Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Frank

Writing The Koran

Recommended Posts

geez, we come back to the whole scientific miracles in the Quran thing. I'll admit that I haven't heard all of them but I did go through the effor of finding out about the big bang one and I was not impressed at all. These miracles require a stretch of the imagination and metaphorical interpretation which is easy for a muslim to accept due to faith it but alot harder for non muslims to accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

einstein said something like "all science is 95% hard work and 5% intuition - but without that intuition all else is useless". Where does that intuition come from? You can call it anything you want, collective subconcious, angels, gods, demons - anything you want. But it is that core from which springs virtually ALL of Man's achievements.

 

and again, arguing about what to call that, is just semantics. Rather childish semantics at that.

 

 

edit: BTW the way about the 'metaphorical nature' of the works - i would like to haer a rational, down-to-earth explanantion as to how it is to be expected a 5th century nomad was to explain things in terms 20th century western science would accept? When heraklitus says "all is fire", do we interpret that to mean that he was saying "Everything is burning"? Jeez, there's enough to question already without behaving like a 5yr old in your questionings. Grow up.

Edited by gnuneo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objective reality is an inference from subjectively close-minded. "I believe; so should you." Before long is a large populous enthralled by a belief from one source: a person or book or what have you. It's subjective submission to a subjective ontology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salaams peeps,

 

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) wasn't just sitting around writing this 'book' for 23 years. He was a man facing persecution, he was a statesman, a military general, a teacher a father and husband to name a few. The Qur'an addresses events that took place in those years, events that happened before and things to come, in the most beautiful way. How could he have come up with this masterpiece in between all the things that come with 'pretending' to be a prophet? There are verses in the Qur'an that point out his mistakes. You may argue this is to make it believable but when you read that he was an upright man before Islam it doesn't really make sense.

 

peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Objective reality is an inference from subjectively close-minded.

this meaning that there is no objective reality hence that truth is unknown ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this meaning that there is no objective reality hence that truth is unknown ?

There is no objective reality, no. Is truth unknown? Depends on what "truth" you're referring to. If it's factually backed then I'll give a no to that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't get this argument. Obviously people DO manage to be consistent over a very long time. As I said, 'Ulysses' and 'In search of lost time" are very consistent books which are many times longer than the Koran and which took well over a decade to write. The Koran is quite short as far as books go, and 23 years means quite a low workrate. Plenty of time to research the story and polish the style.

 

You made a false statement, which is that consistency is harder when time period is shorter. You were wrong.

 

Which Ulysses are you referring to? Alfred Lord Tennyson's poem? I would think not, since it's a bit too short. If you are referring to the character Ulysses by Homer, then there is not even any evidence that Homer was a real person. Therefore, what he was doing at the time he was writing is mere speculation.

 

As brother Josh has said, prophet Muhammad was not sitting around the entire 23 years, unlike Homer, who could have had plenty of time to write what he supposedly did.

 

You are familiar with the concept of a hypothesis?
You are familiar with the concept of reading comprehension?

 

Your words once again: LOL! If he made it up it isn't the truth! You only think it's the truth because you believe it's what a god said. If a god didn't say it, it isn't the truth. I'm suggresting that he made up the Koran, therefore he invented the Islamic concept of right and wrong

 

You seem to speak with certainty, yet you use the word "If", which negates the strength behind your words.

 

"I'm suggesting that he made up the Koran, therefore he invented the Islamic concept of right and wrong".

 

And what is your conclusion based on? On a hypothesis? One that doesn't even have a basis, and is rather redundant on its own?

 

I'm going by the description in the piece. None of them describe themselves as literature experts and at least one is described as an orientalist. Given their fields of study it's reasonable to assume that many of them are also orientalists. I am not dismissing them, I am wondering if people with experience and qualifications in English Lit. have written about the Koran as a work of art.

 

Are you saying that anyone who doesn't have experience and qualifications with English literacy is unqualified to give an opinion on the Qur'an? And how, pray tell, would someone who hasn't been trained to pick up on the subtleties of the Arabic language (or even KNOW the language) be able to begin to understand the Qur'an and it's technique?

 

Take the example of a writing method called "Iltifat" (literally means "turning's one's face to"), which I'm sure you know of since you've obviously read the links I gave you. If you haven't already looked, the word refers to the style in which the Qur'an seems to change pronouns constantly, depending on the subject or mood.

 

Does such a method exist in English? No. Would someone who has no idea about Arabic Literature be able to not only pick up on this, but also recognize the genius behind the style? No and no.

