Jump to content
Islamic Forum
wordVision Student

The Quran Is Not The Word Of Man

Recommended Posts

*Some* mountains are vaguelly like pegs in that they have a below ground part and an above ground part. However, just being vaguelly like a peg is not what the Koran claims. It claims that mountains prevent tectonic plates moving. They don't. These mountains are *caused* by the movement of tectonic plates.

 

I've done some very cursory looking-into this, and it seems that the idea that mountains are pegs is pretty common in various cultures. I suggest that Mohammed mentioned this not because he was teaching his audience something new, but because he was using something they already believed to bolster his claims.

 

The Bible's influence was based on the fact that in its original form, it was Divine Revelation. But corruption in the church resulted (with Allah's permission), in its adulteration. This adulteration continues today and has resulted in the steady decline in the influence of the Bible. The number of Christians is declining. The number of practising Christians has plummeted. In the case of the Quran on the other hand, its influence is increasing and its adherents are growing in number. Within decades, Muslims will outnumber Christians. Huntington expresses this concern in his Clash of Civilisations. How could this concern be addressed? Simple. Show the Quran to be false by producing 'the like of it' - that is, produce something which is the equal of it. If you can. But you can not, and never will, because it is the Word of Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Sorry guys, disregard my last post, I have mis-formatted it.

 

I've done some very cursory looking-into this, and it seems that the idea that mountains are pegs is pretty common in various cultures. I suggest that Mohammed mentioned this not because he was teaching his audience something new, but because he was using something theyalready believed to bolster his claims.[using large font size is not allowed]

 

Works by Airy and Dutton [using large font size is not allowed]support the view that mountains have pegs like characteristics. More recent works by Van Anglin, Press and Seiver, Cailleux, Tarbuck, Lutgens and James all support the view that mountains also have a stabilising effect due to their peg like characteristics. This is not to say that they stop earthquakes altogether, but rather, that they significantly mitigate their effects. The idea is fairly new and is specialist knowledge within earth sciences. Scientific understanding of this phenomenon is still developing, but the basic idea is established. You can choose to reject the idea on your own say so, or on the basis of outdated knowledge, but will look pretty foolish in the process. [using large font size is not allowed]

 

Another intersting fact - there are only 5 known inscriptions in Arabic which pre-date the Koran. Whereas there are thousands in the various other languages which were used in the area. I don't know, but I surmize that Arabic was a very local language which, with the Koran and the rise of Islam, became dominant. If it was so local and so little written it is not surprising that the first great work in it should create an immense sensation. Compare with Beowulf, Chaucer and Joyce for landmark works in the various stages of the development of English.

 

[using large font size is not allowed]

 

What is far more relevant is that there have been millions of books written in Arabic since the Quran. None of these comes close to matching the eloquence of the Quran. It is telling that one of the earliest books in a given language should remain the best for 1400 years. There are many non-Muslim Arabs and plenty of these are skilled in rhetoric and prose. The challenge remains open today: Match the Quran and prove that Islam is false. Who on Earth would have the courage to make such a claim? [using large font size is not allowed]

 

Come on friends! This claim is insulting to any non-Muslim specialist in Arabic. Indeed, to any writer in any language. For 1400 years this challenge has stood. Surely someone's up to it! Surely someone can make a mockery of this audacious claim! If not today, then surely in the next 1400 years! Let's wait together...

 

[using large font size is not allowed]

 

I can easily think of a dozen writers who can better the English translations I've read. Unfortunately I cannot read Arabic so I can offer no opinion on its qualities in the original.[using large font size is not allowed]

 

The English translations are not the Quran, but none the less, aspects of its stunning, matchless eloquence are amply apparent to scholars of prose and rhetoric. The fact that you can not see this is irrelevant. My dad reads and enjoys English newspapers, but not being a native English speaker, nor a connisseour of prose, would struggle to appreciate Shakespeare. Does this in any way devalue the work of Shakespeare?[using large font size is not allowed]

 

The Bible, I suspect, has had more influence and for rather longer (especially if you count the Jewish OT). However Mein Kampf and Das Kapital also had a lot of influence in the 20th century - the amount of influence is not an indication of truth.
[using large font size is not allowed]

 

 

 

The Bible's influence was based on the fact that in its original form, it was in fact Divine Revelation. But corruption in the church resulted in its adulteration. This adulteration continues today and has resulted in the steady decline in the influence of the Bible. The number of Christians is declining. The number of practising Christians has plummeted. With Islam and the Quran on the other hand, its influence is increasing and its adherents are growing. Within decades, Muslims will outnumber Christians. Huntington expresses this concern in his Clash of Civilisations.[using large font size is not allowed]

 

How should this concern be addressed? Simple. Show the Quran to be false by producing 'the like of it' - that is, produce something which is the equal of it. If you can. [using large font size is not allowed]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is far more relevant is that there have been millions of books written in Arabic since the Quran. None of these comes close to matching the eloquence of the Quran...Who on Earth would have the courage to make such a claim?

How would we judge whether the Quran is more eloquent? And, to be frank, I fear that someone may very well need to call upon their courage to make such a claim, if not from the intimidating eloquence of the Quran, than at least from the intimidating zealotry of some who would seek to defend the honor of the Quran.

 

...The Bible's influence was based on the fact that in its original form, it was in fact Divine Revelation. But corruption in the church resulted in its adulteration. This adulteration continues today and has resulted in the steady decline in the influence of the Bible. The number of Christians is declining. The number of practising Christians has plummeted. With Islam and the Quran on the other hand, its influence is increasing and its adherents are growing. Within decades, Muslims will outnumber Christians. Huntington expresses this concern in his Clash of Civilisations.

I understand the idea behind your theory, but wasn't height of Christendom and its influence long after the corruption? This would seem to mitigate against such a theory. The corruption, as far as I can tell, would have had to have occurred fairly early in Christian history, since there is fairly good documentation later on for the continuity of the script.

 

How should this concern be addressed? Simple. Show the Quran to be false by producing 'the like of it' - that is, produce something which is the equal of it. If you can.

