An Inconvenient Question(s)

[Rayaan]

1. My "opinion" is backed by sources. Do us a favor and please, please, please ,with 72 "white raisins" on top, show us yours. I never said that Muhhamad wrote the Quran, I said that (alleged) sayings from him were included in it. That destroys that particular argument(i.e. Muhhamad is illiterate so he couldn't have written the Quran. The Arabs were in the area where the Torah and Bible were alleged to have been written, not to mention where quite a few Christians and Jews were living. So it is logical to assume that PARTS of both books got translated into Arabic, and found their way into thae Quran. How else can you account for passages from the Torah and Bible being in the Quran. Besides, you are dodging the main question: Was the Quran cobbled together?

1. If your opinion is backed by sources, then please provide a link or a reference to these sources which prove that the Quran was altered after Muhammad's death, by whom it was done, and why.

2. My sources? I already gave a link to one my sources in # 7, which is this. Additionally, there's a book entitled "The History of the Quranic Text, from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments," by Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami (see this at amazon). You can also download it from here.

3. Okay, you didn't say that Muhammad wrote the Quran. What you did say, however, is that some unknown mysterious person (or people) added more verses to the Quran which wasn't in the original Quran. So, this is what needs to be backed up.

4. The fact that Christians and Jews lived there is not a proof that they were the ones who were adding verses from the Bible and Torah into the Quran. On the contrary, the Jews and Christains were keeping their scriptures away from the Muslims, and secondly, it is also important to know that there were no Arabic translation of the Bible till the tenth century CE, or three centuries after the Prophet’s death. The available texts of the Bible were either in Syrian, Greek, or Hebrew. Also, I think it is very unlikely that the Jews and Christians would be able to create such beautiful Arabic poetry as those in the Quran. Even the Arab non-believers couldn't imitate the language of the Quran.

5. No, I don't think it is logical to assume that parts of the Torah and Bible found their way into the Quran, because the Quran was already memorized and completed while Muhammad was still alive. So, there can't be a "later" time in which the Quran was being changed after his death. The verses of the Quran were already memorized and made into manuscripts as well to preserve them.

6. I don't think I dodged the question. I did provide rational arguments and historical evidence against the theory that "the Quran was cobble together after Muhammad's death," in this post as well as in the last post in # 7, which you didn't reply to for some reason.

2. Have any of these "memorized copies" been written down, my derar friend? And I never said the ORIGINAL Quran, hmmm... you really are good at taking people out of context and interpreting their words past the brink of distortion, aren't you? I said that half of the (alleged) sayings of Muhhamad that were put forward to be in the Quran were rejected by the person in charge of determining what went into the Quran. And actually make a case on this thread instead of posting links to decadent replacements. Not to mention I was asking the questions so the burden of proof rests on you, not me.

1. Yes, many of these "memorized copies" have been written down, and they are called mushafs (or manuscripts). Afterall, how can it be a "copy" if it is not written down somewhere? The Muslims were also reciting the Quran five times a day in the mosque, and that within a short span of time after the Prophet's death, Islam spread throughout Persia, the Roman Empire, and North Africa with Muslims reciting the Quran five times a day in their prayers and thereby strengthening the memorization of the Quran.

2. Yes, you did not say the "original" Quran, but again, your statement that "half of the (alleged) sayings of Muhammad that were put forward to be in the Quran were rejected by the person in charge of determining what went into the Quran" is, without a doubt, contradictory to historical evidence. Also, to support that argument, you will have to explain how "half of the Quran" could be missing if Muslims already had it written down in their manuscripts and even memorized the Quran (right after Muhammad's death).

3. I've already made plenty of cases in this thread. The reason for putting links is so that you can know where I'm getting my information from and to know that I'm not making them up. These are scholarly opinions.

4. Yes, you're the one who's asking the questions, and I'm also answering them as I go along. I asked you some questions, too, so you should try to answer them as honestly as possible. We're only discussing the subject matter.

3. In Muslim countries there are far larger amounts of sexism and intolerance then other countries, as demonstrated by Minimalist's pictures. Of course there aren't any stonings for adultery and other crimes, intolerance for "brimstone spewing" blasphemists, and mutilation of people in Muslim countries(look at the Islamic fundamentalist group "Taliban", or Iran or Iraq, they are just "not interpreting the Quran correctly"). Let us just pretend all those people are extremists, and that the 9/11 bombers had many reasons for flying those people-filled planes into those people-filled towers.

1. I think you are right, in saying that sexism and intolerance occur more in Muslims countries than other countries, but most of it occur especially in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan because these countries have a political theory which is pragmatic and acknowledges that a tyrannical ruler is better than a state of social anarchy. However, there are other Muslim countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and countries in Africa where there are less of these cases of hatred and violence between the Muslims which you are talking about.

2. As far as Taliban goes, they banned women from working and they forcibly implemented the rural customs of women upon the entire population. The vast majority of women in Afghan society already wore headscarves and most of them did not have an issue with the dress-code. They had an issue with not being able to work, especially when over half the population was widowed and unemployment was already astronomically high. Were they oppressive towards women? Absolutely. Does the Quran approve of the way they were being treated? Absolutely not. And the rapes, stabbings, acid attacks, and outright murders that are going on are now a part of the new Taliban.

3. The 9/11 attacks do not have any basis in the teachings of Islam. There is no way to justify an action of flying airplanes into a building and kill people because the Quran forbids harming innocent people and non-combatants in several verses. And those who did it are extremists indeed. We don't have to pretend that they are extremists. However, there is also a possibility that 9/11 was a false-flag terror attack planned out by the US government which I have talked more about in this thread.