 

Rhyme and sound are another key factor in the Qur'an. The way words are pronounced and emphasized portrays the power behind them. These things no longer exist in translations, but are present in the Arabic text.

 

As the link I gave you said:

The use of delicate sounds in the following example, exhibits the Qur'an's ability to express meaning via the sound of its text:

 

"And by the Night when it is still."

 

Waallayli itha saja

 

The way the Qur'an uses the word 'when it is still' produces a tranquil tone and a smooth sound. This indicates the peace, stillness and serenity that night time provides. The Qur'an also uses sound to build intense images, for example,

 

"And the producers of sparks striking"

 

Faalmooriyati qadhan

 

The word for sparks striking, 'qadhan', that is used here emits a sound that develops the sense of this image, the proximity of the Arabic letters 'daal' and the 'ha' is responsible for this sound. In another example,

 

"Stirring up thereby clouds of dust."

 

Faatharna bihi naqAAan

 

The use of the word 'atharna' in this verse, with its series of vowels emits a sound of splattering and scattering, which expresses the image of the drama.

 

What you're asking for is akin to me saying that Shakespeare's genius remains to be seen because I have yet to see someone who has mastered Arabic Literature analyze his work (especially someone who doesn't know English, so the work would need to be in Arabic). All of the things that exist in the English language would be completely lost on such a person.

 

So yes, it would require an "orientalist" or an Arab to analyze the Qur'an, because it's in ARABIC.

 

It's rather amusing that, when you asked for a westerner and I mentioned one, you would then say you want one who hasn't specialized in Arabic.

 

Please. You made the incredibly circular argument that the Koran must have been written by god because Mohammed could not have known enough about "the truth" of morailty to have written it.
Now I'm forced to ask this question without any sarcasm. Do you even read what is said? Did I, even once, use "morality" as a premise for my argument?

 

But since we're already on the subject,

You can't stand outside it and check whether something is right or wrong because there is no other standard. That's the case no matter who wrote it. You argument is just nonsense.

 

YOUR kind of morality is subjective. If I were to "stand outside it", I would, I assure you, still disagree with most of what your rights and wrongs are based on. I don't need blind acceptance of the Qur'an to tell me what to do, everything that the Qur'an says rings true with MY own brand of morality, and because of THIS, I am a Muslim.

 

Don't be so presumptous.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no objective reality, no. Is truth unknown? Depends on what "truth" you're referring to. If it's factually backed then I'll give a no to that as well.

 

It’s sad to see smart peoples hold false opinion but anyway if you believe that what you are saying is true then you are contradicting yourself by asserting against what you believe in, if you don’t believe the truth of your assertion then there is no need for us to take it seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll answer the rest later, I'm on my way to work ..

LOL! If he made it up it isn't the truth! You only think it's the truth because you believe it's what a god said. If a god didn't say it, it isn't the truth. I'm suggresting that he made up the Koran, therefore he invented the Islamic concept of right and wrong. Not so hard to believe - except that it has an extremely legalistic interpretation which has lead to an awful lot of rules, the essentials of Islamic morality don't differ much from Judaism or Christianity. In fact it's exactly what you'd expect from someone modifying an imperfect knowledge of those two religions.

Okay, let's see how you further explain tht.. If the Quran for sure is made up by looking at the right and the wrong, then

You are familiar with the concept of a hypothesis?

When you aren't even familiar with the reality, what has a hypothesis got to do with you..?

 

Or let's say tht you yourself are a mere hypothesis questioning without even reading the Quran urself? When you know tht most of the people here are just going to quote you up from the Quran.. as it DOES take alot of years from your life to understand the Quran from the depth of your heart and soul? Why don't you find some scholars and question them?

We'll tell you 10 right things and you will neglect tht, and if one of us makes a mistake or u mis-take them, they you are going to have a field day LOLing all over the place, right?

[17:46] We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using the Quran alone, they run away in aversion.

 

 

 

[17:47] We are fully aware of what they hear, when they listen to you, and when they conspire secretly - the disbelievers say, "You are following a crazy man."

 

[17:48] Note how they describe you, and how this causes them to stray off the path.

 

[17:49] They said, "After we turn into bones and fragments, we get resurrected anew?!"

 

[17:50] Say, "Even if you turn into rocks or iron.

 

[17:51] "Even if you turn into any kind of creation that you deem impossible." They will then say, "Who will bring us back?" Say, "The One who created you in the first place." They will then shake their heads and say, "When will that be?" Say, "It may be closer than you think."

