How much time do we really have?

[Jigsaw_Psyche]

In the Quran God promises to protect the Quran from changes/corruption.
[Quran 15:9] *Muslims are in agreement regarding the integrity of the text. Link1, Link2

Sahih Muslim Book 17, 4194

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.

Would you mind pointing us to the verses of stoning (rajm) in the Quran?


Note: Before you come at me with "oh that's in the hadith, not reliable yada yada" let me remind you that:

1. As stated previously, Caliph Uthman decided on the "official version" of the written Quran (all other copies were burned).
2. Muslims have indeed passed down this "official version" through the generations.
3. It's the same group of people (Muslims) who have brought us the hadith through a similar method (recitation first, then written down later).

So, given that everyone who knows anything about Islam will acknowledge the points above, I'm sure you can understand when we do not accept the veracity of your claim that the Quran is unaltered from its original, yes?

So what you've basically said is:
"The Quran is true because it says it is."
"All people who already believe the book believe it is perfect."

The word "Allah" can also be found (referring to God) in Arabic Bibles that can be found throughout the Middle East, btw. Link

Many in the middle east were required to change god to Allah in their bibles. Also they were forced to learn Arabic at penalty of having their tongues cut out if they did not.

What is your point?

Furthermore if it's your simple claim that by saying Allah you simply mean God (or "The God") it makes things like the shahada rather pathetic, wouldn't you agree?

Ashadu an la ilaha illallah, wa ashadu anna Muhammadan rasulullah

I testify no god but [the] God and I testify Muhammad is the messenger of [the] God.

It certainly makes more sense if the above uses Allah (as a proper name) instead of the generic "The God" contraction, yes?

Included for Context - Minor Signs of "Yawm al-Qiyāmah" (The End of The World), Major Signs of "Yawm al-Qiyāmah" (The End of The World)

The end of the world? Yawm = Day, al = the, Qiyamah = Resurrection. Where did you get your translation?!

 

[TimCallahan]

Yeah, I realize that Muhsin Khan provides much more information/interpretation in his translation, but everything not part of the Quran is in ()/[] so there is no question of the source, people can either take it or leave it.

Here's one problem I have with using this verse as a prophecy of much of anything. Consider the varying translations of the supposed prophecy (emphasis added):

Sahih International: . . . We will bring you forth in one gathering.

Mushim Khan: . . . We shall bring you altogether as a mixed crowd [gathered out of various nations.]

Pickthall: . . . We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.

Yusef Ali: . . . but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together, a mingled crowd.

Shakir: . . . and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass we will bring you both together in judgment.

Dr. Ghali: . . . We will cause you to come clustering.

Abdel Haleem: . . . when the promise of the Hereafter is fulfilled, We shall bring you to the assembly of the people.

Note the following:

1) Both Mushim Khan and Pickthall seem to have embroidered the text in modern translations to fit world events. Out of the seven translations above, only they use the phrase, "gathered out of various nations." Once this phrase is removed, the "prophecy" evaporates.

2) Yusef Ali's translation puts this in the past tense. How can this be a prophecy, and how is it that he either interpreted it as past tense of felt free to change it to a past tense, just as Mushim Khan and Pickthall felt free to add a phrase not found in the original text.

3) Using Shakir's translation, the prophecy is one of the last Judgment and has nothing to do with recreating a lost nation.

4) Both Shakir and Abdel Haleem speak of the promise of the next life or hereafter. Again, this refers to the end of the world, and both translations speak not of gathering the Children of Israel into the land, but of bringing them either to judgment or to "the assembly of the people."

5) Given the wide variation seen in just these seven translations, one must conclude that either the original Arabic text is so obscure as to render any attempt at translation meaningless or that each translator has played fast and loose with the text, and any interpretation anyone wants to make of the verse is as valid as any other.

Even if the Quran predicts that God would bring the children of Israel back into their land, that is still no excuse for the way the Israelis treat the Palestinians. It is something which is completely disgusting and deplorable imo. The absolute irony of Israelis claiming that they are being threatened with being "Wiped off the map", while they are literally and systematically wiping an entire people off the map.

I sympathize, to a certain degree, with your sentiments here and would like to see a two state solution to the Israel / Palestine situation. Apparently, the majority of Palestinians and the the majority of Israelis also favor this. That said, I don't want to get into this issue further in this thread, since it would likely derail it. Suffice it to say that I don't accept the verse above as a prophecy of the modern state of Israel.

