
>>I think the style of Quran was best described by A.J.Arberry who
>>translated the Quran: "Using the language of music, each Sura is a
>>rhapsody composed of whole or fragmentary 'leitmotivs'; the analogy is
>>reinforced by the subtly varied rhythmical flow of the discourse." He
>>also referred to the "radiant beauty" and "thrilling rhythms" of the
>>Quran. A.J. Arberry also stated that "Many Christian Arabs speak of
>>its style with warm admiration, and most Arabists acknowledge its
>>excellence."
>>
>>Where can you find a book which is more than 1400 years old and is
>>highly poetic/musical and covers hundreds of topics such as law,
>>history, answers just about every questions that comes to mind
>>regarding religion, and is scientifically accurate?
>
>
> Cute, but you just glossed over the fact that aesthetics is a
> subjective thing, not an objective thing. If you marry Angelina Jolie,
> and I marry a fat bald girl with one eye, while many may think your
> wife if more beautiful than my own, by what logic would we objectively
> determine aesthetics? I like the example Imran Aijaz gave, where a man
> organizes some flowers in a vase, and then challenges others to
> produce a more beautiful arrangement of flowers.
>
>
>>>If this passage from Soorat al-Anbiyaa' is, as the author would like
>>>us to believe, a reference to the big bang, then it is in error, as it
>>>implies that the earth existed before the big bang. The big bang
>>>happened, and then literally billions of years later, the earth came
>>>into existence.
>>
>>The verse says that Earth and heaven were all one mass or one unit of
>>creation.
>
>
> Not exactly. It says there were two pieces sewn together, not just one
> mass. There is a difference. As I noted, it implies the earth existed
> before the Big Bang (when in reality the earth came much later).
>
>
>>>>"Allah has cast into the ground mountains standing firm so that it
>>>>does not shake with you"
>>>>(Surah Luqman 31:10)
>>>
>>>Right, this is the verse I was alluding to above. Something similar
>>>can be found in Soorat an-Nahl 16:15. The relevant Arabic is "an
>>>tameeda bikum," with tameed being from the mim-yaa-dal root for
>>>shake/quake. Look up maydaan (mayadaan?) in an Arabic dictionary - it
>>>means "quake". Of course mountains do not stop earth quakes.
>>
>>I think you have already lost this debate on soc.religion.islam.
>
>
> Well then, if this is the case, it shouldn't be hard for you to copy
> and paste the response in SRI that refuted the above. I'd love to see
> it.
>
>
>>>Amazed Keith Moore, but not enough for him to embrace Islam... that is
>>>rather ironic. I would love to discuss embryology in detail in this
>>>thread if any are interested. Surely throwing Keith Moore's name
>>>around is not enough. In the mean time, one can read a rather long
>>>discussion on embryology that is taking place in soc.religion.islam
>>>right now:
>>
>>I think I have already this long discussion under the thread "Who
>>Wrote the Quran? ("The Amazing Qur'an") by Gary Miller?"
>
>
> With all due respect, you're being pretty vague. Could you maybe
> repost some snippets?
>
>
>>>Two quick objections: (1) This, even if we accept it, is like the
>>>story in the New Testament where Jesus (allegedly) predicts the
>>>destruction of the temple - so to prove this astounding claim, produce
>>>evidence of this verse prior to 622. (2) "Lowest" is better translated
>>>"near" (which is why every translator translated it that way!).
>>
>>I think number (1) is easy. The way the verse reads, it is obvious
>>that Surah Al-Rum was revealed at the time when Romans had been
>>defeated. If it had been revealed after they were victorious, then the
>>kuffar would have said that this is old news.
>
>
> This is a rather weak objection, as it presupposes we actually know
> what the kuffaar at the time said in response to the Qur'an. With
> regard to what non-Muslims thought about the Qur'an in 622 or prior,
> we only have the claims of the Muslims themselves regarding what their
> critics (allegedly) said. We cannot determine what the kuffaar
> thought, or even that they were doing such a thorough consideration of
> the Qur'an that they would definitely catch an interpolated verse. The
> above is not evidence that the said verse existed prior to 622.
>
>
>>As for (2), I think what you have stated is a valid objection. The
>>word that is used in the Quran is "adna" which means "it is closer" or
>>"lowest." I am of the opinion that "nearer" is better.
>
>
> Thank you.
denis_giron@no-spam (Denis Giron) wrote in message
> > The symbolism that Quran is using is one of LIGHT. The verses say:
> >
> > [91.1] I swear by the sun and its brilliance,
> > [91.2] And the moon when it follows the sun,
> > [91.3] And the day when it shows it,
> > [91.4] And the night when it draws a veil over it,
> > [91.5] And the heaven and Him Who made it,
> > [91.6] And the earth and Him Who extended it,
> > [91.7] And the soul and Him Who made it perfect,
> > [91.8] Then He inspired it to understand what is right and wrong for
> > it;
> >
> > What is meant by 91:2 is that the moon 'follows' the sun's brilliance
> > or light. It has no light of its own and thus by its orbit around the
> > Earth, which orbits around the Sun, it reflects Sun's light.
>
> Cute, but of course the verse does not say anything like that. The
> verb means to physically follow, pursue, ensue, be consecutive, et
> cetera, thus the literal reading has the moon physically following the
> sun (and indeed other portions of the Qur'an imply the sun moves, and
> moves in a fashion similar to the moon, i.e. they have similar
> orbits). But of course, as always, we see that an "error" in a
> religious text is a slippery thing, since the believers (naturally)
> will choose a different interpretation. It boils down to hermeneutics.
I think the problem that I often have with non-Muslims in this
newsgroup is that they can come up with some abstruse reasoning and
facts but not much common sense, which perhaps is the most uncommon
thing. Obviously the SUBJECT in the four lines of Surah Shams is
sunlight. Is that not true? What the Quran is referring to is not the
actual or physical relationship between the sun and the moon but LIGHT
itself, which is being used as a symbol of divine guidance. The moon
follows the sun to borrow its light; the day shows up the sunlight;
and the night covers it. The idea being that those who 'follow' divine
guidance would be like a moon reflecting that spiritual light even
when there is darkness of ignorance everywhere. If you take every
expression literally, it won't make any sense at all, because how can
a day "show" something and a night "cover" or "conceal" it? Once
again, you need to use your common sense a little bit and understand
what is poetic and what is presented as a fact. Furthermore, as you
should know, the verses of the Quran are very condensed and
abbreviated and in just a few minimal expressions, Quran is trying to
cover much greater detail. So rather than saying that the moon follows
the Earth's orbit and together they follow the sun's, it simply says
that the moon follows "IT."
> > > > The smallest chapter in the Qur'an is only 3 verses long (Chapter
> > > > 108). The pagans at the time of the Prophet (saws) could not even
> > > > produce something as small as this, and since then no one else has
> > > > completed this impossible task.
> > >
> > > What are the criteria for this task? How can we objectively know if
> > > and when we have a winner? Do we have the alleged attempts of these
> > > "pagans"? Can we examine them for ourselves? On what grounds were they
> > > not successful?
> >
> > There is nothing stopping anybody. They can go ahead and write their
> > own religious book if they like.
>
> The point is with regard to the criteria of the Soora like it
> challenge. If I took this challenge, how would we objectively know if
> I met the challenge or not?
You write it and if large number of people start believing in it and
they continue to believe in it after 1400 years, then you have met the
challenge:-)
You would be dead, but is that our problem?
> > Where can you find a book which is more than 1400 years old and is
> > highly poetic/musical and covers hundreds of topics such as law,
> > history, answers just about every questions that comes to mind
> > regarding religion, and is scientifically accurate?
>
> Cute, but you just glossed over the fact that aesthetics is a
> subjective thing, not an objective thing. If you marry Angelina Jolie,
> and I marry a fat bald girl with one eye, while many may think your
> wife if more beautiful than my own, by what logic would we objectively
> determine aesthetics? I like the example Imran Aijaz gave, where a man
> organizes some flowers in a vase, and then challenges others to
> produce a more beautiful arrangement of flowers.
Marcia Eaton wrote a pretty good (common sense) book on this subject,
"Basic Issues in Aesthetics." She concluded that "Something is
aesthetically valuable when attention to and reflection upon such
intrinsic properties yields pleasure or contributes positively to
other human concerns. Aesthetic value is a matter BOTH of individual
responses to things and the social and cultural context of those
responses" [emphasis is mine].
> > > If this passage from Soorat al-Anbiyaa' is, as the author would like
> > > us to believe, a reference to the big bang, then it is in error, as it
> > > implies that the earth existed before the big bang. The big bang
> > > happened, and then literally billions of years later, the earth came
> > > into existence.
> >
> > The verse says that Earth and heaven were all one mass or one unit of
> > creation.
>
> Not exactly. It says there were two pieces sewn together, not just one
> mass. There is a difference. As I noted, it implies the earth existed
> before the Big Bang (when in reality the earth came much later).
Again, a common sense problem. You are asking for something which no
human language can ever produce. For example, if I ask you to describe
a 'sunset,' without using scientific jargon, you wouldn't be able to
do it. Or for example, if I ask, "Did you split with your family?"
then, with your way of thinking that is irrational because, after all,
your 'family' always includes you. You see my point?
You are simply taking an expression and taking it literally when the
obvious meaning is that heavens and the earth (which was part of it)
were all joined together as one piece. And that's how Picthall
translated it in 1930, only a year after Edwin Hubble proposed his Big
Bang Theory, which didn't gain recognition until years later.
PICTHALL: 021.030 Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens
and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made
every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?
> > > Right, this is the verse I was alluding to above. Something similar
> > > can be found in Soorat an-Nahl 16:15. The relevant Arabic is "an
> > > tameeda bikum," with tameed being from the mim-yaa-dal root for
> > > shake/quake. Look up maydaan (mayadaan?) in an Arabic dictionary - it
> > > means "quake". Of course mountains do not stop earth quakes.