 

 

Well, right off the bat we have something that is dubious - the mixing of male and female fluids might be a very loose way of describing conception, but it's certainly not an accurate way. And you don't need divine help to come up with the idea.

The leech? Yes, it might be a good metaphor for an embryo at that stage. But it isn't very specific. It could equally be a metaphor for completely innacurate ideas.

 

Why do you need divine help to know what fetuses look like at various stages of development?

 

You might want to google leech embryo you know..Then We placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging. Then fashioned the seed into a leech (23:13-14)

 

 

Gerald C. Goeringer who is Professor and Coordinator of Medical Embryology in the Department of Cell Biology, School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA. remarks:

"...In a relatively few ayahs (Qur'anic verses) is contained a rather comprehensive description of human development. No such distinct and complete record of human development such as classification, terminology, and description existed previously. In most, if not all instances, this description antedates by many centuries the recording of the various stages of human embryonic and fetal development recorded in the traditional scientific literature."

 

Ofcourse I don't have to quote someone out of Quran as a proof, but just for your satisfaction!

 

geez, we come back to the whole scientific miracles in the Quran thing. I'll admit that I haven't heard all of them but I did go through the effor of finding out about the big bang one and I was not impressed at all. These miracles require a stretch of the imagination and metaphorical interpretation which is easy for a muslim to accept due to faith it but alot harder for non muslims to accept it.

True say, we have it the easy way.. While you will eventually learn it all in the long run ^_^

You might be relying too much on the metaphors you know.

Edited by Asma_Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s sad to see smart peoples hold false opinion but anyway if you believe that what you are saying is true then you are contradicting yourself by asserting against what you believe in, if you don’t believe the truth of your assertion then there is no need for us to take it seriously.

 

He is semi-correct. 'Truth' is (ironically) very subjective. It can be derived from intuition, life expirience or even faith. I think you are referring to empirical data which i think should be classified differently as data is intrinsically neutral of opinion or bias. (Can only be scued by human error).

 

Back to the subject, ty all for the responses they are very informative ^_^.

 

Sadly in terms of complexity ill have to toss in the towl as I dont know Arabic and Ino very well how things need to be 'dumbed down' stylistically when translated into another language (esp. one as dubious as english).

 

As for the 23yr period over which it was written, the Divine Comedy is similar being written over 13yrs :sl: haha

(Ok ok Ill stop bringing it up :sl:)

 

My problem with the scientific miracles is that (assuming what is revealed in the Qur'an was originalyl in sync with our modern science) is that it isnt exclusive. Many other cultures/religions have had pieces of knowledge that seem to advanced that they too claim/ed it was divine relation. Take Buddhism for example. Alot of the Buddhas teachings are very much advanced for the time period as just now modern physcology is seeing there si alot of truth behind them.

 

I guess the main thing barring me from seeing the Qur'an as a divine revelation is that it relies to heavily on previous traditions. (Granted inconsistancies are played off as corruptions) Thing is, the traditions that it agrees upon are questionable. Man being poofed for example because very questionable considering the evidence of evolution. Same process of evolution can even be seen in the conceptualization of God. For example, Eloahim was used for God but the suffix makes it a plural. Another weird thing si that in the earliest hebrew writtings, there si no distinction ebtween God or Satan, rather God does good + evil depending on his mood. There is also the evidence suggesting that Historical Moses was a henoist and that monotheism came much later.

 

As you can imagine any of these makes one raise an eyebrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i personally hold there IS an objective reality, but that it is impossible for the subjective individual to know it - it is only possible to know our own subjective universe. Ergo, all 'truths' can only be seen as temporary constructs, no matter how many people agree with them, no matter how much 'evidence' there is for them.

 

case in point: our eyes record daily that the sun rises, yet now we percieve that actually it is the earth rotating. There has been no change in our sensory perceptions, but we analyse the data differently, we have changed the paradigm thorugh which we view the sensory data.

 

 

this unifies both subjective criticisms of objectivity (which are valid), yet also accepts that there IS an objective reality which is the highest likelyhood considering we all seem to agree on certain sensory data, such as the existence of certain objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

 

Which Ulysses are you referring to? Alfred Lord Tennyson's poem? I would think not, since it's a bit too short. If you are referring to the character Ulysses by Homer, then there is not even any evidence that Homer was a real person. Therefore, what he was doing at the time he was writing is mere speculation.

 

As brother Josh has said, prophet Muhammad was not sitting around the entire 23 years, unlike Homer, who could have had plenty of time to write what he supposedly did.