 

[mikeb768]

Many in the middle east were required to change god to Allah in their bibles. Also they were forced to learn Arabic at penalty of having their tongues cut out if they did not.

It is a fantastic claim but do you have any proof for these things which you mention?

 

[Jigsaw_Psyche]

It is a fantastic claim but do you have any proof for these things which you mention?

It's in Tabari, various volumes. The Christians were also forced into dhimmitude; surprised you didn't espouse the virtues of that! You seem to act like Copts willingly learned Arabic and changed their bibles, because Islam is just oh so superior and they couldn't help themselves!


By the way, everyone notices how you just gloss over the questions you don't wish to answer.

However I'd really like to know so I will ask again: where do you get your Arabic translations from?

Also: Can you please address your claim of Quranic perfection in light of the (missing) verses?

Thanks in advance

 

[mikeb768]

It's in Tabari, various volumes. The Christians were also forced into dhimmitude; surprised you didn't espouse the virtues of that! You seem to act like Copts willingly learned Arabic and changed their bibles, because Islam is just oh so superior and they couldn't help themselves!


By the way, everyone notices how you just gloss over the questions you don't wish to answer.

However I'd really like to know so I will ask again: where do you get your Arabic translations from?

Also: Can you please address your claim of Quranic perfection in light of the (missing) verses?

Thanks in advance

So no proof, just as I figured. Please provide something which can support your claims.

Also I find it strange that you accept things such as ahadith and Qur'anic commentary as legitimate/authentic but reject Quran as being a legitimate/authentic source. Most would consider this to be quite backwards.

 

[Jigsaw_Psyche]

So no proof, just as I figured. Please provide something which can support your claims.

Normally as you know, I provide evidence for all my claims (unlike yourself). However as these English translations of Tabari are copyrighted to Sunni Press, I cannot upload the relevant volumes for you, however you may purchase them if you are interested ($40 US apiece). If you are interested, let me know and I will let you know which volumes I am referring to Unfortunately they are not online in English at this time.

Also I find it strange that you accept things such as ahadith and Qur'anic commentary as legitimate/authentic but reject Quran as being a legitimate/authentic source. Most would consider this to be quite backwards.

I don't have to accept them. They are your texts, therefore I can bring them to refute your claims. I don't have to accept either of them, it's enough that you (Muslims) do.


Will you be answering my questions now, or is this another attempt at a sidestep?

 

[Craig B]

Many in the middle east were required to change god to Allah in their bibles.

I'd like to be clear what you mean here. Are you saying that, for example, Copts and Syrians were required to remove the words for God in Coptic and Syriac from their bibles and replace these words with the word Allah, which you are saying is a specifically Muslim word for the name of God, and that is why Christian Arabs use the word? If you are saying that, can you please refer me to a source of this information?

Furthermore if it's your simple claim that by saying Allah you simply mean God (or "The God") it makes things like the shahada rather pathetic, wouldn't you agree?

Ashadu an la ilaha illallah, wa ashadu anna Muhammadan rasulullah

I testify no god but [the] God and I testify Muhammad is the messenger of [the] God.

No, I don't agree. It looks like a meaningful statement of monotheism. "There is no god except God."

It certainly makes more sense if the above uses Allah (as a proper name) instead of the generic "The God" contraction, yes?

Again, it makes sense as it stands. Is the word not cognate with the word El or Elohim meaning "god" frequently used in the Jewish scriptures, as opposed to the specific god name YHWH? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism

The name of God in Judaism used most often in the Hebrew Bible is the four-letter name יהוה (YHWH), also known as the Tetragrammaton. El (god), Elohim (god, singular and plural form, depending on the context)

Can you comment?

ETA Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

The corresponding Aramaic form is ʼĔlāhā in Biblical Aramaic and ʼAlâhâ in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply 'God'.

Is this wrong? You are stating that ʼĔlāhā and ʼAlâhâ are not the original words for "god" in these bibles, but were imposed by Muslim conquerors of Syria, who commanded that the bibles be changed. Can you give us a source for this? I thought the similarity of the word derived from a similarity of language, within the Semitic group of tongues.

 

[Craig B]

It's in Tabari, various volumes. The Christians were also forced into dhimmitude; surprised you didn't espouse the virtues of that!

Interesting word. Very modern.