> >
> > I think you have already lost this debate on soc.religion.islam.
>
> Well then, if this is the case, it shouldn't be hard for you to copy
> and paste the response in SRI that refuted the above. I'd love to see
> it.
As I remember it, it went on for quite a while between you and Mr.
Saifullah:-) It would be pretty foolish of me to cut and paste and
each and everybody's responses. It's much easier_ for anybody who is
interested_ to do a Google search and get all the information.
> > > Amazed Keith Moore, but not enough for him to embrace Islam... that is
> > > rather ironic. I would love to discuss embryology in detail in this
> > > thread if any are interested. Surely throwing Keith Moore's name
> > > around is not enough. In the mean time, one can read a rather long
> > > discussion on embryology that is taking place in soc.religion.islam
> > > right now:
> >
> > I think I have already this long discussion under the thread "Who
> > Wrote the Quran? ("The Amazing Qur'an") by Gary Miller?"
>
> With all due respect, you're being pretty vague. Could you maybe
> repost some snippets?
Just do a Google search. Now that I am curious, perhaps I would just
join the debate on SRI.
> > > Two quick objections: (1) This, even if we accept it, is like the
> > > story in the New Testament where Jesus (allegedly) predicts the
> > > destruction of the temple - so to prove this astounding claim, produce
> > > evidence of this verse prior to 622. (2) "Lowest" is better translated
> > > "near" (which is why every translator translated it that way!).
> >
> > I think number (1) is easy. The way the verse reads, it is obvious
> > that Surah Al-Rum was revealed at the time when Romans had been
> > defeated. If it had been revealed after they were victorious, then the
> > kuffar would have said that this is old news.
>
> This is a rather weak objection, as it presupposes we actually know
> what the kuffaar at the time said in response to the Qur'an. With
> regard to what non-Muslims thought about the Qur'an in 622 or prior,
> we only have the claims of the Muslims themselves regarding what their
> critics (allegedly) said. We cannot determine what the kuffaar
> thought, or even that they were doing such a thorough consideration of
> the Qur'an that they would definitely catch an interpolated verse. The
> above is not evidence that the said verse existed prior to 622.
Why do you always assume that Muslims would be dishonest enough to
insert a false prediction in the Quran? Considering that the
population of Muslims in those days would probably be in hundreds of
thousands, spread all across Arabia and beyond, it would require a
conspiracy of monstrous proportions to achieve what you were alleging.
Once again, I have to say, please use some common sense.
> > As for (2), I think what you have stated is a valid objection. The
> > word that is used in the Quran is "adna" which means "it is closer" or
> > "lowest." I am of the opinion that "nearer" is better.
>
> Thank you.
See, how easy I am? But I see that you snipped my last sentence. When
I see tricks like that, I usually_ immediately_ declare victory. LOL.
forahmad@no-spam (1MAN4ALL) wrote in message news:<ba13f877.0306232013.7c5eea00@no-spam>...
> denis_giron@no-spam (Denis Giron) wrote in message
> > Cute, but of course the verse does not say anything like that. The
> > verb means to physically follow, pursue, ensue, be consecutive, et
> > cetera, thus the literal reading has the moon physically following the
> > sun (and indeed other portions of the Qur'an imply the sun moves, and
> > moves in a fashion similar to the moon, i.e. they have similar
> > orbits). But of course, as always, we see that an "error" in a
> > religious text is a slippery thing, since the believers (naturally)
> > will choose a different interpretation. It boils down to hermeneutics.
>
> I think the problem that I often have with non-Muslims in this
> newsgroup is that they can come up with some abstruse reasoning and
> facts but not much common sense, which perhaps is the most uncommon
> thing. Obviously the SUBJECT in the four lines of Surah Shams is
> sunlight. Is that not true? What the Quran is referring to is not the
> actual or physical relationship between the sun and the moon but LIGHT
> itself, which is being used as a symbol of divine guidance.
Actually no. Let's look at the first two verses. The first verse of
Soorat ash-Shams reads "wa ash-Shamsi wa duHaahaa" - "and (or by) the
sun, and the brightness of it" (obviously it, represented by the
ha-alif, is the sun). And then the next verse: "wa al-Qamari idhaa
talaahaa." And there again is the same ha-alif, without a new subject
being established, thus the ha-alif (haa, "it") is referring to the
subject of the previous verse: the sun. Brightness was not the subject
of the previous verse, as the ha-alif appeared at the end of the word
derived from the daad-Haa-alif (daad-Haa-waw) root from which
brightness (or brilliance, or visibility) comes. "Haa" ("it") is
referring to the sun. Thus, in Soorat ash-Shams 91:2, when it says "wa
al-Qamari idhaa talaahaa," it means "and the moon that follows it,"
with "it" being the sun. Furthermore, as was noted previously, the
relevant verb means to physically follow, pursue, ensue, be
consecutive. Thus, while many Muslims may try to take a modern reading
to the text, the most literal meaning has the moon physically
following the sun, so don't talk to me about "common sense" lacking
among the kuffaar.
> > The point is with regard to the criteria of the Soora like it
> > challenge. If I took this challenge, how would we objectively know if
> > I met the challenge or not?
>
> You write it and if large number of people start believing in it and
> they continue to believe in it after 1400 years, then you have met the
> challenge:-)
> You would be dead, but is that our problem?
LOL! So then essentially there is no challenge, as it boils down to an
argumentum ad-numerum. Well akhi, I think the fact that Christians
outnumber Muslims (by literally hundreds of millions), the Bible is a
superior source in light of those who follow it. Surely it does not
boil down to appeals to numbers... so I ask again, is there some
objective criteria?
> > Cute, but you just glossed over the fact that aesthetics is a
> > subjective thing, not an objective thing. If you marry Angelina Jolie,
> > and I marry a fat bald girl with one eye, while many may think your
> > wife if more beautiful than my own, by what logic would we objectively
> > determine aesthetics? I like the example Imran Aijaz gave, where a man
> > organizes some flowers in a vase, and then challenges others to
> > produce a more beautiful arrangement of flowers.
>
> Marcia Eaton wrote a pretty good (common sense) book on this subject,
> "Basic Issues in Aesthetics." She concluded that "Something is
> aesthetically valuable when attention to and reflection upon such
> intrinsic properties yields pleasure or contributes positively to
> other human concerns. Aesthetic value is a matter BOTH of individual
> responses to things and the social and cultural context of those
> responses" [emphasis is mine].
This still doesn't answer the question. How does the above help us
determine if Angelina Jolie is more beautiful than a bald fat woman
with one eye? Do we again appeal to numbers and leave it to that?
> > > The verse says that Earth and heaven were all one mass or one unit of
> > > creation.
> >
> > Not exactly. It says there were two pieces sewn together, not just one
> > mass. There is a difference. As I noted, it implies the earth existed
> > before the Big Bang (when in reality the earth came much later).
>
> Again, a common sense problem. You are asking for something which no
> human language can ever produce.
Actually, Arabic has a word for one: ahad. It would not have been hard
to say "one piece" in Arabic, so don't play this game. And regardless,
you neglected to confront the point about how the earth existed before
the big bang if we considered the ripping to be the big bang. That
would be erroneous.
> You are simply taking an expression and taking it literally when the
> obvious meaning is that heavens and the earth (which was part of it)
> were all joined together as one piece.
The text states that two things were sewn together, thus one of those
things existed (i.e. the earth). The Arabic is very clear that two
things are being referred to, not a single thing. It says God ripped
THEM apart, not it.
> > > > Right, this is the verse I was alluding to above. Something similar
> > > > can be found in Soorat an-Nahl 16:15. The relevant Arabic is "an
> > > > tameeda bikum," with tameed being from the mim-yaa-dal root for
> > > > shake/quake. Look up maydaan (mayadaan?) in an Arabic dictionary - it
> > > > means "quake". Of course mountains do not stop earth quakes.
> > >
> > > I think you have already lost this debate on soc.religion.islam.
> >
> > Well then, if this is the case, it shouldn't be hard for you to copy
> > and paste the response in SRI that refuted the above. I'd love to see
> > it.
>
> As I remember it, it went on for quite a while between you and Mr.
> Saifullah:-) It would be pretty foolish of me to cut and paste and
> each and everybody's responses. It's much easier_ for anybody who is
> interested_ to do a Google search and get all the information.
How interesting. So you can make a claim, and you don't have to back
it up? Well, I recall when H.E. and Mo teamed up and refuted you and
proved Islam is false. It's there in the Google archives. I don't have
to show you where, and if you can't find it yourself, oh well. This is
kewl, making claims and not backing them up. :)
> > > > Amazed Keith Moore, but not enough for him to embrace Islam... that is
> > > > rather ironic. I would love to discuss embryology in detail in this
> > > > thread if any are interested. Surely throwing Keith Moore's name
> > > > around is not enough. In the mean time, one can read a rather long
> > > > discussion on embryology that is taking place in soc.religion.islam
> > > > right now:
> > >
> > > I think I have already this long discussion under the thread "Who
> > > Wrote the Quran? ("The Amazing Qur'an") by Gary Miller?"
> >
> > With all due respect, you're being pretty vague. Could you maybe
> > repost some snippets?
>
> Just do a Google search. Now that I am curious, perhaps I would just
> join the debate on SRI.
Yeah, now there's an idea. Please do join the debate. We could use
another contributor to the discussion. As for the "Amazing Qur'an"
thread, it contains over 160 posts. Should I go sifting through all of
them to find where it is that whatever vague thing you are making
reference to was dealt with? It is ironic that you like to make claims
and not back them up. If it was dealt with, it is not hard to copy and
paste a couple snippets and be done with it; but instead we have to go
back and forth like this.