 

There's only one book called 'Ulysses' that I know of, and even if there are others it's by far the most famous. It's by James Joyce and it's generally regarded as the most important work of literature in English of the 20th century, and one of the most important in any language of any time.

 

"I'm suggesting that he made up the Koran, therefore he invented the Islamic concept of right and wrong". Please, this is really easy. The Islamic concept of right and wrong is contained in the Koran. There is no outside source. So whoever wrote the Koran created the Islamic concept of right and wrong. Get it?

 

Are you saying that anyone who doesn't have experience and qualifications with English literacy is unqualified to give an opinion on the Qur'an? And how, pray tell, would someone who hasn't been trained to pick up on the subtleties of the Arabic language (or even KNOW the language) be able to begin to understand the Qur'an and it's technique?

 

Not at all. Please go back and read my post. That wasn't an argument against the divine authorship of the Koran, it was an attempt to find a commentator who could explain it to me in language and concepts I understood. And yes, of course they would also have to be an expert in Arabic literature so I'm not hopeful of finding such a person, but I thought I'd ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's only one book called 'Ulysses' that I know of, and even if there are others it's by far the most famous. It's by James Joyce and it's generally regarded as the most important work of literature in English of the 20th century, and one of the most important in any language of any time.

 

I'm aware of the book James Joyce wrote in the early 1900s, but I had hoped that you would have used a better comparison, considering Joyce wrote his book in less than a decade and spent much time perfecting it. Like any normal book, he did a lot of proofreading and corrections before he finally published it. Prophet Muhammad did not do any proofreading, nor did he ever change a word he uttered about the Qur'an for the entire 23 years that he had taught it to the people.

 

Please, this is really easy. The Islamic concept of right and wrong is contained in the Koran. There is no outside source. So whoever wrote the Koran created the Islamic concept of right and wrong. Get it?
Wrong. The person who wrote the Qur'an was neither prophet Muhammad, nor God. I'm assuming you already know that much, so let's move on to the next part.

 

What you meant to say was "whoever created the Qur'an created the Islamic concept of right and wrong". You say Muhammad created the Qur'an. I say God created the Qur'an. Now, do you want to continue this argument or shall we leave it at that?

 

That wasn't an argument against the divine authorship of the Koran, it was an attempt to find a commentator who could explain it to me in language and concepts I understood.

 

You are contradicting yourself in the same post. You claim this isn't an argument about whether or not the Qur'an is divinely inspired, yet you say that the writer of the Qur'an was the creator (meaning in your case, prophet Muhammad).

And yes, of course they would also have to be an expert in Arabic literature so I'm not hopeful of finding such a person, but I thought I'd ask.

 

Seeing as you will continue to disregard every link that I (in the hopes that you might understand the Qur'an better) give you, best of luck to you in finding someone who is an expert in English, an expert in Arabic, but not an "orientalist".

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to Epicurus all perceptions are true , they are passive (they do not add or subtract anything of the object perceived), unreasoning and incapable of remembering .he continue by saying that they are conscious reception of atoms emitted by objects around us and their content is entirely determined by those objects nature and properties . This being said he claims that the error does not origin from perceptions but actually it happens when the mind start reflecting on those senses.

For just as the primary affections, that is pleasure and pain, come about from certain agents and in accordance with those agents pleasure from pleasant things and pain from painful things, and it is impossible for what is productive of pleasure not to be pleasant and what is productive of pain not to be painful but that which produces pleasure must necessarily be naturally pleasant and that which produces pain naturally painful so also with perceptions which are affections of ours, that which produces each of them is always perceived entirely and, as perceived, cannot bring about the perception unless it is in truth such as it appears.

Now isambard since you are using the word ironically I will assume we have the same conception of truth as being by its nature objective, if not then there is no need to debate this issue since a person asserting that truth is subjective cannot conceptualize truth nor is capable of abstraction, and that you adhere to what gnuneo is saying the impossibility of knowing it objectively , well I respect both of your view and I will not try to refute anything since it’s self refutable .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salaams peeps,

 

He was a man facing persecution, he was a statesman, a military general, a teacher a father and husband to name a few.

peace

So, exactly the type of person that would profit from such an all encompassing manifesto. That's like Tony Blair or George Bush writing a new bible and claiming it to be a revelation, though none would believe it nowadays as they have more knowledge.

 

The miracle is that he achieved an unchanging legal system in 23 years, whilst the English legal system has evolved and continues to evolve over a thousand years.