But who would arbitrate this contest? The problem of such a challenge is that I doubt either of you would be able to agree upon an arbitrator, and even if you did manage this, the losing party would certainly not accept the verdict (well, actually, I doubt there is any real compulsion felt by the non-religious to be right on this matter, but I think it would be difficult to impossible for a Muslim to admit error here, since it is an article of belief in the Islamic faith).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Works by Airy and Dutton [using large font size is not allowed]support the view that mountains have pegs like characteristics. More recent works by Van Anglin, Press and Seiver, Cailleux, Tarbuck, Lutgens and James all support the view that mountains also have a stabilising effect due to their peg like characteristics. This is not to say that they stop earthquakes altogether, but rather, that they significantly mitigate their effects. The idea is fairly new and is specialist knowledge within earth sciences. Scientific understanding of this phenomenon is still developing, but the basic idea is established. You can choose to reject the idea on your own say so, or on the basis of outdated knowledge, but will look pretty foolish in the process.

 

The fact remains that where there are mountains in the process of being tectonically created (ie, the edges of tectonic plates) you are MORE likely to have earthquakes than in areas where tectonically-created mountains are not being formed.

 

Also, isn't this creation of mountains to damp-down earthquakes a last-minute patch-up job by the god? Why not just create a world wher the plates did not collide?

 

 

It is telling that one of the earliest books in a given language should remain the best for 1400 years. There are many non-Muslim Arabs and plenty of these are skilled in rhetoric and prose. The challenge remains open today: Match the Quran and prove that Islam is false. Who on Earth would have the courage to make such a claim?

 

Not at all. The creative energy of a newly-dominant language often produces great works. What is sad is that because of the status of the Koran, Arabic's development has frozen.

 

Come on friends! This claim is insulting to any non-Muslim specialist in Arabic. Indeed, to any writer in any language. For 1400 years this challenge has stood. Surely someone's up to it! Surely someone can make a mockery of this audacious claim! If not today, then surely in the next 1400 years! Let's wait together...

 

If you're talking about a better book in English than the Koran in English, I can think of scores.

 

The English translations are not the Quran, but none the less, aspects of its stunning, matchless eloquence are amply apparent to scholars of prose and rhetoric. The fact that you can not see this is irrelevant. My dad reads and enjoys English newspapers, but not being a native English speaker, nor a connisseour of prose, would struggle to appreciate Shakespeare. Does this in any way devalue the work of Shakespeare?

 

I don't actually hold rhetoric very highly as an art... The prose of the Koran in the English translations I have read is certainly not "matchless" - it's pretty standard 'God talks - you obey' stuff. The King James translation of the OT does it better IMHO. And as far as prose in general goes, there are many writers in English who do it much better.

 

The Bible's influence was based on the fact that in its original form, it was in fact Divine Revelation. But corruption in the church resulted in its adulteration. This adulteration continues today and has resulted in the steady decline in the influence of the Bible. The number of Christians is declining. The number of practising Christians has plummeted. With Islam and the Quran on the other hand, its influence is increasing and its adherents are growing. Within decades, Muslims will outnumber Christians. Huntington expresses this concern in his Clash of Civilisations.

 

Christians outnumber Muslims, and have been around for longer. Thus the Bible has had more influence than the Koran. Simple, really. However I still do not see why you think that the number of believers has anything to do with validating the qualities of the Koran. It's a handy rule of thumb that if a novel is a best-seller it will not be very good as literature.

 

How should this concern be addressed? Simple. Show the Quran to be false by producing 'the like of it' - that is, produce something which is the equal of it. If you can.

 

What a silly challenge: I couldn't produce the like of any great novel. But I do not see why you think that because one particular book in Arabic is better than all the other books in Arabic it therefore follows that it was written by a god. If that was the case, the best book in any language would have to have been written by a god.

Edited by wattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now here comes Mohammed a man that was known through out Mecca to be honest, he even had a nickname Al Amin"the truthful one" and he was known for never even studying scripture or world governments, yet he comes with a book tearing down tyrants and establishing a true governmental republic that is fair and puts God first. If it is known that nobody gave Mohammed this book but people see him having deep abnormal sleeps then waking up and reciting and recording down what he claims is visions from God Almighty and these recordings are actually helping to establish a system that breaks tyranny and helps to better mankind and pushes mankind in the direction of achieving great knowledge by studying the earth further.

 

I don't accept at face value anything told or transmitted about Mohammed by early Muslims, as they had a powerful incentive to play down his talents and play up the supernatural aspects. In fact if they didn't, they would not have been Muslims.

 

He was a man of leisure (wealthy wife), who travelled. There were plenty of Christians and presumably some Jews in Arabia, he would have also met people who knew Greek science and philosophy and perhaps Hindu science and philosphy on trading trips, plus people from the many other intellectual traditions of the Middle East and Mediterranean. If he was a genius (as he must have been to have written the Koran) he had a long time to aquire the knowledge necessary to begin the task. Wasn't he 40 when he started? In addition his people were at a sociopolitical stage of expecting prophets and looking for new systems of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a list of the the larger earthquakes in New Zealand so far this month. New Zealand is known for its tall, young mountains.

 

Reference Number: 3185791

NZDT: Thu, Nov 19 2009 8:05 am

Magnitude: 4.3

Depth: 40 km

Details: 10 km south of Palmerston North

 

Reference Number: 3185771

NZDT: Thu, Nov 19 2009 7:04 am

Magnitude: 5.1

Depth: 40 km

Details: 10 km south of Palmerston North

 

Reference Number: 3184690

NZDT: Tue, Nov 17 2009 2:36 am

Magnitude: 3.7

Depth: 60 km

Details: 10 km south of Hastings

 

Reference Number: 3183648

NZDT: Sun, Nov 15 2009 5:29 am

Magnitude: 3.7

Depth: 20 km

Details: 30 km south-east of Seddon

 

Reference Number: 3183435

NZDT: Sat, Nov 14 2009 7:14 pm

Magnitude: 3.5

Depth: 40 km

Details: 20 km west of Wellington

 

Reference Number: 3181364

NZDT: Tue, Nov 10 2009 4:40 pm

Magnitude: 2.5

Depth: 2 km

Details: 10 km north-east of Kawerau

 