> > > I think number (1) is easy. The way the verse reads, it is obvious
> > > that Surah Al-Rum was revealed at the time when Romans had been
> > > defeated. If it had been revealed after they were victorious, then the
> > > kuffar would have said that this is old news.
> >
> > This is a rather weak objection, as it presupposes we actually know
> > what the kuffaar at the time said in response to the Qur'an. With
> > regard to what non-Muslims thought about the Qur'an in 622 or prior,
> > we only have the claims of the Muslims themselves regarding what their
> > critics (allegedly) said. We cannot determine what the kuffaar
> > thought, or even that they were doing such a thorough consideration of
> > the Qur'an that they would definitely catch an interpolated verse. The
> > above is not evidence that the said verse existed prior to 622.
>
> Why do you always assume that Muslims would be dishonest enough to
> insert a false prediction in the Quran? Considering that the
> population of Muslims in those days would probably be in hundreds of
> thousands, spread all across Arabia and beyond, it would require a
> conspiracy of monstrous proportions to achieve what you were alleging.
> Once again, I have to say, please use some common sense.
Again, the positive claimant is the one who claims the Qur'an said XYZ
before a given date. Your appeal to personal incredulity is baseless.
Consider that Christianity was spread all over Asia, African and
Europe by the fourth century, yet Rome was able to slip past some very
serious changes by many Christians. Regardless, the issue is what was
allegedly said, and when it was allegedly said, and the evidence for
the claim. Apparently you and Abu Alwafa have no evidence.
> But I see that you snipped my last sentence. When
> I see tricks like that, I usually_ immediately_ declare victory. LOL.
Kewl.
denis_giron@no-spam (Denis Giron) wrote in message
> Actually no. Let's look at the first two verses. The first verse of
> Soorat ash-Shams reads "wa ash-Shamsi wa duHaahaa" - "and (or by) the
> sun, and the brightness of it" (obviously it, represented by the
> ha-alif, is the sun). And then the next verse: "wa al-Qamari idhaa
> talaahaa." And there again is the same ha-alif, without a new subject
> being established, thus the ha-alif (haa, "it") is referring to the
> subject of the previous verse: the sun. Brightness was not the subject
> of the previous verse, as the ha-alif appeared at the end of the word
> derived from the daad-Haa-alif (daad-Haa-waw) root from which
> brightness (or brilliance, or visibility) comes. "Haa" ("it") is
> referring to the sun. Thus, in Soorat ash-Shams 91:2, when it says "wa
> al-Qamari idhaa talaahaa," it means "and the moon that follows it,"
> with "it" being the sun. Furthermore, as was noted previously, the
> relevant verb means to physically follow, pursue, ensue, be
> consecutive. Thus, while many Muslims may try to take a modern reading
> to the text, the most literal meaning has the moon physically
> following the sun, so don't talk to me about "common sense" lacking
> among the kuffaar.
In the first verse, Quran is swearing by two things 1) the sun, and 2)
its brightness. Otherwise Quran could have simply said "Wa Ash-Shams,"
for, after all, the sun is bright and there was no need to mention its
brightness separately. Perhaps, the reason is that the sun is
wonderfully bright by itself but other celestial bodies such as the
moon also reflect its brightness or light. In other words, light
always has a source but light is also an entity by itself. And that is
why God swears by both of them. The next verse "Wa Al-Qamari
'Idhā Talāhā," (By the moon as it follows it) can apply
to either the sun or its light. The "subjects" of the first verse are
the sun AND its brightness. In your (Abdul Khinzir's) other post "Hey
Abu Mohammed - Answer This Please" you yourself had stated that if
there is an "X" and a "Y" joined by a conjunction "wa-" (AND), then
either X or Y can apply to the following verse or phrase. Therefore
verse 91:2 can apply to either the sun or its brightness. The third
verse is going back to the first verse and is suggesting that the day
shows the sun AND its light (obviously, sometimes you cannot see the
sun as it is hidden behind clouds but you can always see its light).
If the Quran had mentioned just the sun in verse 91:1, then you would
have claimed that that is not always true, and the verse would be
wrong. That is why Quran mentions both the sun AND its brightness or
light. You are also not grasping the symbolism in the surah. Verse
91:8 indicates that the sun, light and darkness are being used as
symbols for divine guidance, one who reflects this light (the prophets
of God), and those who benefit from both, respectively.
> Thus, while many Muslims may try to take a modern reading
> to the text, the most literal meaning has the moon physically
> following the sun, so don't talk to me about "common sense" lacking
> among the kuffaar.
It's not that that even if you take it literally, the verse is
correct. The moon DOES follow the sun along with Earth. It is not that
the moon has two legs and it is running after the sun. Obviously,
"follow" means follow its orbit; otherwise, the moon would travel in a
linear fashion and hit the sun. So your argument is baseless, and I
would repeat that you are not using common sense.
> > > The point is with regard to the criteria of the Soora like it
> > > challenge. If I took this challenge, how would we objectively know if
> > > I met the challenge or not?
> >
> > You write it and if large number of people start believing in it and
> > they continue to believe in it after 1400 years, then you have met the
> > challenge:-)
> > You would be dead, but is that our problem?
>
> LOL! So then essentially there is no challenge, as it boils down to an
> argumentum ad-numerum. Well akhi, I think the fact that Christians
> outnumber Muslims (by literally hundreds of millions), the Bible is a
> superior source in light of those who follow it. Surely it does not
> boil down to appeals to numbers... so I ask again, is there some
> objective criteria?
First of all "objectivity" does require majority opinion. If a large
majority of people agree on something that can be called "objective,"
fallacious as it may be, and that is why the word "objective" does not
even appear in many philosophy dictionaries.
I meant you should accept the challenge by all means. Create a surah_
not a parody of what is in the Quran or copying its style but do
something original that would deal with life, afterlife, law,
morality, history, metaphysics, nature, your own critics etc., and all
the verses should rhyme. Get an "objective" review done by a few
Non-Muslim critics. If they like your work, that's wonderful. If they
don't, you got crap. How much more open-minded can I be?
> > > Cute, but you just glossed over the fact that aesthetics is a
> > > subjective thing, not an objective thing. If you marry Angelina Jolie,
> > > and I marry a fat bald girl with one eye, while many may think your
> > > wife if more beautiful than my own, by what logic would we objectively
> > > determine aesthetics? I like the example Imran Aijaz gave, where a man
> > > organizes some flowers in a vase, and then challenges others to
> > > produce a more beautiful arrangement of flowers.
> >
> > Marcia Eaton wrote a pretty good (common sense) book on this subject,
> > "Basic Issues in Aesthetics." She concluded that "Something is
> > aesthetically valuable when attention to and reflection upon such
> > intrinsic properties yields pleasure or contributes positively to
> > other human concerns. Aesthetic value is a matter BOTH of individual
> > responses to things and the social and cultural context of those
> > responses" [emphasis is mine].
>
> This still doesn't answer the question. How does the above help us
> determine if Angelina Jolie is more beautiful than a bald fat woman
> with one eye? Do we again appeal to numbers and leave it to that?
As Eaton suggested, it is a matter of both personal taste as well as
culture. There are certain aspects of beauty that would appeal to you
more than others, and there are some that would appeal to everybody.
For example, I don't know of any person who thinks that Niagara Falls
(the Canadian side) is an eyesore or feels that Cindy Crawford is
ugly. At the same time, you can find a woman that I may not like but
you may find her very attractive because she compliments certain
aspects of your own personality.
> > > > The verse says that Earth and heaven were all one mass or one unit of
> > > > creation.
> > >
> > > Not exactly. It says there were two pieces sewn together, not just one
> > > mass. There is a difference. As I noted, it implies the earth existed
> > > before the Big Bang (when in reality the earth came much later).
> >
> > Again, a common sense problem. You are asking for something which no
> > human language can ever produce.
>
> Actually, Arabic has a word for one: ahad. It would not have been hard
> to say "one piece" in Arabic, so don't play this game. And regardless,
> you neglected to confront the point about how the earth existed before
> the big bang if we considered the ripping to be the big bang. That
> would be erroneous.
First of all, your favorite the Hilali-Khan translation translates the
verse as "Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the
earth were joined together as one united piece, then we parted them.
And we have made from water every living thing. Will they not then
believe."
Other translations:
PICTHALL:021.030 Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens
and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made
every living thing of water ? Will they not then believe?
E.H. PALMER: Do not those who misbelieve see that the heavens and the
earth were both solid, and we burst them asunder; and we made from
water every living thing-will they then not believe?
Ironically, the translations even by many non-Muslim translators, as I
pointed out above, is identical to what you think the verse should
have been!
There are two words used in the verse that we need to look at. In
common usage, the word "ratq" means joined, together or united. The
other word that is used is "fatq" which means torn, separated.
Earth is mentioned before its creation because that is the only way to
describe that it was once part of one 'piece'. How else would anyone
suggest that Earth was part of this cosmic soup without mentioning it
or without creating more confusion that these heavens were somehow
outside of Earth?
As I had stated earlier, you just do not seem to be using your common
sense, which is a common problem in this newsgroup; people are so hell
bent on discrediting Islam that they begin to sound ridiculous.
If the Quran had used the word "ahad" (One), it would have been simply
wrong. According to NASA, "The Big Bang did not occur at a single
point in space as an 'explosion.' It is better thought of as the
simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe." The
same web site also tells us that "The Big Bang theory predicts that
the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big
Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees
and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons,
anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe
cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or
combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). "
That means that if there was one mass, it consisted of many different
things. As the Quran says, "Then He turned to the heaven when it was
smoke..."