 

I'm sorry I just find it very hard to accept, but hats off to you all, that's what "faith" is all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prophet Muhammad didn't do any proofreading/change a word about the Qur'an

 

Salam.

You write as though you sat with him all those years ago

 

{Moderator note}

This post violated forum rule #39. Action taken. View (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?act=boardrules"]details[/url].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, exactly the type of person that would profit from such an all encompassing manifesto. That's like Tony Blair or George Bush writing a new bible and claiming it to be a revelation, though none would believe it nowadays as they have more knowledge.

 

The miracle is that he achieved an unchanging legal system in 23 years, whilst the English legal system has evolved and continues to evolve over a thousand years.

 

I'm sorry I just find it very hard to accept, but hats off to you all, that's what "faith" is all about.

 

No FAB[freeasbird] He ######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_i26.11chan(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/albums/c132/pedantic_gu/pbuh.gif[/img] was NOT like those two, I m sorry to break tht to you.

 

And if Bus or Blair ever managed to bring up a book, how many would convert, or believe them yeh?

 

People may have as much knowledge as they want to, but in the end they will return to their Lord who will eventually reveal the truth upon them..

 

Evolution occurs when adjustment is required. Not in Islam's case.

 

You write as though you sat with him all those years ago

Have you..?

 

 

The Quran is the only book tht remains unchanged even after 1400 yrs ago, because it is protected by Allah Himself.. Take out it's first version and the last one, and see if there were or are any changes..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, exactly the type of person that would profit from such an all encompassing manifesto. That's like Tony Blair or George Bush writing a new bible and claiming it to be a revelation, though none would believe it nowadays as they have more knowledge.

 

No. It's actually like Moses(pbuh) claiming the Torah to be a Revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My problem with the scientific miracles is that (assuming what is revealed in the Qur'an was originalyl in sync with our modern science) is that it isnt exclusive. Many other cultures/religions have had pieces of knowledge that seem to advanced that they too claim/ed it was divine relation. Take Buddhism for example. Alot of the Buddhas teachings are very much advanced for the time period as just now modern physcology is seeing there si alot of truth behind them.

 

The Qur'an only acknowledges correct scientific claims from among the many competing claims that could have been mentioned. Not a single incorrect statement is made, indicating that there is a particular filter by which information is being sorted before it is mentioned in The Book.

 

 

 

 

I guess the main thing barring me from seeing the Qur'an as a divine revelation is that it relies to heavily on previous traditions. (Granted inconsistancies are played off as corruptions) Thing is, the traditions that it agrees upon are questionable. Man being poofed for example because very questionable considering the evidence of evolution. Same process of evolution can even be seen in the conceptualization of God. For example, Eloahim was used for God but the suffix makes it a plural. Another weird thing si that in the earliest hebrew writtings, there si no distinction ebtween God or Satan, rather God does good + evil depending on his mood. There is also the evidence suggesting that Historical Moses was a henoist and that monotheism came much later.

 

As you can imagine any of these makes one raise an eyebrow

 

 

First off, you have to know that you are not the first to pull out the arguement according to which the Qur'an is based on other traditions, not even among 21st century doubters. The Pagan Arabs also claimed this, so you're not bringing any new or revolutionary arguements to the table.

 

But the misbelievers say: "Naught is this but a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it." In truth it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood. (Qur'an 025.004)

 

The Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." (Qur'an 006.025)

 

The inconsistancies are falsehood.

 

The evidence of evolution isn't sound.

 

As for the thing about Elohim representing plural gods, this is simply not true. It is the plural of respect which is unique to Semitic languages such as Arabic and Hebrew. In fact, the word elohim can mean more than just 'God', it means also a powerful person, judge, a person in authority. Moses(pbuh) is also called elohim in the Hebrew Bible, surely nobody is suggesting that he is God.

 

I don't like to defend Judaism's nor Christianity's theological positions but I have to in this case, since your claim, about there being no distinction between God and Satan, is not true. Satan is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, so clearly there is a distinction between him and God. Yes, I know that it's written in the Bible that God does all things, good and bad. However, it actually means that God creates everything, good and bad.

 

I doubt there is historical evidence on Moses(pbuh).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm aware of the book James Joyce wrote in the early 1900s, but I had hoped that you would have used a better comparison, considering Joyce wrote his book in less than a decade and spent much time perfecting it. Like any normal book, he did a lot of proofreading and corrections before he finally published it. Prophet Muhammad did not do any proofreading, nor did he ever change a word he uttered about the Qur'an for the entire 23 years that he had taught it to the people.