Reference Number: 3181009

NZDT: Mon, Nov 9 2009 11:44 pm

Magnitude: 6.8

Depth: 574 km

Details: 120 km north-east of Nadi, Fiji

 

Reference Number: 3180258

NZDT: Sun, Nov 8 2009 11:29 am

Magnitude: 3.3

Depth: 25 km

Details: 20 km east of Upper Hutt

 

Reference Number: 3179808

NZDT: Sat, Nov 7 2009 12:57 pm

Magnitude: 3.0

Depth: 5 km

Details: Within 5 km of Cromwell

 

Reference Number: 3178429

NZDT: Wed, Nov 4 2009 3:52 pm

Magnitude: 4.5

Depth: 90 km

Details: 30 km south of St Arnaud

 

Reference Number: 3178306

NZDT: Wed, Nov 4 2009 9:59 am

Magnitude: 4.3

Depth: 2 km

Details: 40 km north-west of Hanmer Springs

 

Reference Number: 3177522

NZDT: Mon, Nov 2 2009 7:39 pm

Magnitude: 2.7

Depth: 12 km

Details: 20 km east of Hanmer Springs

 

Reference Number: 3176786

NZDT: Sun, Nov 1 2009 6:01 am

Magnitude: 4.5

Depth: 12 km

Details: 10 km south of Haast

 

Now, here's a list of the larger earthquakes in Australia so far this month. Australia is known for its lack of big mountains:

 

17/11/2009 12:27:16 -28.1 136.157 10 2.5 SE of Oodnadatta SA

14/11/2009 21:24:13 -33.213 118.291 16 2.3 SW of Lake Grace WA

12/11/2009 20:12:42 -33.728 138.606 0 2.0 E of Brinkworth SA

07/11/2009 16:55:09 -33.225 149.046 2 2.1 NW of Orange NSW

06/11/2009 22:49:28 -30.358 118.8445 10 2.1 NE of Bonnie Rock WA

03/11/2009 06:54:14 -27.579 125.792 9 3.4 S of Warburton, WA

03/11/2009 06:03:58 -35.55 138.3159 4 3.2 Near Normanville, SA

01/11/2009 22:50:07 -30.668 117.399 10 2.3 NW of Koorda WA

 

It seems that having large mountains is not much of a help.

Edited by wattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this argument about mountains pointless though? Someone could just respond that, "Well, New Zealand would have even more earthquakes if it wasn't for those mountains or maybe those mountains don't have the peg like features the Quran is speaking of."

 

The problem isn't with the facts, it is with the meaning of those facts, which is something we supply, even if it isn't something we are completely free to dictate. There are no mind independent truths, because without a mind to organize them, all you have is a series of consecutive events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't accept at face value anything told or transmitted about Mohammed by early Muslims, as they had a powerful incentive to play down his talents and play up the supernatural aspects. In fact if they didn't, they would not have been Muslims.

 

The best sources are from early musllims if you reject some of those valuable sources then why even question a man who had a huge influence on peoples lives?? If you want to know a person you always question those who knew him best. And what was this powerful incentive to play down his talents and play up the supernatural aspects?? They repeated what Mohammed told them if Mohammad said that he got the Quran from God they believed him. Name one man or woman in history that is known to us by people other than those who know them best. Information about any person is passed on by those who knew the person best, it would be silly to not study those sources. Also study the non muslims comments about Prophet Mohammed see what they have to say about his character and what he was bringing.

 

 

He was a man of leisure (wealthy wife), who travelled.

 

I dont know if your trying to be insulting here of if your honestly giving your opinion, because you say that you don’t accept things for face value by other muslims yet you use early reports by early muslims and you corrupt it by saying that he was a man of leisure who travelled?? This is wrong He was a working man and so good at his job that he became the General manager of Kadijjahs business and she married him and he still worked hard he wasn’t a man of leisure he was a man who worked and his travelling was for the business not for play. Is Bill Gates a man of leisure if he was then a lot of what we have today would not be here. Mohammed was not a man of leisure this is a very insulting comment I don’t know if you did that on purpose but im just letting you know.

 

There were plenty of Christians and presumably some Jews in Arabia, he would have also met people who knew Greek science and philosophy and perhaps Hindu science and philosphy on trading trips, plus people from the many other intellectual traditions of the Middle East and Mediterranean. If he was a genius (as he must have been to have written the Koran) he had a long time to aquire the knowledge necessary to begin the task. Wasn't he 40 when he started? In addition his people were at a sociopolitical stage of expecting prophets and looking for new systems of government.

 

It was the other way around there were pleanty of Jews and presumably some Christians but anyway the science of the Greeks and their philosophy were lost these were the dark ages. This was a period where all of that science was lost, Islam brought science back to the front that’s why that time is known as the renaissance, (classical revival of lost knowledge) The only difference is is that Mohammed put God on top of that knowledge so if you can admit that he was a genius then you should study that genius. Because if that genius never came we would still be in the dark ages, imagine doing calculus with roman numerals lol Einstein would never have been if it wasn’t for Mohammad the genius. And most geniuses have people who work with them closely people who the rely on, but the genius himself is the smart one but they always work closely with other intelligent people.

Who worked closely with Mohammad to bring about a book that brought together a whole state and broke down tyrants and brought the human being to his fullest capability of studying this earth? If it was someone else im telling you we would have known by now but Mohammad said that his helper or who he worked closely with was God now its either you believe that or you don’t. I don’t know how many geniuses that has helped the world has also at the same time lied to the world do you??Einstein learned math and that math was only possible because of Muslims who followed Mohammed the genius who said he got the Quran from God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

The description of mountains as pegs (or pickets) clearly implies that such striking geomorphic features are not just the lofty elevations that are seen on the surface of the Earth (as most current glossaries and encyclopedias define them), but their downward extensions in the Earth's lithosphere is highly emphasized. In as much as most of the picket (or peg) is hidden in soil or rock and its function is to hold one end of the tent to the surface of the ground, modern earth sciences have just proved that mountains possess very deep roots that stabilize lithospheric plates as well as the whole planet.