NASA site has also used an analogy that would be appropriate to
mention, "In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the
universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the
universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior
of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this
analogy." So if you want to translate the verse as A.J. Arberry has
done, "…the heavens and the earth were a mass all sewn up, and then
we unstitched them…" that can mean that everything was bundled
together (compressed) in a mass and then like a baseball with its
threads unraveling, it began to expand. However, as I mentioned
above, the common meaning of the word "ratq" is something which is
joined together as one, and of "fatq" is to tear away or separate.
> > You are simply taking an expression and taking it literally when the
> > obvious meaning is that heavens and the earth (which was part of it)
> > were all joined together as one piece.
>
> The text states that two things were sewn together, thus one of those
> things existed (i.e. the earth). The Arabic is very clear that two
> things are being referred to, not a single thing. It says God ripped
> THEM apart, not it.
See my notes above. As I stated above, the problem is one of
language. God is simply trying to convey that Earth was part of all
this, that this event was not exclusive of Earth. Note also that
Arberry translated it as "heaven and earth were a MASS…" He doesn't
say two "masses." And all other translators have translated the verse
in such a way that it means that only one mass or piece is being
referred to. If you don't believe me, you can check out all the
translations yourself.
> > As I remember it, it went on for quite a while between you and Mr.
> > Saifullah:-) It would be pretty foolish of me to cut and paste and
> > each and everybody's responses. It's much easier_ for anybody who is
> > interested_ to do a Google search and get all the information.
>
> How interesting. So you can make a claim, and you don't have to back
> it up? Well, I recall when H.E. and Mo teamed up and refuted you and
> proved Islam is false. It's there in the Google archives. I don't have
> to show you where, and if you can't find it yourself, oh well. This is
> kewl, making claims and not backing them up. :)
LOL. This is funny. H.E. and Mo refuted me? On what? If you had
suggested some other names I may have taken your comment more
seriously. In any case, if I refer to a particular thread, I name it
so that you can check it by doing an advanced Google search. Under the
thread, just look up your alias and the rebuttals. How much more
difficult can that be?
> Yeah, now there's an idea. Please do join the debate. We could use
> another contributor to the discussion. As for the "Amazing Qur'an"
> thread, it contains over 160 posts. Should I go sifting through all of
> them to find where it is that whatever vague thing you are making
> reference to was dealt with? It is ironic that you like to make claims
> and not back them up. If it was dealt with, it is not hard to copy and
> paste a couple snippets and be done with it; but instead we have to go
> back and forth like this.
I think the easiest way would be for me to just join the debate on
SRI.
> > > > I think number (1) is easy. The way the verse reads, it is obvious
> > > > that Surah Al-Rum was revealed at the time when Romans had been
> > > > defeated. If it had been revealed after they were victorious, then the
> > > > kuffar would have said that this is old news.
> > >
> > > This is a rather weak objection, as it presupposes we actually know
> > > what the kuffaar at the time said in response to the Qur'an. With
> > > regard to what non-Muslims thought about the Qur'an in 622 or prior,
> > > we only have the claims of the Muslims themselves regarding what their
> > > critics (allegedly) said. We cannot determine what the kuffaar
> > > thought, or even that they were doing such a thorough consideration of
> > > the Qur'an that they would definitely catch an interpolated verse. The
> > > above is not evidence that the said verse existed prior to 622.
> >
> > Why do you always assume that Muslims would be dishonest enough to
> > insert a false prediction in the Quran? Considering that the
> > population of Muslims in those days would probably be in hundreds of
> > thousands, spread all across Arabia and beyond, it would require a
> > conspiracy of monstrous proportions to achieve what you were alleging.
> > Once again, I have to say, please use some common sense.
>
> Again, the positive claimant is the one who claims the Qur'an said XYZ
> before a given date. Your appeal to personal incredulity is baseless.
> Consider that Christianity was spread all over Asia, African and
> Europe by the fourth century, yet Rome was able to slip past some very
> serious changes by many Christians. Regardless, the issue is what was
> allegedly said, and when it was allegedly said, and the evidence for
> the claim. Apparently you and Abu Alwafa have no evidence.
I think the problem is that you and some other people in this
newsgroup are not willing to accept ANY Muslim source, which is
strange because who would know Islamic history better than Muslim
historians. As I told Mr. Abdou the other day, that is like rejecting
all British history unless it is confirmed by French and Spanish
sources, which is ridiculous. Because there are always such few
sources of ancient history, historians usually list references and
accept whatever is available as true unless a critical analysis would
show discrepancies and contradictions, in which case what is doubtful
is reported as such. The Western authorship of Islam, unfortunately,
consists of storytelling, making unsupported assumptions, and
projecting a view which is steeped in centuries-old bias and bigotry.
forahmad@no-spam (1MAN4ALL) wrote in message news:<ba13f877.0306280536.1e42a5f3@no-spam>...
> ...
Sorry for the delay...
> In the first verse, Quran is swearing by two things 1) the sun, and 2)
> its brightness. Otherwise Quran could have simply said "Wa Ash-Shams,"
> for, after all, the sun is bright and there was no need to mention its
> brightness separately.
> [...]
> The "subjects" of the first verse are
> the sun AND its brightness. In your (Abdul Khinzir's) other post "Hey
> Abu Mohammed - Answer This Please" you yourself had stated that if
> there is an "X" and a "Y" joined by a conjunction "wa-" (AND), then
> either X or Y can apply to the following verse or phrase. Therefore
> verse 91:2 can apply to either the sun or its brightness.
What you missed is the ha-alif at the end of "dhuHaahaa," i.e. the
brightness of *IT*, thus so far the "it" is the sun, and no new
subject is introduced. To literally use the text the way you are, the
only way we can stay consistent (with duHaa becoming the new subject),
is then in the third verse have the moon become the subject after
that. It is obvious that the sun is the point of reference in all four
verses, and a new subject is not introduced until verse five.
Furthermore, the issue of conjunction would be relevant only if both
were being referred to, but verse two reads "talaa*HAA*" (i.e. with
ha-alif at the end), thus only one thing is being referred to, and
since a new subject has not been introduced, that one thing is the
subject of the previous verse: i.e. the sun.
> > Thus, while many Muslims may try to take a modern reading
> > to the text, the most literal meaning has the moon physically
> > following the sun, so don't talk to me about "common sense" lacking
> > among the kuffaar.
>
> It's not that that even if you take it literally, the verse is
> correct. The moon DOES follow the sun along with Earth. It is not that
> the moon has two legs and it is running after the sun. Obviously,
> "follow" means follow its orbit; otherwise, the moon would travel in a
> linear fashion and hit the sun.
Ummm, actually, this would not be correct, as the moon would follow
the sun as it orbits the earth. This along with various other ayat,
lean in favor of a geocentric model of the universe (and indeed, as I
understand it, most Muslims did believe in the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic
geocentric model, and saw nothing in the Qur'an contradicting such).
> > > You write it and if large number of people start believing in it and
> > > they continue to believe in it after 1400 years, then you have met the
> > > challenge:-)
> > > You would be dead, but is that our problem?
> >
> > LOL! So then essentially there is no challenge, as it boils down to an
> > argumentum ad-numerum. Well akhi, I think the fact that Christians
> > outnumber Muslims (by literally hundreds of millions), the Bible is a
> > superior source in light of those who follow it. Surely it does not
> > boil down to appeals to numbers... so I ask again, is there some
> > objective criteria?
>
> First of all "objectivity" does require majority opinion. If a large
> majority of people agree on something that can be called "objective,"
> fallacious as it may be, and that is why the word "objective" does not
> even appear in many philosophy dictionaries.
Actually no, objectivity is not based on numbers... such methods are
subjective, and *THAT* is why the word "objective" does not often
appear in discussions within the realm of *CONTINENTAL* philosophy.
> I meant you should accept the challenge by all means. Create a surah_
> not a parody of what is in the Quran or copying its style but do
> something original that would deal with life, afterlife, law,
> morality, history, metaphysics, nature, your own critics etc., and all
> the verses should rhyme. Get an "objective" review done by a few
> Non-Muslim critics. If they like your work, that's wonderful. If they
> don't, you got crap.
Again, it boils down to opinions, thus this is not a real challenge.
If we're going to have an actual challenge, there should be some
concrete criteria, but it is painfully obvious that you have no
criteria to offer.
> > > Again, a common sense problem. You are asking for something which no
> > > human language can ever produce.
> >
> > Actually, Arabic has a word for one: ahad. It would not have been hard
> > to say "one piece" in Arabic, so don't play this game. And regardless,
> > you neglected to confront the point about how the earth existed before
> > the big bang if we considered the ripping to be the big bang. That
> > would be erroneous.
>
> First of all, your favorite the Hilali-Khan translation translates the
> verse as "Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the
> earth were joined together as one united piece, then we parted them.
> And we have made from water every living thing. Will they not then
> believe."
WOW! I guess I should take it as true then since I consider Hilaalee
and Khan infallible, right? The reality is that you think because I
sided with the Hilaalee-Khan translation on one verse, I should do so
on another, but the logic doesn't follow. If I think the Hilaalee-Khan
translation is true to the Arabic, I'll say so - and if I don't I'll
also say so. The same goes for any other translator (I really like
Rashad Khalifa's translation, but I still admit that while he is
generally faithful to the text, he did twist it here and there to meet
certain agendas). As for Hilaalee-Khan, the words "together as one
united piece" do not appear in the Arabic, thus they added that in.
> Other translations:
> PICTHALL:021.030 Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens
> and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made
> every living thing of water ? Will they not then believe?
Again, the Arabic does not say "one piece". Pickthall may have been
trying to make it more accessible to the reader, but the text simply
says that two things were sewn [together].
> There are two words used in the verse that we need to look at. In
> common usage, the word "ratq" means joined, together or united. The
> other word that is used is "fatq" which means torn, separated.
