2 readers online now  |  69 million page views

sTs: Calling other scriptures corrupt is itself a mark of corruption

Reader comment on item: The Enemy Has a Name
in response to reader comment: The church admits that The Bible is corrupt changed book

Submitted by Plato (India), Sep 3, 2008 at 00:52

sTs, you wrote:

>>It is already proven that the bible is corrupt book, even admitted by the churches<<

Your Koran seeks sustenance from the ‘corrupt' Bible and Torah. Without them the Koran itself can be considered corrupt.

What is your definition of corruption? Just being a true copy of a tablet in heaven makes the Koran an uncorrupt book? That is a self-defined definition. To begin with the Koran in your possession is not an exact copy of the original compiled by Abu Bakr/Othman. Go to this website to see what the original Koran looked like: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4581684.stm

You will see that it has no diacritical marks unlike what you possess. So was the Koran not corrupted by later editors???

Is the Koran not corrupt for calling God's creation ‘najees' (9:28)? Is it not corrupt for calling Allah's creation, the Jews, pigs and apes (5:60)? Is the Koran not corrupt for making a trade with Muslims in which they get paradise in exchange for killing or being killed in Allah's cause (9:111)? Is the Koran not corrupt for allowing the collection of booty from defeated people, including their women and children taken as slaves (48:20)? Is the Koran not corrupt for telling Muslims that one of the reasons for collecting ‘zakat' is to bribe unbelievers to accept Islam (9:60)? Is the Koran not corrupt for telling Muslims to collect the jiziya tax from unbelievers and humiliate them in the process (9:29)?

>>It is also proven that the Quran is a miracle book and its text is intact ever since it was revealed on Mohammad<<

The text of Mein Kampf is also intact, so is it a miracle book? What is the use of a book which is transmitted word for word for centuries but its meaning (tafsirs) changes as many times commentators have put pen to paper? If Arab commentators cannot agree on its meaning what hope do Arabic scholars have who translate for the benefit of non-Arabs?

sTs, a real miracle would have been one where everyone who read the Koran got the same sense from the words. The Koran conveys different things to different people. The Muslim terrorists are inspired by the Koran and so are the moderate ones. Allah has been powerless to communicate His message clearly. Allah's claim to sending clear revelations is clearly not true (22:2, 26:192-195)

>>It is also proven that the miracles therein is being proved every day, many scientists are coming to Islam because of it.<<

Name a few scientists who have ‘reverted' to Islam. Among all the Nobel Prize winners how many have become Muslims or are Muslims?

>>The pharaoh's drowning,…<<

Where is the proof that the body lying in the Cairo Museum is of the Pharaoah who chased the jews into the sea?

>> The Pyramids building,…<<

What about it? What about the pyramids of South America?

>> the big bang theory,…<<

Quote the verse that talk of Allah creating the Universe with a big bang. And why would Allah need a big bang when He claims that all he has to do is say BE and it is??

What if tomorrow science discovers that the theory was wrong all along (as so often happens in science) and a new one arises that says the universe began with a whimper? Muslim scholars will then have to scramble to unscramble the mess created by the earlier interpreters who discovered the big bang in the Koran after infidel scientists came up with the theory. Some will suddenly discover that the old interpreters had conspired to defame Islam by misreading the meaning of whimper.

>>the development of the fetus inside the womb,…<<

You got to be kidding. Just a passing reference to a clot, something that clings, or chewed flesh is evidence of developmental biology? What biology was the Koran talking about when it says sperm comes from near the backbone (86:7)? Go to: http://www.quranix.net/ and see how the modern translators realizing the Koran (Muhammad) was way off mark bring in testicles. I think they have cooked up their own meaning to hide what is really in the Koran.

>> the sky and its layers,…<<

Name one scientist who has seen layers in the sky. Haroun Yahya and his spurious science won't do where he claims that the Koran is talking about the arbitrary division of the atmosphere by meteorologists.

>> the expanding universe,…<<

051.047 YUSUFALI: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
PICKTHAL: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).
SHAKIR: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.

51;47 Monotheist Group: And We constructed the universe using matter, and We will expand it

Yedip Yuksel: We constructed the universe with might, and We are expanding it

Muhammad Asad:AND IT IS We who have built the universe31 with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.

Rashad Khalifa: We constructed the sky with our hands, and we will continue to expand it.

sTs, study these seven translations. You see the first three had no idea that scientists will discover an expanding universe. So they faithfully translated it to indicate that the firmament is vast which anyone who is not blind can see is true. When you read the last four translators who translated the Koran after the discovery of an expanding space they dishonestly incorporated it into their work. The Monotheist Group seems even more dishonest than the others by saying that the universe was created using matter and that Allah ‘will expand it'.

You are proud of the fact that the words in the Koran have remained unchanged since its revelation. What use is this so-called miracle when you have the debacle of almost every tafsir/translation giving a different interpretation/meaning?