 

Hence the Quran's description, describing mountain as pegs is rather amazing, a thousand years ago people can only see and relate to the 'upper part' of a mountain, only until recently that Geolgists used sophisticated seismic equipment that the downward extension became known by science. Keep in mind also that our sun (and our planet earth with it) is travelling at a great speed of over 1 million km/day, it is just amazing that there is no vibration and violent shaking, perhaps mountains also play a part in that too. The statement would only be ridicolous (and wrong) if a mountain only consists of the upper part.

 

ard

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
our sun (and our planet earth with it) is travelling at a great speed of over 1 million km/day, it is just amazing that there is no vibration and violent shaking

I believe that has more to do with inertia relative to our referential coordinates than anything mountains are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best sources are from early musllims if you reject some of those valuable sources then why even question a man who had a huge influence on peoples lives??

 

Aren't they in fact the ONLY sources? (Genuine question.) And it isn't even as if all the Muslims in Mecca and Medina wrote the history - it was written by the few people who inherited control of a massively successful religion and rapidly growing state.

 

Also study the non muslims comments about Prophet Mohammed see what they have to say about his character and what he was bringing.

 

Are there any which do not rely on Muslim sources?

 

 

I dont know if your trying to be insulting here of if your honestly giving your opinion, because you say that you don’t accept things for face value by other muslims yet you use early reports by early muslims and you corrupt it by saying that he was a man of leisure who travelled?? This is wrong He was a working man and so good at his job that he became the General manager of Kadijjahs business and she married him and he still worked hard he wasn’t a man of leisure he was a man who worked and his travelling was for the business not for play.

 

Yep, his travel as for business. Meeting Pagans, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, maybe Hindus from a wide range of cultures and intellectual traditions was not 'play'. But it did give him the opportunity to learn.

 

the science of the Greeks and their philosophy were lost these were the dark ages.

 

The 'Dark Ages' was a phenomenon associated with the Roman Catholic Church and the old Western Roman Empire. The so-called Eastern Roman Empire (ie Constaninople) continued. There was no 'Dark Ages' in the old Greek-influenced centres of earning, nor in India, nor in Persia.

 

Because if that genius never came we would still be in the dark ages, imagine doing calculus with roman numerals lol Einstein would never have been if it wasn’t for Mohammad the genius. And most geniuses have people who work with them closely people who the rely on, but the genius himself is the smart one but they always work closely with other intelligent people.

 

'We' as in people of the western European tradition might not have had a rennaissance hen we did, but the great intellectual traditions of India, China, the Eastern Mediterranean, etc did not need one.

 

edit - but I'm not denying that Islamic expansion shook things up and helped western European learning. I'm denying that any of this is any proof that the Koran was dictated by a god.

Edited by wattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would we judge whether the Quran is more eloquent? And, to be frank, I fear that someone may very well need to call upon their courage to make such a claim, if not from the intimidating eloquence of the Quran, than at least from the intimidating zealotry of some who would seek to defend the honor of the Quran.

 

I understand the idea behind your theory, but wasn't height of Christendom and its influence long after the corruption? This would seem to mitigate against such a theory. The corruption, as far as I can tell, would have had to have occurred fairly early in Christian history, since there is fairly good documentation later on for the continuity of the script.

 

But who would arbitrate this contest? The problem of such a challenge is that I doubt either of you would be able to agree upon an arbitrator, and even if you did manage this, the losing party would certainly not accept the verdict (well, actually, I doubt there is any real compulsion felt by the non-religious to be right on this matter, but I think it would be difficult to impossible for a Muslim to admit error here, since it is an article of belief in the Islamic faith).

 

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000003089 StartFragment:0000000451 EndFragment:0000003073 As I have discussed in earlier posts, the challenge was made by the Quran 1400 years ago. The challenge was to produce even a single sura 'the like of it'. Though Wattle disputes it, the early Arabs were unable to do so. They did try - Musaylima the Liar was a notable person who tried to produce a verse which he claimed was also from Allah. But the Arabs were skilled in rhetoric and eloquence and could easily show, using objective criteria, that Musaylima's verse had nothing of the quality of the Quran's verses.

 

Today, scholars of Arabic rhetoric can use objective criteria to judge the relative quality of various prose. Non-Muslim scholars of Arabic unanimously agree that the Quran is the best Arabic prose in existence. These same scholars could judge the relative quality of any new contenders.

 

The challenge remains open. If any writing could be produced that is better than or even equal to the Quran in terms of eloquence, the Quran could be defeated.

 

You see, no human writer in their right mind would make the claim that their work was, ever and anon, unbeatable. By doing so they open themselves up to ridicule should someone, one day, beat their work. But the Quran's author is not a man, but Allah. Only Allah could make such a claim without fear of being discredited.

 

Again, those who dispute the claim that the Quran is unmatchable, have the onus of proving it. To paraphrase from the Quran, 'bring the like of it, if what you say is true'. The arguments here can be stated as follows.

 

1. The Quran is of extraordinary and superior eloquence.

 

2. This eloquence is beyond human ability to match.

 

Conclusion: The Quran is not the word of man.

 

You say that the non-religious and non-Muslims have no requirement, or perhaps no impetus, to show that the Quran's eloquence can be matched. But it seems disingenuous make such a claim. Whereas the means for attempting to disprove Premise 2 is freely available, you claim there is no need to avail oneself of it. So by default, you lose the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of 'beating' a piece of literature is foreign to English-speaking writers and I assume to most writers. I really don't understand what it might involve. Chaucer was a great poet. TS Eliot was a great poet. Could Chaucer have written a better 'Eliot' poem than Eliot? No, impossible - Eliot had the advantage of 700 years of development of language, philosophy, etc. Does that mean that Eliot's poems 'beat' Chaucer's? No. Could Eliot have written a better 'Chaucer' poem than Chaucer? No, because Eliot was not Chaucer. Moreover, why would Eliot *want* to try to write like someone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't they in fact the ONLY sources? (Genuine question.) And it isn't even as if all the Muslims in Mecca and Medina wrote the history - it was written by the few people who inherited control of a massively successful religion and rapidly growing state.