This is understood, and already covered several posts ago. So two
pieces were joined/sewn, and then separated (ripped apart). That is
inaccurate as in order for such to be the case, one of those pieces
(the earth) had to exist before and immediately after the Big Bang -
which flies in the face of the scientific consensus. The earth came
into existence more than 10 billion years after the Big Bang.
> Earth is mentioned before its creation because that is the only way to
> describe that it was once part of one 'piece'. How else would anyone
> suggest that Earth was part of this cosmic soup without mentioning it
> or without creating more confusion that these heavens were somehow
> outside of Earth?
>
> As I had stated earlier, you just do not seem to be using your common
> sense,
This is your convenient way of trying to squirm out of the fact that
the text is an error. Why is it that you have to appeal to my alleged
lack of common sense in order to overlook the fact that your allegedly
omniscient deity could not express the idea in Arabic in a way that
was not inaccurate?
> If the Quran had used the word "ahad" (One), it would have been simply
> wrong.
That would have been closer to a singularity than the duality implied
in Soorat al-Anbiyyaa'. Furthermore, are you now saying that "one"
thing is erroneous but two is not?
> According to NASA, "The Big Bang did not occur at a single
> point in space as an 'explosion.'
Or a ripping for that matter, right? Why is it exactly that you think
this is relevant?
> It is better thought of as the
> simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe."
Right, which would not be the same as two things being joined and then
ripped apart.
> The
> same web site also tells us that "The Big Bang theory predicts that
> the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big
> Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees
> and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons,
> anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe
> cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or
> combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). "
> That means that if there was one mass, it consisted of many different
> things. As the Quran says, "Then He turned to the heaven when it was
> smoke..."
LOL! Of course, in your rant above, the word "smoke" does not appear,
thus why do you think you can relate "smoke" to the above?
> NASA site has also used an analogy that would be appropriate to
> mention, "In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the
> universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the
> universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior
> of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this
> analogy." So if you want to translate the verse as A.J. Arberry has
> done, "?the heavens and the earth were a mass all sewn up, and then
> we unstitched them?" that can mean that everything was bundled
> together (compressed) in a mass and then like a baseball with its
> threads unraveling, it began to expand.
Arberry's translation I like (though I'll touch on that below), but
ripping two things apart is not the same as a single ball
spreading/expanding. Furthermore, even if we unjustifiably sided with
this analogy, the fact still remains that the earth did not exist at
that time, thus the Qur'an is still in error. Maybe you should try
using your common sense.
> Note also that
> Arberry translated it as "heaven and earth were a MASS?" He doesn't
> say two "masses."
And again, the word "mass" is not in the Arabic. You really want to
hold tight to English translations don't you? The Arabic says two
things were sewn [together], and then they were ripped apart. Simple
logic dictates that if they were sewn in separated, each thing
existed, and that is the key problem in all this.
> > > As I remember it, it went on for quite a while between you and Mr.
> > > Saifullah:-) It would be pretty foolish of me to cut and paste and
> > > each and everybody's responses. It's much easier_ for anybody who is
> > > interested_ to do a Google search and get all the information.
> >
> > How interesting. So you can make a claim, and you don't have to back
> > it up? Well, I recall when H.E. and Mo teamed up and refuted you and
> > proved Islam is false. It's there in the Google archives. I don't have
> > to show you where, and if you can't find it yourself, oh well. This is
> > kewl, making claims and not backing them up. :)
>
> LOL. This is funny. H.E. and Mo refuted me? On what? If you had
> suggested some other names I may have taken your comment more
> seriously.
That was the point of the joke, but I see the sarcasm and satire went
right over your head. The point is that you make claims and then
explain why you don't have to back them up. Anyone can do that. For
example: I recall the thread where Mo exposed you as an Israeli spy. I
don't have to back this claim up of course. Search the archives. If
you can't find it, that's not my problem.
> > Again, the positive claimant is the one who claims the Qur'an said XYZ
> > before a given date. Your appeal to personal incredulity is baseless.
> > Consider that Christianity was spread all over Asia, African and
> > Europe by the fourth century, yet Rome was able to slip past some very
> > serious changes by many Christians. Regardless, the issue is what was
> > allegedly said, and when it was allegedly said, and the evidence for
> > the claim. Apparently you and Abu Alwafa have no evidence.
>
> I think the problem is that you and some other people in this
> newsgroup are not willing to accept ANY Muslim source, which is
> strange because who would know Islamic history better than Muslim
> historians. As I told Mr. Abdou the other day, that is like rejecting
> all British history unless it is confirmed by French and Spanish
> sources, which is ridiculous.
This is the reason I gave the analogy of Jesus and the gospels.
According to the gospels, Jesus alluded to the destruction of the
temple. The allusion to this destruction is what leads historians to
date the gospels that contain it as being written after the fall of
the temple. And surprise, we have no hard copy of a text before the
destruction of the temple. So too, if Muhammad allegedly predicted
event X at time T, why not produce a text from time T, or at least
prior to event X? The reason is that you can't - instead you want to
make an appeal to the incredulity of others (which is the same thing
fundo christians do when they make absurd claims about how no one
could have slipped a lie past the Christian community since it was
already all over the place).
denis_giron@no-spam (Denis Giron) wrote in message news:<bac0a2be.0307020811.5920ab9@no-spam>...
> forahmad@no-spam (1MAN4ALL) wrote in message news:<ba13f877.0306280536.1e42a5f3@no-spam>...
> > ...
>
> Sorry for the delay...
And sorry for the delayed response.
> > In the first verse, Quran is swearing by two things 1) the sun, and 2)
> > its brightness. Otherwise Quran could have simply said "Wa Ash-Shams,"
> > for, after all, the sun is bright and there was no need to mention its
> > brightness separately.
> > [...]
> > The "subjects" of the first verse are
> > the sun AND its brightness. In your (Abdul Khinzir's) other post "Hey
> > Abu Mohammed - Answer This Please" you yourself had stated that if
> > there is an "X" and a "Y" joined by a conjunction "wa-" (AND), then
> > either X or Y can apply to the following verse or phrase. Therefore
> > verse 91:2 can apply to either the sun or its brightness.
>
> What you missed is the ha-alif at the end of "dhuHaahaa," i.e. the
> brightness of *IT*, thus so far the "it" is the sun, and no new
> subject is introduced. To literally use the text the way you are, the
> only way we can stay consistent (with duHaa becoming the new subject),
> is then in the third verse have the moon become the subject after
> that. It is obvious that the sun is the point of reference in all four
> verses, and a new subject is not introduced until verse five.
> Furthermore, the issue of conjunction would be relevant only if both
> were being referred to, but verse two reads "talaa*HAA*" (i.e. with
> ha-alif at the end), thus only one thing is being referred to, and
> since a new subject has not been introduced, that one thing is the
> subject of the previous verse: i.e. the sun.
I think that's like saying "Tom and Tom's wife," which would mean two
subjects_ Tom and his wife, not just Tom. Or if I say, "My Lexus and
its gold color," the subject is not just my car but also the golden
color of my color. If I add in the next sentence that "it sparkles",
then that can either mean my car or the metallic gold color of my car.
Note also that the second verse also starts with "wa-" (by), just
like the first one, and it is not exactly a continuation of the first
verse. The "it" can apply (keep in mind the example that I gave above)
to both the sun and its brightness. In fact, the "it" in third verse
does apply to "brightness," as a rainy day does not always shows the
sun but it does show some of its light. Even Hillali-Khan translation
translates it as "By the day as it shows up (the sun's) brightness_"
putting "the sun" in parenthesis and making "brightness" the thing
that the day shows up.
> > > Thus, while many Muslims may try to take a modern reading
> > > to the text, the most literal meaning has the moon physically
> > > following the sun, so don't talk to me about "common sense" lacking
> > > among the kuffaar.
> >
> > It's not that that even if you take it literally, the verse is
> > correct. The moon DOES follow the sun along with Earth. It is not that
> > the moon has two legs and it is running after the sun. Obviously,
> > "follow" means follow its orbit; otherwise, the moon would travel in a
> > linear fashion and hit the sun.
>
> Ummm, actually, this would not be correct, as the moon would follow
> the sun as it orbits the earth. This along with various other ayat,
> lean in favor of a geocentric model of the universe (and indeed, as I
> understand it, most Muslims did believe in the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic
> geocentric model, and saw nothing in the Qur'an contradicting such).
I am not sure what ayahs you are referring to. In any case, in the
geocentric model, both the sun and the moon would be orbiting the
earth. In Ptolemaic model, the moon does NOT orbit the sun; in fact,
it is nowhere near it. You are also ASSUMING that when Quran stated
that the moon follows the sun_ which is true especially when the
subject is light_ it didn't know what it was referring to. But the
statement itself is correct, and I am not sure why you are going crazy
over it.
See a diagram of Ptolemaic model on this web site:
www.public.iastate.edu/~astro120/Lecture11.pdf
> > > > You write it and if large number of people start believing in it and
> > > > they continue to believe in it after 1400 years, then you have met the
> > > > challenge:-)
> > > > You would be dead, but is that our problem?
> > >
> > > LOL! So then essentially there is no challenge, as it boils down to an
> > > argumentum ad-numerum. Well akhi, I think the fact that Christians
> > > outnumber Muslims (by literally hundreds of millions), the Bible is a
> > > superior source in light of those who follow it. Surely it does not
> > > boil down to appeals to numbers... so I ask again, is there some
> > > objective criteria?
> >
> > First of all "objectivity" does require majority opinion. If a large
> > majority of people agree on something that can be called "objective,"
> > fallacious as it may be, and that is why the word "objective" does not
> > even appear in many philosophy dictionaries.
>
> Actually no, objectivity is not based on numbers... such methods are
> subjective, and *THAT* is why the word "objective" does not often
> appear in discussions within the realm of *CONTINENTAL* philosophy.