Dhimmitude is a neologism borrowed from the French language. It is derived by adding the productive suffix -tude to the Arabic noun dhimmi, which refers to a non-Muslim subject of an Islamic state ... The term was coined in 1982 by the Lebanese President and Maronite militia leader Bachir Gemayel, in reference to perceived attempts by the country's Muslim leadership to subordinate the large Lebanese Christian minority. In a speech of September 14, 1982 given at Dayr al-Salib in Lebanon, he said: "Lebanon is our homeland and will remain a homeland for Christians… We want to continue to christen, to celebrate our rites and traditions, our faith and our creed whenever we wish… Henceforth, we refuse to live in any dhimmitude!"
The concept of "dhimmitude" was introduced into Western discourse by the writer Bat Ye'or in a French-language article published in the Italian journal La Rassegna mensile di Israel in 1983. In Bat Ye'or's use, "dhimmitude" refers to allegations of non-Muslims appeasing and surrendering to Muslims, and discrimination against non-Muslims in Muslim majority regions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude
It seems odd to use such a neologism with reference to ancient times. Are you stating that this "Dhimmitude" was worse than the status accorded to minority religious communities in Christian countries in these early days?

ETA Apparently Bat Ye'or claims to have inspired Gemayel to use the expression. It is very much bound up with her ideology, and may be considered part of its terminology. For a fuller understanding of what she means by it, see http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_today_eurabia.html, and other similar pages of her website.

 

[TimCallahan]

Going back to the OP, let's consider yet another prophetic claim about Islam:

. . . (major snip) . . .In the Quran God promises to make Islam the Dominant religion in the World (despite the polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers being averse to this).[Quran 61:9] *Suni Islam is understood to have between 1.2 to 1.4 billion followers (2006), Surpassing Roman Catholicism as the world's largest religion around the time of 2006. Link . . . (major snip) . . .

According to Wikipedia the number of Christians in the world is about 2.1 billion, while the number of Muslims is 1.6 billion. Ergo, either you got it wrong or the Qur'an did. BTW, your link only says that Isalm surpassed Roman Catholicism, not Christianity.Here's how the verse is translated in my copy of the Qur'an:

It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to show that it is above all [other] religions, even though the idolaters hate it.

 

[TimCallahan]

mikeb768:

Here''s the response I got from the Vienna Fine Arts Museum regarding the so-called "Haman" tablet. Note particularly the hilited areas:

Dear Mr. Callahan,

The mentioned object is part of the inventory of the Egyptian and Near Eastern Collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna.
It is not a tablet, but a door jamb, broken into two parts (inv.no. AE_INV_5821 and AE_INV_5822). It was part of the tomb of a man called Hemen-hetep or Hemen-h. It is not known where this tomb was located.
During the last decades the name was misinterpreted as Hemen or Haman like the Egyptian official in the Qur'an. The hieroglyphic spelling of the name does not match the Arabic spelling.I send you a text – unfortunately it is only in German, but maybe you can translate it – which explains the philological and historical background of the object.

On these two websites you can find some information about the door jamb of Hemen-hetep:
http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=5136

http://bilddatenbank.khm.at/
just search for: AE_INV_5821

Best regards,
(name removed to protect the individual's privacy)

 

[Craig B]

TimCallahan

What you write is confirmed in this source too. http://www.hzfojiao.info/answering-islam/bucaille-4.html There is simply no possibility that this person is the Quran's "Haman". Muhammad has confused the Pharaoh of Egypt of the Moses story with the King of Persia of the Esther story.

 

[Craig4]

So no proof, just as I figured. Please provide something which can support your claims.

Also I find it strange that you accept things such as ahadith and Qur'anic commentary as legitimate/authentic but reject Quran as being a legitimate/authentic source. Most would consider this to be quite backwards.

I don't think that it is odd at all. Mohamed's world view clearly changed from when he made up the Quarn and the Hadith was compiled. I would say that the Hadith offered a better insight than the Quran.

 

[Belz...]

This maybe something which is difficult to understand for someone who is unaware of the fact that the Quran literally means the "the recitation", so just like it is memorized by heart today by people of all ages, it was both circulation and memorized by heart by many of his followers during the life of the prophet.

Shall I draw the prophet for you ?

 

[Craig B]

I don't think that it is odd at all. Mohamed's world view clearly changed from when he made up the Quarn and the Hadith was compiled. I would say that the Hadith offered a better insight than the Quran.

The Hadith were compiled more than two centuries after Muhammad's death.