 

You might want to refine your Googling a bit. 'Ulysses' is SET in the early 1900s but it was written later. And the writing took over a decade.

 

 

What you meant to say was "whoever created the Qur'an created the Islamic concept of right and wrong". You say Muhammad created the Qur'an. I say God created the Qur'an. Now, do you want to continue this argument or shall we leave it at that?
Layna, you made the argument that Mohammed was not capable of creating the Koran because its ethical concepts were beyond him. However, that argument relies on there being a way to test the ethical concepts in the Koran - to judge them against a better standard. But for Muslims this is not posssible. The Koran is the standard. So your argument makes no sense.

 

You are contradicting yourself in the same post. You claim this isn't an argument about whether or not the Qur'an is divinely inspired, yet you say that the writer of the Qur'an was the creator (meaning in your case, prophet Muhammad).

 

I wish you would read less aggressively. As would have been clear if you did, I was saying that my request for any information about people with Eng Lit qualification and also Arabic Lit qualififcations was not an argument, it was simply what it appeared to be - a request. I am interested in the Koran as a work of art, but not being an Arabic speaker, and not being at all impressed by the English translations (two of them) that I've read, I'm eager (but not hopeful) of finding commentary by someone who is both capable of impressing me with their knowledge of English (or French or Ialian or Indian - anyone from a culture with a tradition of secular literary criticism) Lit, and also able to to talk about the Koran.

 

Yes, I believe that the Koran must have been created by a human because i do not believe in supernatural beings. If it comes down to faith, so be it. But if you are going to make arguments, them you must expect those arguments to be challenged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a single incorrect statement is made, indicating that there is a particular filter by which information is being sorted before it is mentioned in The Book.

 

I think that describing conception as a mixing of male and female fluids is incorrect, don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that describing conception as a mixing of male and female fluids is incorrect, don't you?

 

No, because it is not the whole fluid, only a part of the fluid.

 

Then He made his progeny of an extract, of fluid held in light estimation. (032.008)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there was also that statement about the sun setting in mud.

 

The particular passage you are thinking about is talking about a person's travels, who went West until he hit a body of water so large that HE found the sun setting there. The Qur'an is describing what HE saw, it's not making a definitive statement about the sun at all, and it's not even a declarative statement from God, unlike the other statements made about the sun/moon/planets/stars.

 

If you noticed, when you go to a beach at sunset, and it's the beach of an ocean or a very large lake, you would see the sun setting as if it's dipping into the water.

 

Also if you notice, the sun not only doesn't set in water, it doesn't even SET. Both are false appearances. So if you're arguing about its dipping into the ocean, you should also argue about the idiom "setting" and "rising" which most people on Earth use, knowing that they are not scientific terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might want to refine your Googling a bit. 'Ulysses' is SET in the early 1900s but it was written later. And the writing took over a decade.

 

If had to use google, then I wouldn't have been wrong, now would I?

 

However, it seems you fail at correcting me. James Joyce lived from 1882-1941. For him to write the book later than the early 1900s, he would have to be doing so as a ghost. The book was published in the 1920s.

 

By the way, I do mean early 20th century, and not 1901-1909.

 

Layna, you made the argument that Mohammed was not capable of creating the Koran because its ethical concepts were beyond him.
I hope you are confusing me with someone else, because this is just plain sad.

 

I never, not even once, used the argument of whether or not the Qur'an's ethical concepts were beyond prophet Muhammad's abilities. Read back through all of my posts.

 

I wish you would read less aggressively.

 

Yes, I'm reading so furiously, my eyes are almost exploding. Try not to read too much into what you think are my feelings concerning this argument.

 

I'm eager (but not hopeful) of finding commentary by someone who is both capable of impressing me with their knowledge of English (or French or Ialian or Indian - anyone from a culture with a tradition of secular literary criticism) Lit, and also able to to talk about the Koran.
How does one talk about the Qur'an? By studying it. How does one study it? By learning Arabic.

 

Orientalists are people who study and learn oriental languages or religions. Therefore, you are asking for someone who has good grasp of both the English and Arabic languages.

 

Now, why doesn't someone like Neal Robinson, a professor of Theology and Religious Studies, qualify as a good source for commentary on the Qur'an?

 

I'm eager (but not hopeful) of...

 

I'm eager (but not hopeful) of meeting a 7 foot leprechaun driving a wagon filled with gold nuggets and wielding a colorful banner with my name on it. Perhaps you could point me to one? :sl:

 

Salam.

Edited by Layna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×