Continental philosophy draws upon the writings of European
philosophers from certain perspectives but that has nothing to do with
what we were discussing. In medival times, and even today, objectivity
was a "condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of
individual thought and perceptible by 'all' observers" (Webster's
definition). So if everybody looks up and says that the sky is blue
that would be an "objective" assessment. But if somebody says that
it's kind of gray and others disagree, that would be called a
subjective opinion. Thus, "objectivity" requires a majority or a near
unanimous opinion. But because the ultimate reality is always
unknowable and since 'all' can be wrong, "objectivity" is a
meaningless concept. In a secondary study, however, objectivity can be
a topic of discussions in ethics, but an "objective criteria" for any
other purpose would simply be an exercise in determining what's
common.
> > I meant you should accept the challenge by all means. Create a surah_
> > not a parody of what is in the Quran or copying its style but do
> > something original that would deal with life, afterlife, law,
> > morality, history, metaphysics, nature, your own critics etc., and all
> > the verses should rhyme. Get an "objective" review done by a few
> > Non-Muslim critics. If they like your work, that's wonderful. If they
> > don't, you got crap.
>
> Again, it boils down to opinions, thus this is not a real challenge.
> If we're going to have an actual challenge, there should be some
> concrete criteria, but it is painfully obvious that you have no
> criteria to offer.
LOL. So you moved from "objective criteria" to "concrete criteria?"
What "criteria" can there ever be which can withstand intense scrutiny
or satisfy all and sundry? If you want to do it, go ahead and do it.
Plus, I have already given you a criterion that you can follow. Write
a book dealing with metaphysics, ethics, law, nature, history etc.
with all verses rhyming together. Show this book to a few scholars
that 'you' respect. If they like your book, it gets published, or it
has any impact on people's lives, let me know. And make sure that you
send me a copy:-)
> WOW! I guess I should take it as true then since I consider Hilaalee
> and Khan infallible, right? The reality is that you think because I
> sided with the Hilaalee-Khan translation on one verse, I should do so
> on another, but the logic doesn't follow. If I think the Hilaalee-Khan
> translation is true to the Arabic, I'll say so - and if I don't I'll
> also say so.
I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy. You choose the translation
that follows your own agenda at any given time. Your INTENT is not to
get to the bottom of the truth but to discredit Islam by whatever
means that are available.
> The same goes for any other translator (I really like
> Rashad Khalifa's translation, but I still admit that while he is
> generally faithful to the text, he did twist it here and there to meet
> certain agendas). As for Hilaalee-Khan, the words "together as one
> united piece" do not appear in the Arabic, thus they added that in.
There must me one translation that you like that we can both agree on
for sake of future discussions; after all, both Muslims and
non-Muslims have translated the Quran. The mistake that you keep
making is that whenever it serves your purpose, you look for the root
word when in some cases the general meaning, usage or understanding of
a word would be more appropriate and correct. And that is why not
everybody can be a translator, even if you have learned the language.
For example, there are thousands of English words which have Latin
roots, but no translator would translate the word into another
language by going back to the root word, unless there is good reason
for doing so. Therefore, you have to give benefit of the doubt to the
Author and assume what would be more appropriate. What you are doing
is taking the word "ratq" which may have been derived from the word
"sewn" but generally it just means joined together or united. The
English word "joined" is derived from Old English "joindre" which in
turn came from Latin "jungere" which meant "yoke." If I insist that it
be translated as "put together in a yoke" in any other language, it
would be rather foolish. That's why I keep insisting that you are not
using common sense.
What is 'meant' by the verse is that these two things were joined
together as one whole. And that's why most translators, whether they
are Muslims or not, have translated it as such. What you are claiming
is that you know better than any one of them, which is absurd because
compared to these many translators_ who spent their lifetime trying to
perfect their work_ your knowledge is still elementary. You may
imagine Muslims translators trying to put forward the best translation
which would be scientifically accurate, but why would non-Muslims do
the same?
> > Other translations:
> > PICTHALL:021.030 Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens
> > and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made
> > every living thing of water ? Will they not then believe?
>
> Again, the Arabic does not say "one piece". Pickthall may have been
> trying to make it more accessible to the reader, but the text simply
> says that two things were sewn [together].
I had also given the translation of E.H. Palmer but you cleverly
snipped it! Another non-Muslim T.B. Irving has translated this verse
as "Have not those who disbelieve seen how Heaven and Earth were once
one solid mass which We ripped apart?" Maulvi Sher Ali, who I think
has one of the best translations, also translated the verse as, "Do
not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed
up-mass, then WE opened them out ? And WE made of water every living
thing. Will they not then believe ?" Almost EVERY translator, whether
a Muslim or not, has translated the word "ratq" in the sense of
something not exactly "sewn up" but as something which was bundled
together in one piece or mass. See also my comments above.
> > There are two words used in the verse that we need to look at. In
> > common usage, the word "ratq" means joined, together or united. The
> > other word that is used is "fatq" which means torn, separated.
>
> This is understood, and already covered several posts ago. So two
> pieces were joined/sewn, and then separated (ripped apart). That is
> inaccurate as in order for such to be the case, one of those pieces
> (the earth) had to exist before and immediately after the Big Bang -
> which flies in the face of the scientific consensus. The earth came
> into existence more than 10 billion years after the Big Bang.
I also covered this several posts ago. If something 'was' part of
something or it came out of it, then in any language you do have to
mention it as if it existed beforehand. As I explained earlier, if I
say "you and your family once lived together," that, using your logic
would be simply wrong, because you were always part of your 'family'
and you still are. Or if I say, that before YOU were born, you were
in your mother's womb, that, again, with what you are suggesting,
would be wrong because at that point "You" didn't exist. There was a
fetus but there was no Denis Giron.
The important fact is that when Quran uses the term "heaven and earth"
it usually means a lot more than just heaven and earth per se. A few
of the dozens of examples:
"[2.33] He said: O Adam! inform them of their names. Then when he had
informed them of their names, He said: Did I not say to you that I
surely know what is 'ghaib' in the heavens and the earth and (that) I
know what you manifest and what you hide? [2.107] Do you not know that
Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and that besides
Allah you have no guardian or helper? [2.116] And they say: Allah has
taken to himself a son. Glory be to Him; rather, whatever is in the
heavens and the earth is His; all are obedient to Him. [2.117]
Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees
an affair, He only says to it, Be, so there it is."
In other words, "heaven and earth" can mean 'everything.'
> > As I had stated earlier, you just do not seem to be using your common
> > sense,
>
> This is your convenient way of trying to squirm out of the fact that
> the text is an error. Why is it that you have to appeal to my alleged
> lack of common sense in order to overlook the fact that your allegedly
> omniscient deity could not express the idea in Arabic in a way that
> was not inaccurate?
What Quran has is highly accurate, despite lack of technical terms
that had not been invented during the time of the Prophet (s.a.w).
What is not accurate is your own understanding or your attempts to
distort what is easily understandable by most people. Quran is simply
using the analogy or implying that everything was in sort of a tight
or compressed bundle and then it was suddenly opened up or ripped
apart. So even if we take your own translation that everything was
sewn together, that would still be figurativlely accurate as that
means that everything was compressed together like a cloth covering of
a parcel, sewn from the outside_ which is the way it used to be done_
to keep everything tightly together. In fact calling it a "tightly
packaged bundle" would be more accurate than mass, as some translators
have done.
> > If the Quran had used the word "ahad" (One), it would have been simply
> > wrong.
>
> That would have been closer to a singularity than the duality implied
> in Soorat al-Anbiyyaa'. Furthermore, are you now saying that "one"
> thing is erroneous but two is not?
You are wrongly assuming that singularity was ONE thing. Nobody knows
what singularity was and what it consisted of. All we have are
theories and hardly any concrete evidence. Amazing that you are so
willing to 'believe' scientific theories but are reluctant to believe
in religion. As I stated above, when Quran uses the term "heaven and
earth" it means everything. So there was no "duality" to speak of.
If you just understand this little point, everything would be clear to
you. Just do a proximity search on the following link using the words,
"heavens," "and" and "earth."
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/
And you will see that Quran means much more than just heavens and
earth when it uses the term "heavens and the earth."
> > According to NASA, "The Big Bang did not occur at a single
> > point in space as an 'explosion.'
>
> Or a ripping for that matter, right? Why is it exactly that you think
> this is relevant?
As I stated earlier, the word that is used is "fatq" which means torn,
separated or opened out. The Big Bang most likely did occur but it
didn't occur at any given point in space.
> > It is better thought of as the
> > simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe."
>
> Right, which would not be the same as two things being joined and then
> ripped apart.
Not two thing_ as I explained above_ but "everything" came apart or
came about from what existed.
> > The
> > same web site also tells us that "The Big Bang theory predicts that
> > the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big
> > Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees
> > and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons,
> > anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe
> > cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or
> > combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). "
> > That means that if there was one mass, it consisted of many different
> > things. As the Quran says, "Then He turned to the heaven when it was
> > smoke..."
>
> LOL! Of course, in your rant above, the word "smoke" does not appear,
> thus why do you think you can relate "smoke" to the above?
Because we were discussing something else to the exclusion of other
things that are mentioned in the Quran, and when I quoted from NASA,
it seemed that the verse, "Then He turned to the heaven when it was
smoke..." was figuratively appropriate. According to many astronomers,
after the Big Bang, there were clouds of hot gases which then broke up
into megaclouds. Megaclouds then organized into elliptical shapes and
spirals which then became galaxies. The British National Space Center
also describes this as, "Stars and galaxies formed by condensing out
of the expanding cloud of gas and radiation. Our present-day Universe
contains the ashes and smoke left over from the Big Bang." Actually,
some of this "smoke" is still there. You may argue, as many
Christians have done, that Quran should have been more specific. But
the fact is that Quran was never meant to be a book of science. God
was merely hinting at a few scientific facts by describing them
briefly and figuratively to not only create an image in the minds of
seventh/eighth century men and women, but also to present an picture
which we find consistent with science in our own era. With passage of
time, and scientific progress, this picture would be even more clear.