 

[mikeb768]

Here's one problem I have with using this verse as a prophecy of much of anything. Consider the varying translations of the supposed prophecy (emphasis added):

Sahih International: . . . We will bring you forth in one gathering.

Mushim Khan: . . . We shall bring you altogether as a mixed crowd [gathered out of various nations.]

Pickthall: . . . We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.

Yusef Ali: . . . but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together, a mingled crowd.

Shakir: . . . and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass we will bring you both together in judgment.

Dr. Ghali: . . . We will cause you to come clustering.

Abdel Haleem: . . . when the promise of the Hereafter is fulfilled, We shall bring you to the assembly of the people.

Note the following:

1) Both Mushim Khan and Pickthall seem to have embroidered the text in modern translations to fit world events. Out of the seven translations above, only they use the phrase, "gathered out of various nations." Once this phrase is removed, the "prophecy" evaporates.

2) Yusef Ali's translation puts this in the past tense. How can this be a prophecy, and how is it that he either interpreted it as past tense of felt free to change it to a past tense, just as Mushim Khan and Pickthall felt free to add a phrase not found in the original text.

3) Using Shakir's translation, the prophecy is one of the last Judgment and has nothing to do with recreating a lost nation.

4) Both Shakir and Abdel Haleem speak of the promise of the next life or hereafter. Again, this refers to the end of the world, and both translations speak not of gathering the Children of Israel into the land, but of bringing them either to judgment or to "the assembly of the people."

5) Given the wide variation seen in just these seven translations, one must conclude that either the original Arabic text is so obscure as to render any attempt at translation meaningless or that each translator has played fast and loose with the text, and any interpretation anyone wants to make of the verse is as valid as any other.



I sympathize, to a certain degree, with your sentiments here and would like to see a two state solution to the Israel / Palestine situation. Apparently, the majority of Palestinians and the the majority of Israelis also favor this. That said, I don't want to get into this issue further in this thread, since it would likely derail it. Suffice it to say that I don't accept the verse above as a prophecy of the modern state of Israel.

It is all open to interpretation (God is able to see the big picture, and all we get are snippets), and we are working at a definite disadvantage trying to interpret the exact meaning, not from the original text but from a translation of the original text. Based on the information available I am of the opinion that the consensus seems to point towards the Jewish people being brought together near the time of the Hereafter (the 2nd coming of Jesus is understood in a number of hadiths as being close to the time of Judgement Day). Part of the reasoning for this is that the promise taking place on or after Judgement Day does not really fit. Muslims believe that people will be judged by their actions, not their race/ethnicity or what part of the world they happened to be born into. [Quran 67:1-2], [Quran 56], [Muhammad's (saw) Last Sermon] (where he speaks against racism).

Yusif Ali placing the event as having already taken place (by putting it in the past tense) is once again off base imo. I'm not sure what he may be referring to, he mentions in his commentary (#2314) that this second warning was probably referring to an earlier portion of the surah [17:5], and that the Jewish people have never had a Jewish nationality since. He also makes note of the fact that some commentators understand the "second warning" to be the Day of Judgement. But as I mentioned before his translations were published in 1934,1938.

I also take into account the Christian perspective. With the Jewish people having been gathered together/brought back to Israel is meant to fulfill one or more prophecies as mentioned in the Bible.
I remember Bill Maher joking about this some many years ago, "Places, where are my Jews."
Bill Maher Why Do Christian Conservatives Love Israel

 

[mikeb768]

Of course the quran was copied from the bible, It is totally obvious.
The main reason being that the quran is full of references to the Jewish stories in the bible that are obviously nothing but myths.

Unless you believe in Noah's ark, and Jonah being swallowed by a whale, and the parting of the red sea. Because they are all mentioned in the quran.

Did you even read the OP? If so did you not see that Noah's Ark is mentioned as being the only thing which has taken place yet?

Yes Muslims believe in Noah and the Ark, unlike the Bible the Quran makes no indication that the flood was something which took place globally. Not to mention that trying fit 2 animals of every species onto one boat would be logistically, structurally impossible (I think most would agree).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_in_Islam
Differences from Judeo-Christian teachings

 

[shadron]

In the middle long term, the factor that most threatens our existance on Earth is the slow absorption of CO2 into the rocks of the world. One estimate I saw is that in about 500 million years, the CO2 percentage will be too low to support plant life. After that we'll be gone too.

However, I have a pretty good idea that if that becomes a threat, we know enough about geochemistry on a planetary scale to extract or create the CO2 we'll need.