4. Do any non-Muslim scholars, who do not have the underlying motive of making Islam look like a perfectly peaceful religion, and who have read the Quran in its entirety support this position? The terrorists still interpreted the Quran properly since you can make the case that the evil "Western Civilization" attacked the poor defenseless Muslims by invading their culture with pop/rock and roll/ metal/ emo/ rap music(I hate each and every genre I have mentioned) and other things. And also Iraq War, which was very beneficial for that swine, George W. Bush, not to mention his masters(Corporations, religious people, e.t.c). In fact, you could still carry out jihad/holy war 500 years later after an incident has occurred, and still cite it as a valid motive. Just one of those great things about Islam I suppose.

1. Yes, many non-Muslims scholars view Islam as a peaceful religion, and they have written books about Islam also. For example, one of them is titled Visions of Islam. I can give you more links and names if you want to see them.

2. The terrorists did not interpret the Quran correctly. I don't know if they even read the Quran, because if they did, then they shouldn't do these things. Also, the Western civilation didn't invade anything by using pop/rock-and-roll/metal/emo/rap music, and that's not the reason why there are terrorists. I don't know where you're getting that from.

3. I think that Bush tried to deceive the Americans into supporting a war in Iraq and there were actually no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq which he admitted himself in 2003 (see this). But, that is irrelevant to the main subject of this thread. So I don't want to talk about it.

4. No, it wouldn't be right to carry out a Jihad 500 years later. As stated in the Quran, "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, Allah does not allow you to harm them" (Surah 4:90).

5. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *snip* Those threads you posted were utter rubbish. Once again, and listen carefully this time. I-ne-ver-sai-d-Muhh-am-ad-wr-o-te-the-Qur-an. See, that was easy, wasn't it? I can think of half a dozen reasons your argument is the sort of drivel I would accept from the usual delusional religious person. I will list three of them.

1. Feel free to tell me what exactly is rubbish about those threads.

2. Yes, you didn't say that Muhammad wrote the Quran, but you did say that the verses were written and/or added after his death, which is contradictory when you take into account the fact that Muslims have memorized the Quran and had it written down as well, so any additions or changes to the Quran would have been caught by them and corrected. So, this was the method of preserving the Quran.

3. I don't think that I'm a delusional person, but if you think so, that's fine. I can't do anything about that.

1. Your "opinion" does not matter unless you can find compelling reasons from the biographies and put them into a post on this thread instead of sending me several links to assorted sites.
2. Who judges the "Make A Literary Piece That Is Better Than The Quran" contest? I am sure that no famous authors bothered comparing their works to the Quran because it would get the Muslims angry and the fact that the contest is rigged.
3. You just said there was no evidence he was a prophet. Say, isn't the "Faith Time" show starting in a few minutes?

1. My opinion probably doesn't matter to you, but if it is sound and consistent with reality, then it matters to me at least. Also, what kind of "compelling reasons" are you looking for? Like I said before, this is going to be subjective, and some people will set a lower a standard on what is compelling or not. What I find compelling may not be compelling to another person.

2. Actually, the challenge of the Quran does have an objective element because there is a measurable style in the Quran, as Abdur Rahim Green mentions: "There are the sixteen al-Bihar [in Arabic](literally 'The Seas,' so called because of the way the poem moves, according to its rhythmic patterns): at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria'. So the challenge is to produce in Arabic, three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen Bihar, that is not rhyming prose [saj or mursal], nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook." And there are Christian scholars who did try to imitate or write something better than the Quran, and one of the most famous is entitled "The True Furqan," which clearly didn't meet the challenge. Their efforts were put to shame.

3. I said that there is no "actual" evidence that he was a prophet. So, what is evidence to me, may not be evidence to you. For example, the air, water, earth, clouds, food, animals, light, etc. are all proof to me for the existence of God, but they are only natural elements for you. Similarly, even humans are a proof to me, while for you, they are just biological entities originating from a sperm and an egg cell. So ultimately it is going to be subjective.

6. "Original" refers to the Quran before it was translated. If you translate a rhyming piece then it will not rhyme in more then one part due to the fact that translation=new words that don't sound like the ones they are replacing. Anybody who cites this as proof that the Quran is truthful is, at best, an ignoramus.

Again, you have to be able to prove the claim that "new words" were inserted into the Quran in the first place. Also, keep in mind that Quran is in Arabic and this is a living language which is still spoken today. The Quran is a "recitation" and it is something that is recited and read throughout the world without any differences which is a proof that it is preserved. You could take a Quran, hide a few verses and if you bring it to a hafiz (or memorizer of the Quran), he would right away notice that it is not the Quran. Whether we remove or add, it would be noticed, and the greatest proof to me is the memorization of it, word-for-word and identical.

As for using the linguistic style of the Quran as a proof, I think it is a good one, in my opinion. Most of the Quranic scholars consider the literary aspect of the Quran to be a miracle while knowing the fact that Muhammad was not a trained poet who had the function of re-enforcing the prophetic claim. For despite being unlettered, he was nonetheless recognized as eloquent, but when the Arabs heard the revelation recited, even bitter foes were overwhelmed by the literary prowess. Eloquence and rhetoric are language arts in Arabic and unlike anything that men have produced, the linguists have demonstrated that there isn't a single verse in the Quran that could be re-worded and made more eloquent. There are even illiterate Bedouins who can barely spell their names, but have memorized the Quran along with hundreds of lines of poetry. And the Quran's transmission is not an issue of historical interpretation, but simple facts of textual transmission.