You may argue that these are all ambiguities. But the fact is that if
you add all these vague references together, it is remarkable how
close Quran is to what we are discovering today. Look at all the
things that Quran didn't say_ beliefs that you would expect from
seventh century men_ that would have proved this book wrong once and
for all. For example, Quran doesn't say that the earth is resting on
the head of a cow or that chariots pull the sun with chains. It
doesn't say any of those things. And what it does say is pretty close
to our present view of the world and the universe.
> Arberry's translation I like (though I'll touch on that below), but
> ripping two things apart is not the same as a single ball
> spreading/expanding. Furthermore, even if we unjustifiably sided with
> this analogy, the fact still remains that the earth did not exist at
> that time, thus the Qur'an is still in error. Maybe you should try
> using your common sense.
LOL. I have plenty of common sense. It's you who seem to be having a
difficult time trying to understand what is plain and simple. See my
answers above.
> > LOL. This is funny. H.E. and Mo refuted me? On what? If you had
> > suggested some other names I may have taken your comment more
> > seriously.
>
> That was the point of the joke, but I see the sarcasm and satire went
> right over your head. The point is that you make claims and then
> explain why you don't have to back them up. Anyone can do that. For
> example: I recall the thread where Mo exposed you as an Israeli spy. I
> don't have to back this claim up of course. Search the archives. If
> you can't find it, that's not my problem.
You simply are not reading. I had stated that I always provide the
name of the thread and sometimes even the date. I wasn't sending you
on a wild Google chase. In any case, I have posted that article on SRI
regarding embryology and Dr. Moore. So you would stop complaining.
> > I think the problem is that you and some other people in this
> > newsgroup are not willing to accept ANY Muslim source, which is
> > strange because who would know Islamic history better than Muslim
> > historians. As I told Mr. Abdou the other day, that is like rejecting
> > all British history unless it is confirmed by French and Spanish
> > sources, which is ridiculous.
>
> This is the reason I gave the analogy of Jesus and the gospels.
> According to the gospels, Jesus alluded to the destruction of the
> temple. The allusion to this destruction is what leads historians to
> date the gospels that contain it as being written after the fall of
> the temple. And surprise, we have no hard copy of a text before the
> destruction of the temple. So too, if Muhammad allegedly predicted
> event X at time T, why not produce a text from time T, or at least
> prior to event X? The reason is that you can't - instead you want to
> make an appeal to the incredulity of others (which is the same thing
> fundo christians do when they make absurd claims about how no one
> could have slipped a lie past the Christian community since it was
> already all over the place).
Again, it is a matter of common sense. I can't speak for Christianity
but it is obvious that there are at least some manuscripts of the
Quran which have come to us from the first century hegira, if not the
entire Quran. I see these manuscripts as pieces of jigsaw puzzle which
were found in far-flung regions of the ancient Islamic world. The idea
that there was a mass conspiracy, stretching all the way from Egypt to
Central Asia, in which Muslims somehow invented Quran and everybody
kept quiet about it and nobody lived to expose the cabard, is simply
ridiculous. I am unable to convince people who keep implying such
nonsense; perhaps they should spend more time in alt.conspiracy than
here in this newsgroup. It is one thing to say that we don't have
extant sources, but then you also have to consider the alternative and
provide some evidence for it. Unlike Christianity, Islam was revealed
in broad daylight of history. Muslims have faithfully recorded
accusations, even poems, of their enemies who accused Prophet Muhammad
(s.a.w) of all sorts of things. Anybody who is familiar with Islamic
literature knows that Muslims have also debated each and every issue
relevant to Islam, and in fact there were times in history when
Muslims organized debates between themselves, Christians and Jews. So
the impression which is now being created that somehow Muslims were
hiding facts until these were revealed by Western authors is based on
cultural and religious prejudices.
forahmad@no-spam (1MAN4ALL) wrote in message news:<ba13f877.0307071952.7e538e1d@no-spam>...
> > Sorry for the delay...
>
> And sorry for the delayed response.
Same here...
> > What you missed is the ha-alif at the end of "dhuHaahaa," i.e. the
> > brightness of *IT*, thus so far the "it" is the sun, and no new
> > subject is introduced. To literally use the text the way you are, the
> > only way we can stay consistent (with duHaa becoming the new subject),
> > is then in the third verse have the moon become the subject after
> > that. It is obvious that the sun is the point of reference in all four
> > verses, and a new subject is not introduced until verse five.
> > Furthermore, the issue of conjunction would be relevant only if both
> > were being referred to, but verse two reads "talaa*HAA*" (i.e. with
> > ha-alif at the end), thus only one thing is being referred to, and
> > since a new subject has not been introduced, that one thing is the
> > subject of the previous verse: i.e. the sun.
>
> I think that's like saying "Tom and Tom's wife," which would mean two
> subjects_ Tom and his wife, not just Tom.
Sigh... If a person writes "this is dedicated to Tom and his wife, and
the dog who bit him," the "him" is obviously referring to Tom. If we
were to refer to both, it would be "the dog that bit them," and
analogous constructions exist in Arabic (or did you forget yaa Mufti
al-Ilhaad?). This is why the haa-alif was noted, to which you
responded:
> The "it" can apply (keep in mind the example that I gave above)
> to both the sun and its brightness.
If it were referring to both, that would be dual construction, and
thus a different suffix would have been applied: humma (haa-mim-alif).
So no, "haa" does not refer to two things... "humma" does.
> Even Hillali-Khan translation
> translates it as "By the day as it shows up (the sun's) brightness_"
> putting "the sun" in parenthesis and making "brightness" the thing
> that the day shows up.
This is another hint, oh wonderful Grand Mufti al-Ilhaad, that you're
not understanding the Arabic text. The Arabic of verse three reads "wa
an-Nahari idhaa *JALLAAHAA*." The implication of jalaa is revealing
splendor, brightness, and then there is that nasty haa-alif again,
thus revealing the splendor/clarity/brightness/glory of IT, and what
is "it"? Well, the "it" is the sun, but because the sun (al-shams) is
not mentioned explicitly in the Arabic text, that is added in via
parenthesis. So, the day shows glory/brightness/splendor of it, it
being the sun, so the day shows (the sun's) glory.
> I am not sure what ayahs you are referring to. In any case, in the
> geocentric model, both the sun and the moon would be orbiting the
> earth. In Ptolemaic model, the moon does NOT orbit the sun; in fact,
> it is nowhere near it. You are also ASSUMING that when Quran stated
> that the moon follows the sun_ which is true especially when the
> subject is light_ it didn't know what it was referring to.
The moon following the sun works quite well with the Ptolemaic model,
where each goes around the earth in their own orbit or circular
motion. :)
> > > First of all "objectivity" does require majority opinion. If a large
> > > majority of people agree on something that can be called "objective,"
> > > fallacious as it may be, and that is why the word "objective" does not
> > > even appear in many philosophy dictionaries.
> >
> > Actually no, objectivity is not based on numbers... such methods are
> > subjective, and *THAT* is why the word "objective" does not often
> > appear in discussions within the realm of *CONTINENTAL* philosophy.
>
> Continental philosophy draws upon the writings of European
> philosophers from certain perspectives but that has nothing to do with
> what we were discussing.
"Continental" Philosophy does imply the continent of Europe, but what
it refers to is anything outside of analytic philosophy, such as
ethics, philo of art, aesthetics, et cetera.
> So if everybody looks up and says that the sky is blue
> that would be an "objective" assessment. But if somebody says that
> it's kind of gray and others disagree, that would be called a
> subjective opinion.
If something is objective it means we can correspond it with an actual
fact of the matter. Looking towards the sky may be an objective way of
determining what its color is... going by the consensus is not.
> > WOW! I guess I should take it as true then since I consider Hilaalee
> > and Khan infallible, right? The reality is that you think because I
> > sided with the Hilaalee-Khan translation on one verse, I should do so
> > on another, but the logic doesn't follow. If I think the Hilaalee-Khan
> > translation is true to the Arabic, I'll say so - and if I don't I'll
> > also say so.
>
> I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy. You choose the translation
> that follows your own agenda at any given time.
Actually no... I choose the translation that I think fits best, and
sometimes that translation may be my own. I do the same with the Old
Testament. I already covered this when I wrote the following:
> > The same goes for any other translator (I really like
> > Rashad Khalifa's translation, but I still admit that while he is
> > generally faithful to the text, he did twist it here and there to meet
> > certain agendas). As for Hilaalee-Khan, the words "together as one
> > united piece" do not appear in the Arabic, thus they added that in.
>
> There must me one translation that you like that we can both agree on
> for sake of future discussions; after all, both Muslims and
> non-Muslims have translated the Quran.
We can consult the original Arabic. My favorite translation is the
Rashad Khalifa translation, but that does not mean that I think
*EVERY* verse translated by Rashad Khalifa is faithful to the Arabic.
There is no issue of serving my purpose. I think Rashad Khalifa's
translation is generally the most faithful to the text, but I *ALSO*
think that given verses are not so faithful to the text. This is why
we should consult the Arabic text it self. Sound good ya Mufti
al-Ilhaad?
> What is 'meant' by the verse is that these two things were joined
> together as one whole.
Of course "as one whole" does not appear in the text. This is what you
want it to mean. I gave you what it actually means... and what it
means, first and foremost, is that the earth existed before this
"ripping" (which is supposed to be a reference to the big bang
according to modern lay exegetes).
> > > Other translations:
> > > PICTHALL:021.030 Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens
> > > and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made
> > > every living thing of water ? Will they not then believe?