 

[mikeb768]

mikeb768:

Here''s the response I got from the Vienna Fine Arts Museum regarding the so-called "Haman" tablet. Note particularly the hilited areas:

Dear Mr. Callahan,

The mentioned object is part of the inventory of the Egyptian and Near Eastern Collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna.
It is not a tablet, but a door jamb, broken into two parts (inv.no. AE_INV_5821 and AE_INV_5822). It was part of the tomb of a man called Hemen-hetep or Hemen-h. It is not known where this tomb was located.
During the last decades the name was misinterpreted as Hemen or Haman like the Egyptian official in the Qur'an. The hieroglyphic spelling of the name does not match the Arabic spelling.I send you a text – unfortunately it is only in German, but maybe you can translate it – which explains the philological and historical background of the object.

On these two websites you can find some information about the door jamb of Hemen-hetep:
http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=5136

http://bilddatenbank.khm.at/
just search for: AE_INV_5821

Best regards,
(name removed to protect the individual's privacy)

Wow, that is pretty impressive if you did actually contact "Hof Museum in Vienna", to find out information about the actual tablet which Walter Wreszinski was referencing in his book.

Here is a link to the book where Walter Wreszinski said that the name "Haman" was indeed mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions.

Aegyptische Inschriften aus dem K.K. Hofmuseum in Wien

And a link to where this subject was previously discussed.#127

So which of the two individuals is a more credible source on the subject, and why? And what's up with your individual wanting to remain anonymous? Does he actually work at the museum? Maybe he was let go from the museum for taking home ancient Egyptian artifacts and using them as door jambs?

 

[mikeb768]

TimCallahan

What you write is confirmed in this source too. http://www.hzfojiao.info/answering-islam/bucaille-4.html There is simply no possibility that this person is the Quran's "Haman". Muhammad has confused the Pharaoh of Egypt of the Moses story with the King of Persia of the Esther story.

Actually the link from the museum actually does provide English translation, which seems to refer to a person by the name of "Hemen" who may have been the overseer of stonemasons.

Taken from the translation of the tablet:
"the overseer of the stonemasons of Amun Hemen"
"the overseer of the stonemasons of Amun Hemen"

[Quran 28:38]
"And Pharaoh said, "O eminent ones, I have not known you to have a god other than me. Then ignite for me, O Haman, [a fire] upon the clay and make for me a tower that I may look at the God of Moses. And indeed, I do think he is among the liars."

I am by no means an expert in the pronunciation of Egyptian hieroglyphics, but I think that Walter Wreszinski who seems to be much more knowledgeable in this area has a pretty good case.

 

[Craig B]

Wow, that is pretty impressive if you did actually contact "Hof Museum in Vienna", to find out information about the actual tablet which Walter Wreszinski was referencing in his book.

He didn't. He contacted the Vienna Fine Arts Museum. The name is proof that Maurice Bucaille, the Muslim originator of this Haman nonsense, is the one who didn't contact the museum. he claimed to have had information from a French philologist, but

Formulations like "one of the most prominent French Egyptologists" should raise a flag in the mind of any critical reader. Why is this person not named?

That is the question you ask too, isn't it?

So which of the two individuals is a more credible source on the subject, and why? And what's up with your individual wanting to remain anonymous? Does he actually work at the museum?

Certainly yes, and that's why he wants to remain anonymous. Bucaille's alleged informant had no reason to do so.

Maybe he was let go from the museum for taking home ancient Egyptian artifacts and using them as door jambs?

Maybe you're being silly.

Another matter. TimCallahan's informant knows the name of the Museum. Maurice Bucaille gets that wrong, indicating that he had never been there.

There are many reasons why I don't believe that Bucaille ever visited that museum to see the inscription. First, he would have noted that the name of this museum had changed many decades ago. Since Austria lost its monarchy in 1918 (at the end of the First World War), there is no longer a "Hof" [Royal court] and thus no longer a "Hof-Museum". The museum is now called Kunsthistorisches Museum. The name was officially changed on 1 September 1921.

Therefore nobody could have contacted the Hof museum, and Bucaille didn't. His account is quite obviously false. One contacts the Kunsthistorisches Museum. Kunst means Art.

For further information on this and on the other ludicrous errors and falsifications that are contained in Bucaille's account, please have a look at http://www.hzfojiao.info/answering-islam/bucaille-4.html.