 

Where are you from wattle?? Well im from America and guess what its not the Chinese who record our history it is Americans that are responsible for recording Americas history. You want to know about american history then majority of all of your sources is going to come from Americans or those who studied in america. How would you know anything about the history of the Presidents of the united states if you dont ask an american or study its history that was recorded by americans. I can guarantee that where ever you are from that your history is recorded by the inhabitants of that place. So if you would deny listing to muslim sources because they were muslim then you might as well deny your own history. Being a muslim was just like how people go to america to become american, they saw a better way of life and went to become a muslim, so amongst the thousands that were entering into Islam you had people that had a vast amount of skills, scientist, historians, poets, ect ect. Muslims who studied Islam the Quran and the life example of Prophet Mohammed were the ones who helped to preserve the Islamic history the same as how citizens with good knowledge and important positions of other countries including yours helped to write their history.

 

Are there any which do not rely on Muslim sources?

 

The holocaust relies on Jewish sources right? Egyption history relies what the egyptions preserved right? Greek on what the greeks preserved right?romans on what the romans preserved right? And Islam on what the muslims preserved. whats the problem i dont get what your saying here.

 

 

 

Yep, his travel as for business. Meeting Pagans, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, maybe Hindus from a wide range of cultures and intellectual traditions was not 'play'. But it did give him the opportunity to learn.

 

Now your rewriting a history of Mohammed by assuming and guessing this is wrong. Yes there were these religions around but Mohammed was known as a man not to be involved in ANY of these religions, he never studied Christianity Jewdaism none of these or even paganism none of these he studied. Did he know about them ... of course he did but your here on an Islamic forum and your very intelligent but does that mean that you know Islam. Here you are surrounded by muslims and you dont know the Quran you dont know how to read and get the message out of the Quran. So if your life is written can a person truly say that wattle studied the Quran and he came to some of his thinking because he studied the Islam. We who know you would say no he knows about Islam but he is not a student of Islam. Now if you start to recite arabic and start to recite the whole Quran with understanding and you start to bring about a worldly change for mankind and you say that God is teaching you, then we would look at your life, and see that you are an illeterate in scriptural knowledge, and next we would look at your character, i think your smart enough to see where im going with this...

 

The 'Dark Ages' was a phenomenon associated with the Roman Catholic Church and the old Western Roman Empire. The so-called Eastern Roman Empire (ie Constaninople) continued. There was no 'Dark Ages' in the old Greek-influenced centres of earning, nor in India, nor in Persia.

 

Then what do you call the ages that the world was in before Islam came... History and not just Islamic history calls it the dark ages

 

'We' as in people of the western European tradition might not have had a rennaissance hen we did, but the great intellectual traditions of India, China, the Eastern Mediterranean, etc did not need one.

 

Im sorry this is false if Islam did not come these people would still be in the dark ages, you cant possible believe that these places would have survived if Islam didnot come. Islam is what helped to change the violent behaviour of Gangus khans son or was it his grandson?? Anyway Islam brought the WORLD out of the dark ages that is a known fact, why am i even arguing this point to you you know this.

 

edit - but I'm not denying that Islamic expansion shook things up and helped western European learning. I'm denying that any of this is any proof that the Koran was dictated by a god.

 

OH come on man, It id more than shake things up it helped the whole world, western learnig would be nothing without Prophet Mohammed and the Quran, take away the Quran an Mohammad 1400 years ago and we plunge into darkness, no computers i could go on and on no electricity ect ect.. Now if Mohammed gives credit to God and no one else then why should we believe otherwise, a man this honest in character if it was another person or people that helped him why wouldnt he say it was other people. In fact it would have been sooooooooo much easier for him to say that he got help from other people why would he suffer death and his family being persecuted and his friends being beating daily when he could have just said i got this from so and so. Im pretty sure if you cheated on a test and your teacher tourtured you and your family you would admit that you cheated as smart as you are yoo know that to save your family you would admit what you done. So why would a man go through all of this to protect a lie??? Now if what he brought didnt help anybody and did nothing and he said that he got something from God then id be a little suspicious of him, however look at what he brought and what he done and he says that he got it from God what other man do you know who did the same thing and suffered the way he did by saying this if he was truthful then what point would it make to lie??

And how many geniuses that you know of that have been influential in this world for the benifit humanity are considered liars??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The holocaust relies on Jewish sources right? Egyption history relies what the egyptions preserved right? Greek on what the greeks preserved right?romans on what the romans preserved right? And Islam on what the muslims preserved. whats the problem i dont get what your saying here.

Actually, there is non-Jewish sources for the holocaust, both from Germans and those parties that liberated them from the Germans. There are also varying degrees of confirmation for the other examples you mentioned (one that immediately comes to mind is a Greek account of a mercenary who took part in the Babylonian sacking of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, there is non-Jewish sources for the holocaust, both from Germans and those parties that liberated them from the Germans.

 

Yes i know but that would be german history and those other parties history, as far as jewish history is concerned it is the Jews that would document that and are responsible for the preservation of their history. But i understand what your saying.

 

 

 

There are also varying degrees of confirmation for the other examples you mentioned (one that immediately comes to mind is a Greek account of a mercenary who took part in the Babylonian sacking of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.)

 

oh yes thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<!-- [at]page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } What a silly challenge: I couldn't produce the like of any great novel. But I do not see why you think that because one particular book in Arabic is better than all the other books in Arabic it therefore follows that it was written by a god. If that was the case, the best book in any language would have to have been written by a god.

 

The challenge is not from me to you. It is from the Quran to all of humanity. And I say that nobody can match it. Not simply because it is the best book in Arabic, but because it beyond human ability to match it. That's why I can say it comes from Allah.

 

The concept of 'beating' a piece of literature is foreign to English-speaking writers and I assume to most writers. I really don't understand what it might involve. Chaucer was a great poet. TS Eliot was a great poet. Could Chaucer have written a better 'Eliot' poem than Eliot? No, impossible - Eliot had the advantage of 700 years of development of language, philosophy, etc. Does that mean that Eliot's poems 'beat' Chaucer's? No. Could Eliot have written a better 'Chaucer' poem than Chaucer? No, because Eliot was not Chaucer. Moreover, why would Eliot *want* to try to write like someone else?