> >
> > Again, the Arabic does not say "one piece". Pickthall may have been
> > trying to make it more accessible to the reader, but the text simply
> > says that two things were sewn [together].
>
> I had also given the translation of E.H. Palmer but you cleverly
> snipped it!
I want all to see this and look closely, since akhoona Mufti al-Ilhaad
accuses *ME* of being the one who is trying to serve an agenda.
1Mufti4All cites Pickthall, I note that there are no Arabic words
referring to "one piece" in the text, to which Mufti switches to
another translator. Who lacks focus? Who is shifting topics?
> Another non-Muslim T.B. Irving has translated this verse
> as "Have not those who disbelieve seen how Heaven and Earth were once
> one solid mass which We ripped apart?"
And again, "one solid mass" does not appear in the original text. The
original text says two things were sewn [together], and then they were
unsewn or ripped apart. Irving's translation is further problematic
since the words "one solid mass which We ripped apart" implies that
only one thing was ripped, when the verb is conjugated in the dual
(with the suffix "humma"), hence *TWO* things were unsewn or ripped
apart.
> > > There are two words used in the verse that we need to look at. In
> > > common usage, the word "ratq" means joined, together or united. The
> > > other word that is used is "fatq" which means torn, separated.
> >
> > This is understood, and already covered several posts ago. So two
> > pieces were joined/sewn, and then separated (ripped apart). That is
> > inaccurate as in order for such to be the case, one of those pieces
> > (the earth) had to exist before and immediately after the Big Bang -
> > which flies in the face of the scientific consensus. The earth came
> > into existence more than 10 billion years after the Big Bang.
>
> I also covered this several posts ago. If something 'was' part of
> something or it came out of it, then in any language you do have to
> mention it as if it existed beforehand. As I explained earlier, if I
> say "you and your family once lived together," that, using your logic
> would be simply wrong, because you were always part of your 'family'
> and you still are.
This misses the point. If I write that 1Mufti lived with his
grandfather in 1905, it is an error. It may be true that 1Mufti once
lived with his grandfather, but he could not have lived with him
before he himself was born, thus he could not have lived with him in
1905. The earth did not exist before the big bang, thus if the ripping
is the big bang, it is an error to say the earth was sewn to something
else before that point. It was not anything. It did not exist.
> The important fact is that when Quran uses the term "heaven and earth"
> it usually means a lot more than just heaven and earth per se.
We'll see...
> A few of the dozens of examples:
>
> "[2.33] He said: O Adam! inform them of their names. Then when he had
> informed them of their names, He said: Did I not say to you that I
> surely know what is 'ghaib' in the heavens and the earth and (that) I
> know what you manifest and what you hide? [2.107] Do you not know that
> Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and that besides
> Allah you have no guardian or helper? [2.116] And they say: Allah has
> taken to himself a son. Glory be to Him; rather, whatever is in the
> heavens and the earth is His; all are obedient to Him. [2.117]
> Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees
> an affair, He only says to it, Be, so there it is."
>
> In other words, "heaven and earth" can mean 'everything.'
Based on what? There is an Arabic word for "everything". In all these
verses, it is clear that both the heavens and the earth is meant. So
too, in Soorat al-Anbiyya, it is clear that the earth is meant, thus
the earth existed before the rip.
> > > As I had stated earlier, you just do not seem to be using your common
> > > sense,
> >
> > This is your convenient way of trying to squirm out of the fact that
> > the text is an error. Why is it that you have to appeal to my alleged
> > lack of common sense in order to overlook the fact that your allegedly
> > omniscient deity could not express the idea in Arabic in a way that
> > was not inaccurate?
>
> What Quran has is highly accurate, despite lack of technical terms
> that had not been invented during the time of the Prophet (s.a.w).
> What is not accurate is your own understanding or your attempts to
> distort what is easily understandable by most people. Quran is simply
> using the analogy or implying that everything was in sort of a tight
> or compressed bundle and then it was suddenly opened up or ripped
> apart.
And that would be inaccurate, as the earth was not part of that
bundle. The earth came into existence billions of years later.
> > > If the Quran had used the word "ahad" (One), it would have been simply
> > > wrong.
> >
> > That would have been closer to a singularity than the duality implied
> > in Soorat al-Anbiyyaa'. Furthermore, are you now saying that "one"
> > thing is erroneous but two is not?
>
> You are wrongly assuming that singularity was ONE thing. Nobody knows
> what singularity was and what it consisted of.
Simple logic... there was one infinitely dense point, not two... it
was a SINGULARITY, NOT A DUALITY. The verse in Soorat al-Anbiyaa'
clearly puts forth a duality.
> > > According to NASA, "The Big Bang did not occur at a single
> > > point in space as an 'explosion.'
> >
> > Or a ripping for that matter, right? Why is it exactly that you think
> > this is relevant?
>
> As I stated earlier, the word that is used is "fatq" which means torn,
> separated or opened out. The Big Bang most likely did occur but it
> didn't occur at any given point in space.
I don't claim it happened at a given point in space. The point is that
the singularity was one thing, not two, and the earth did not exist at
the time. For all your attempts to make this a scientifically accurate
statement, you cannot escape the fact that the earth did not exist
before the big bang.
> > > It is better thought of as the
> > > simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe."
> >
> > Right, which would not be the same as two things being joined and then
> > ripped apart.
>
> Not two thing_ as I explained above_ but "everything" came apart or
> came about from what existed.
Of course, the text clearly presents two things (and even conjugates
the verb in the dual).
> > > The
> > > same web site also tells us that "The Big Bang theory predicts that
> > > the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big
> > > Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees
> > > and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons,
> > > anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe
> > > cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or
> > > combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). "
> > > That means that if there was one mass, it consisted of many different
> > > things. As the Quran says, "Then He turned to the heaven when it was
> > > smoke..."
> >
> > LOL! Of course, in your rant above, the word "smoke" does not appear,
> > thus why do you think you can relate "smoke" to the above?
>
> Because we were discussing something else to the exclusion of other
> things that are mentioned in the Quran, and when I quoted from NASA,
> it seemed that the verse, "Then He turned to the heaven when it was
> smoke..." was figuratively appropriate. According to many astronomers,
> after the Big Bang, there were clouds of hot gases which then broke up
> into megaclouds.
Of course, these clouds were not smoke, but rather gas (and maybe
plasma). Furthermore, I like how you conveniently failed to cite the
verse (Soora Fussilat 41:11). That verse has God turning to this
"smokey" universe *AFTER* the earth was already completed with
mountains and sustanance! This too is a scientific error, as the verse
(and the one that follows) has the final two days of creation consist
of adorning the heavens with stars AFTER the earth was already
completed! ERROR! Or will now you suddenly no longer what "thumma" and
"fa" to refer to "then"?
> > > LOL. This is funny. H.E. and Mo refuted me? On what? If you had
> > > suggested some other names I may have taken your comment more
> > > seriously.
> >
> > That was the point of the joke, but I see the sarcasm and satire went
> > right over your head. The point is that you make claims and then
> > explain why you don't have to back them up. Anyone can do that. For
> > example: I recall the thread where Mo exposed you as an Israeli spy. I
> > don't have to back this claim up of course. Search the archives. If
> > you can't find it, that's not my problem.
>
> You simply are not reading. I had stated that I always provide the
> name of the thread and sometimes even the date.
Date would be nice, as that would narrow it down to a single post, but
you never gave a date. But let's play the game further. Maybe it
wasn't H.E., but somebody in the "Why FBI Isnt Going After Anthrax
Assassin" thread exposed you as a mossad agent and a Backstreet Boys
fan. :)
> In any case, I have posted that article on SRI
> regarding embryology and Dr. Moore. So you would stop complaining.
Kewl... I'll probably get to it tomorrow or the day after...
> > > I think the problem is that you and some other people in this
> > > newsgroup are not willing to accept ANY Muslim source, which is
> > > strange because who would know Islamic history better than Muslim
> > > historians. As I told Mr. Abdou the other day, that is like rejecting
> > > all British history unless it is confirmed by French and Spanish
> > > sources, which is ridiculous.
> >
> > This is the reason I gave the analogy of Jesus and the gospels.
> > According to the gospels, Jesus alluded to the destruction of the
> > temple. The allusion to this destruction is what leads historians to
> > date the gospels that contain it as being written after the fall of
> > the temple. And surprise, we have no hard copy of a text before the
> > destruction of the temple. So too, if Muhammad allegedly predicted
> > event X at time T, why not produce a text from time T, or at least
> > prior to event X? The reason is that you can't - instead you want to
> > make an appeal to the incredulity of others (which is the same thing
> > fundo christians do when they make absurd claims about how no one
> > could have slipped a lie past the Christian community since it was
> > already all over the place).
>
> Again, it is a matter of common sense. I can't speak for Christianity
> but it is obvious that there are at least some manuscripts of the
> Quran which have come to us from the first century hegira, if not the
> entire Quran. I see these manuscripts as pieces of jigsaw puzzle which
> were found in far-flung regions of the ancient Islamic world. The idea
> that there was a mass conspiracy, stretching all the way from Egypt to
> Central Asia, in which Muslims somehow invented Quran and everybody
> kept quiet about it and nobody lived to expose the cabard, is simply
> ridiculous.
This is not "common sense," but rather you making an appeal to
personal incredultiy. By the same token, is it absurd to think of a
huge conspiracy among Christians in Europe, Asia and Africa to forge
things in the gospels? The gospels state that Jesus made the claim,
and no one in the ancient world disputed it, thus he really made the
claim? Scholars think otherwise. The issue is if the text claims X at
date Y, you should demonstrate evidence of the text existing at date
Y. Instead you want to argue that it had to have been uttered at Y
(despite your lack of evidence).
And so on and so forth...
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/home.htm