 

The fact is that with most aspects of human endeavour, there will always be examples that are the 'best' or 'worst', when compared to all other examples of their kind. Why do we even remember the likes of Chaucer and Eliot? It is because they were among are 'best' in terms of English literature. The same could be said of countless other names in countless other fields, such as Einstein and Hawking in physics for example. But what sets the Quran apart is not simply the fact that it is the 'best' in its field, but that it is the best by so much, that it will always remain the best - by far. No other work of eloquence will ever encroach upon its superiority. This has remained the case for 1400 years and will remain the case for ever.

 

Now, if the Quran was the work of man, we could not rationally make such a claim. After all, a man could come along, even in 10,000 years, and write something better. Men can always be beaten by other men (or women, dare I say!). But the Quran is not the work of man. Indeed, it is beyond the ability of man.

 

The only way to disprove this claim is to produce a superior book written by man. No one needs to actually set out to 'beat' the Quran. They need only write in the normal course of events. If a book ever emerges that, upon an unbiased evaluation by experts in the field, is found to be superior to the Quran, the challenge would be met.

 

However, it seems that the Quran's present detractors are unwilling to even accept the challenge. If this is the case, they have no grounds to say, "The Quran is not the word of God". They can only say, "I don't care whether the Quran is the word of God" or in agnostic vein, "We can never know whether it's the word of God"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I say that nobody can match it. Not simply because it is the best book in Arabic, but because it beyond human ability to match it. That's why I can say it comes from Allah.

How would you evaluate someone's attempt to write better than the Quran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would you evaluate someone's attempt to write better than the Quran?

 

 

"A miracle is defined as “events which lie outside the productive capacity of natureâ€. The argument posed by Muslim Theologians and Philosophers is that if, with the finite set of Arabic linguistic tools at humanity’s disposal, i.e the finite grammatical rules and the twenty eight letters that make-up the Arabic language ,there has been no effective challenge to try and imitate the Qur'an, then providing a naturalistic explanation for the Qur’an’s uniqueness is not sufficient. This is because the natural capacity of any author is able to produce the varying expressions known in the Arabic language. The development of an entirely unique expression is beyond the scope of the productive nature of any author, hence a supernatural entity, God, is the only sufficient comprehensive explanation."

 

 

You can read more about the challenge here: (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 yettheinimitablequran(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/uniquelitform.pdf"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yettheinimitablequran(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/uniquelitform.pdf[/url]

 

ard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there has been no effective challenge to try and imitate the Qur'an

But how do you know that? What is the criteria you are using to make such an assessment?

 

This is because the natural capacity of any author is able to produce the varying expressions known in the Arabic language. The development of an entirely unique expression is beyond the scope of the productive nature of any author, hence a supernatural entity, God, is the only sufficient comprehensive explanation."

And honestly, how can you call it a challenge when you have determined before hand who the winner is? You can't use the superior eloquence of the Quran as a proof of its divine origins when the belief in its superior eloquence is an article of faith? Anyone who denies it would simply be dismissed as a liar or spiritually blind, and so it is an argument founded on circular logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But how do you know that? What is the criteria you are using to make such an assessment?

 

And honestly, how can you call it a challenge when you have determined before hand who the winner is? You can't use the superior eloquence of the Quran as a proof of its divine origins when the belief in its superior eloquence is an article of faith? Anyone who denies it would simply be dismissed as a liar or spiritually blind, and so it is an argument founded on circular logic.

 

You have misunderstood the argument. It is quite possible to judge the relative quality of various writings on an objective basis. I am not a scholar of rhetoric nor an authority on literature. But I can still form an opinion on the matter on the advice of scholars in the field. Numerous non-Muslim authorities on Arabic attest to the Quran's superiority (at least in Arabic):

 

I have been at pains to study the intricate and richly varied rhythms which - apart from the message itself - constitute the Koran's undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest literary masterpieces of mankind..." - Arthur Arberry.

 

“It is by far the finest work of Arabic prose in existence.†- Alan Jones.

 

"Its style, in accordance with its contents and aim is stern, grand, terrible - ever and anon truly sublime - thus this book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent influence." - Goethe.

 

If there was ever a general consensus among scholars of Arabic that some new book met or excelled the Quran, the challenge would be met. The Quran would begin to lose influence rather than gain it. Islam would be discredited and eventually, discarded. This would happen regardless of any dogmatism or blind faith on the part of Muslims.

 

However, what we instead see is that the Quran is, and always has been, regarded as the most eloquent Arabic writing in existence by Arabic scholars of all persuasion. We see that this literary masterpiece gains influence at an increasing rate, among people of all languages and cultures. We see that the passage of time, 1400 years of it, has done nothing to diminish the Quran's superiority. In short, the Quran is inimitable, is beyond the ability of man to match and is therefore the Word of Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have misunderstood the argument. It is quite possible to judge the relative quality of various writings on an objective basis.

No, I haven't misunderstood the argument. You do not judge the relative quality of anything on an objective basis, for if you had objective basis for judging, it would not be relative.

 

But I can still form an opinion on the matter on the advice of scholars in the field.

No one is disputing your ability to form opinions on the matter.

 

I have been at pains to study the intricate and richly varied rhythms which - apart from the message itself - constitute the Koran's undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest literary masterpieces of mankind..." - Arthur Arberry.

No one is disputing it is a literary masterpiece, although the Arberry quote is unfortunate in that it attributes that masterpiece to mankind. Nevertheless, it, like the other quotes, is still an opinion, and should we compare it to opinions about the Bible and other major world religion literature, not a terribly uncommon one at that.

 

If there was ever a general consensus among scholars of Arabic that some new book met or excelled the Quran, the challenge would be met.

And how would that challenge be met when the majority of arabic scholars would be culturally, if not explicitly, muslim, and so would have a commitment to the idea that the Quran is of superior eloquence, and the rest of arabic scholars can be either quoted in support by merely saying it is a very good piece of literature (as the above quotes have done), cowed into silence from fear of fanatical retribution for holding blasphemous opinions, or dismissed as crackpots or ideologues committed to an anti-islamic ideology?

 

However, what we instead see is that the Quran is, and always has been, regarded as the most eloquent Arabic writing in existence by Arabic scholars of all persuasion. We see that this literary masterpiece gains influence at an increasing rate, among people of all languages and cultures. We see that the passage of time, 1400 years of it, has done nothing to diminish the Quran's superiority. In short, the Quran is inimitable, is beyond the ability of man to match and is therefore the Word of Allah.

No, what we see is the general consensus forming around the belief that the Quran ranks among the greatest of religious literature, and so deserving of high accolade, even as other great religious literature has received. I'm sorry, but you continue to make leaps of logic in this defense of yours that are only possible due to your commitment to the idea being propounded. It is the leap from world class literature to divine, from great to greatest. And still, I am left ignorant of what standard you are using to make that leap, to make the determination of greatest, and "beyond mortal ability". It is an inherently subjective and volatile thing you are bandying about, and yet you continue to want to portray it as objective truth. That leap can only be made with the aid of divine intervention, and so far, God hasn't helped me see the light on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And how would that challenge be met when the majority of arabic scholars would be culturally, if not explicitly, muslim, and so would have a commitment to the idea that the Quran is of superior eloquence, and the rest of arabic scholars can be either quoted in support by merely saying it is a very good piece of literature (as the above quotes have done), cowed into silence from fear of fanatical retribution for holding blasphemous opinions, or dismissed as crackpots or ideologues committed to an anti-islamic ideology?

 

Might i suggest that you study arabic?? The only way that it would not be cowered into silence by yourself. If you a non muslim studys arabic then give your opinion on it. There have been many non muslims who have studied arabic and have given a good good opinion of it and list it as a very special writing non that the arabic world has ever seen before. Its like somebody comming to us and making english sound 100% better than it does right now by structuring words in a particular order and helping humanity at the same time.

 

 

No, what we see is the general consensus forming around the belief that the Quran ranks among the greatest of religious literature, and so deserving of high accolade, even as other great religious literature has received. I'm sorry, but you continue to make leaps of logic in this defense of yours that are only possible due to your commitment to the idea being propounded. It is the leap from world class literature to divine, from great to greatest. And still, I am left ignorant of what standard you are using to make that leap, to make the determination of greatest, and "beyond mortal ability". It is an inherently subjective and volatile thing you are bandying about, and yet you continue to want to portray it as objective truth. That leap can only be made with the aid of divine intervention, and so far, God hasn't helped me see the light on the matter.

 

Ok look a maths scholar would tell you that life is all about math, and that if you understood math then you would understand life much better. However if you never take the time to study math then all that he says will continue to be refuted until you give him a fair shake and study math. The standard from world class to divine is Prophet Mohammed and his life example thats it! We believe that he was a man of great character and was an honest man who never lied, and he was a man who was amongst the arab world who they knew for 40 years. They knew him from a baby till he was forty(the time when he said he recieved revelation of the Quran) He was not known to speak with such eloquence or with any divine or classy speech, that was the type of speech that was spoken from highly educated poets and governmental figures back then not from people who grew up in the dessert.

 

And then all of a sudden out of no where here comes Mohammad not only reciting beautiful words but he is reciting this in a way thats way above any class literature this is was in a class all by its self. The best way i could describe it to you being that you dont speak or study arabic is to just imagine a song that you like that has rhythm and it rhymes perfectly. Everybody has a singer a band or a rapper that they like that they favor. But every now and then there comes on the music scene a singer, a band or a rapper that blows us away and they are far better than any singer or rapper lyrically and with their beats than any other rapper or singer or band that we have heard before. Lets look at Micheal Jackson his music and lyrics still last even today and some say how can a man have such a huge effect on a mass amount of people. And Micheal Jackson gave his thanks to God and there are many more singers like this. Now do we question if his songs were divinly inspired by God?? Because thats who he says he is thankful to for his inspiration. But when his songs come on you get caught up in that spirit and its a spirit that came to a man that gives credit to God for his music. But how many people call MJ a liar and say that his music is not inspired from God???

 

Now Micheal Jackson character is in no way a comparason to Prophet Mohammeds but Mohammed came with a Message that rocked the whole arabic speaking world it left them in awe and speechless whenever they heard its recital with rhthym and rhymes and a message for the betterment of humanity and it had a huge effect on people. Now Mohammad said that he got the Quran from God which is why these words are so divine now its up to you as an individual to either accept that Mohammed is not a liar and he did or you reject it and through your rejection you question his character.

 

But be advised once you decide to reject it you are then calling Mohammed a liar then your charater comes into play we then put your character up against Mohammeds character and if your character is better than Mohammeds character then people will listen to you. And Mohammed was known by non muslims as the truthful one, that was his nickname, even after he started to preach the message of the Quran people still trusted him with their goods... So is Mohammed a liar when he said he got this from God? Is it divine or is it all a lie. You answer that. Now if you dont believe Mohammed then what is your judgment based off of, for you not to believe a man who never told a lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Might i suggest that you study arabic??

You might, but your suggestion indicates that you have missed the point of my objection.

The only way that it would not be cowered into silence by yourself.

You do know that there are fanatics that threaten to kill people which in their view besmirch the name and honor of your prophet. I think that this would be sufficient for some to keep them silent on opinions that might be viewed negatively within the Islamic community, wouldn't you think?

 

But here is my point. It isn't about arabic, but logic. There is no way for us to settle this question in an objective fashion. I could learn arabic, but what would you do if I didn't like the Quran anyway. What if I was prejudice against its concepts and precepts? It could come across to me as a primitive and barbaric book. And that would be an opinion, just like your opinion that it is sublime in its beauty and wisdom. And we would lack any way of settling the difference because neither of these is based on objectivity, but rather our subjective experience of the text.

 

Ok look a maths scholar would tell you that life is all about math, and that if you understood math then you would understand life much better. However if you never take the time to study math then all that he says will continue to be refuted until you give him a fair shake and study math.

No, because I have already made clear that I have no way of refuting him, because my experience does not refute his, at least not on something as inherently subjectively individualistic as what constitutes the meaning of life, precisely because we supply that meaning. Nevertheless, I probably wouldn't argue with him simply because I agree that a more knowledgeable approach generally leads to a more enriched life. And I am sure that if I did learn Arabic, that I would appreciate it, and not just for the beauty of the Quran, but for the richness of all its literature. Again, you seem to have misunderstood my argument if you think this is somehow pertinent.

 

The standard from world class to divine is Prophet Mohammed and his life example thats it! We believe that he was a man of great character and was an honest man who never lied, and he was a man who was amongst the arab world who they knew for 40 years.

But that is your standard, not mine, and those are your beliefs, not mine. I am aware of your beliefs on this matter, and I respect them, but what non-arabic study I have done of Islam hasn't convinced me of its merits that I would feel compelled to take on the task of learning arabic. My question is why should I do this? I have had reasons for learning the other languages I have studied, things that motivated me to take on the difficulties of the task at hand. I lack such motivation for arabic, and to date Islam has not supplied me with those motivations. Your protestations do nothing but demonstrate a difference of opinion between us, nothing more.

 

But be advised once you decide to reject it you are then calling Mohammed a liar then your charater comes into play we then put your character up against Mohammeds character and if your character is better than Mohammeds character then people will listen to you. And Mohammed was known by non muslims as the truthful one, that was his nickname, even after he started to preach the message of the Quran people still trusted him with their goods... So is Mohammed a liar when he said he got this from God? Is it divine or is it all a lie. You answer that. Now if you dont believe Mohammed then what is your judgment based off of, for you not to believe a man who never told a lie?

And here we go again with the problem I have already mentioned. How could I reject the eloquence of the Quran without rejecting Mohammed and the God he purported to be hearing from? And so I would already be called into question. It is a problem that produces only one result because alternate outcomes are rejected out of hand as the product of defective character. Why would I examine the issue knowing that if I came to a conclusion which differed from your that this would happen? I can see no reason to even invest myself in such an endeavor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do know that there are fanatics that threaten to kill people which in their view besmirch the name and honor of your prophet. I think that this would be sufficient for some to keep them silent on opinions that might be viewed negatively within the Islamic community, wouldn't you think?

 

Well if you wish to soil a mans name and character thats loved by over 1 billion people amongst whom there are some fanatical crazy ones then you would be a fool.

 

But here is my point. It isn't about arabic, but logic. There is no way for us to settle this question in an objective fashion. I could learn arabic, but what would you do if I didn't like the Quran anyway. What if I was prejudice against its concepts and precepts? It could come across to me as a primitive and barbaric book. And that would be an opinion, just like your opinion that it is sublime in its beauty and wisdom. And we would lack any way of settling the difference because neither of these is based on objectivity, but rather our subjective experience of the text.

 

All of which is irrealetive this has nothing to do with anything. If you want to know any thing in this life you have to study it plain and simple. The Quran is all about the arabic if you want to really see what is being said then you should study the arabic . Othrerwise you would be speaking ignorantly when speaking on the Quran. Its like a man who denies gravity exists and argues without studying science such one is considered and ignorant fool, however if one studies then one has the ear of other scientist. Likewise if you studied arabic and then started to say what you have to say you WOULD be listened to. But if you just guess and make assumptions then its like having a conversation with a stubborn ignorant donkey.

 

No, because I have already made clear that I have no way of refuting him, because my experience does not refute his, at least not on something as inherently subjectively individualistic as what constitutes the meaning of life, precisely because we supply that meaning. Nevertheless, I probably wouldn't argue with him simply because I agree that a more knowledgeable approach generally leads to a more enriched life. And I am sure that if I did learn Arabic, that I would appreciate it, and not just for the beauty of the Quran, but for the richness of all its literature. Again, you seem to have misunderstood my argument if you think this is somehow pertinent.

 

No misunderstanding to learn arabic is very pertinent.

 

But that is your standard, not mine, and those are your beliefs, not mine. I am aware of your beliefs on this matter, and I respect them, but what non-arabic study I have done of Islam hasn't convinced me of its merits that I would feel compelled to take on the task of learning arabic. My question is why should I do this? I have had reasons for learning the other languages I have studied, things that motivated me to take on the difficulties of the task at hand. I lack such motivation for arabic, and to date Islam has not supplied me with those motivations. Your protestations do nothing but demonstrate a difference of opinion between us, nothing more.

 

Well sad clown you wish to know more of the Quran ?You wish to know how is this considered divine and from God, the only thing that i can tell you is to study th arabic language in order to read the Quran for yourself. If you dont wish to study the language then you shouldnt ask questions about the validity of the Book comming from God. Scholars(not muslim) have taken on the task of studying the arabic in order to study the Quran to see what merits it brings, but if your not compelled to take on that task then why are you compelled in arguing against it without even studying the object that you are arguing against.

 

And here we go again with the problem I have already mentioned. How could I reject the eloquence of the Quran without rejecting Mohammed and the God he purported to be hearing from? And so I would already be called into question. It is a problem that produces only one result because alternate outcomes are rejected out of hand as the product of defective character. Why would I examine the issue knowing that if I came to a conclusion which differed from your that this would happen? I can see no reason to even invest myself in such an endeavor.

 

 

Oh man come on if you go out publicly and shame someboy then your character is out there as well to be judged plain and simple. Like a man calling another man a fornicator but he himself cheats on his wife, you call on anybodies character then yours automatically comes into question. If i called you an idiot who cant spell then you would automatically look at my words that i have misspelled and you would quickly pass judgement and say well look at this you must be an idiot as well. So that argument that you put forth holds no merit. You say that Mohammed didnt get it from God then you are questioning Mohammeds character, ok cool now let us examine your character. I dont want to hear nothing from a person who is a liar, a sexual deviant, an evil person, if you call Mohammed a liar then your character better be outstanding to do such a thing. But you know what every body who has studied his life has spoken highly of him and never called him a liar and their character is never called in to account because they dont make up lies about his character. You should just say that Hey i dont wish to accept what Mohammed brought im comfortable being ignorant of the arabic yes he was a truthful man but i myself, i am not moved into believing that there is a God or that the Quran is a book from God. I am comfotable in my ignorance and my small understanding of Islam and the Quran and arabic and i am not compelled to further educate myself in it.

Just be honest man nobody wants to try and convince you you have to study yourself and come to an understanding for your self. My statement to you is just dont be an idiot, if you wish to deny something then i would think a study on that which you are dening should be done have some proof. Not assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×