I do not know Arabic but I am willing to bet that the word ‘matter' does not occur in the verse. (I hope, dhimmi, you can help here). Even if it does, the translator has got it all wrong because the universe has more of non-matter in the form of energy than matter.

Your asking me to google ‘supercomputers simulation of the universe' came in handy. Here is what I found: ….According to the standard cosmological model, the universe consists of about 25 percent dark matter and 70 percent dark energy around 5 percent normal matter, said Burns. Normal matter consists primarily of baryons - hydrogen, helium and heavier elements -- and observations show that about 40 percent of the baryons are currently unaccounted for. Many astrophysicists believe the missing baryons are in the WHIM, Burns said. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206113223.htm)

>> the breath while ascending the sky,….<<

I suppose you are referring to the verse below:

006.125 YUSUFALI: Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe.

Predictably the Koran has again got its science all wrong. As one climbs up into the sky the chest will not constrict but will expand because the pressure inside the lungs will be much greater than the outside. It is when you go deep into the sea that your chest will constrict and will be crushed eventually. What the Koran (Muhammad) is referring to is probably the discomfort one feels when climbing up a steep hillside towards the sky.

>>the darkness inside deep oceans,…<<

What else did you expect the oceans to be at great depths? Did people before Islam think there was a watery sun deep under?

>> the water and the soil,…<<

The earth is made of water and soil. A miracle? LOL.

>> the orbiting sun and moon,…<<

Again the Koran (i.e. Muhammad) has got its science wrong. It is the earth which orbits the sun, and the moon the earth. Muslims claim with a straight face that the orbiting sun refers to its motion in the Milky way. Why does Muhammad (Koran) not talk of the earth's orbit anywhere in the Koran? If it had done so even once that would have been a real miracle.

The Indians knew about the solar system more than a thousand years before the Koran (Muhammad):

According to theosophists, the earliest traces of a counter-intuitive idea that it is the Earth that is actually moving and the Sun that is at the center of the solar system (hence the concept of heliocentrism) is found in several Vedic Sanskrit texts written in ancient India.[2][3] Yajnavalkya (c. 9th–8th century BC) believed that the Sun was "the center of the lokas" as described in the Vedas at the time. In his astronomical text Shatapatha Brahmana, he states:

"The sun is stationed for all time, in the middle of the day. [...] Of the sun, which is always in one and the same place, there is neither setting nor rising."[4]

Some interpret this to mean that the Sun is stationary, hence the Earth is moving around it,[3] though others are less clear about the meanings of the terms.[5] This would be elaborated in a later commentary Vishnu Purana (2.8) (c. 1st century BC).[4]

Yajnavalkya recognized that the Sun was much larger than the Earth, which would have influenced this early heliocentric concept.[2] He also is said to have accurately measured the relative distances of the Sun and the Moon from the Earth as 108 times the respective diameters of these heavenly bodies, close to the modern measurements of 107.6 for the Sun and 110.6 for the Moon.[6] He described an accurate solar calendar in the Shatapatha Brahmana.[6] The Aitareya Brahmana (2.7) (c. 9th–8th century BC) also states:

"The Sun never sets nor rises. When people think the sun is setting, it is not so; they are mistaken. It only changes about after reaching the end of the day and makes night below and day to what is on the other side."[3][5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism)>>

Yajnavalkya has given a far clearer picture of earth, sun and moon than anything that the Koran says with its vague statements.

>>the roundness of the earth,<<

Roundness and being spherical are very different. Anyone can see looking at the horizon that it is round. Where does the Koran say it is spherical, except in the translations of some dishonest translators?

>>the effect of dates and olives on the health,…<<

What about the effect of grains, fruit, vegetables? They are all good for health.

>> the honey and its curing power,…<<

What does it cure? Can it cure diabetes? Can it cure cancer? It has been discovered red wine in moderation also has curative power.

>> the sweet water and the salty water,…<<

You mean the river water and sea water do not mix as the Koran (alias Muhammad) claims? ROTFL. Rivers have been flowing into the sea for millions of years. Into what inexhaustible container has the sweet water disappeared? Here is more evidence of silly science in the Koran. Muhammad (Koran) seems to think that sweet and salt water are entirely different kinds of liquids. This shows that the Koran (alias Allah,Muhammad) does not know that the sweet water in the rivers came from the salty sea.

>> the solar system, the rocket, ......<<

What about them? Does the Koran (alias Muhammad) mention them anywhere?

>>.......... and so on, plus many prophecies.<<

You could have mentioned a few of the prophecies for your readers to consider.

>>A book you will never understand unless you read by your heart.<<

I prefer to read books with my brain/mind rather than my heart. Try doing it and you will get a different picture of Islam.

>>You have 100s of thousands of versions of the bible, different texts and different numbe rof chapters,<<

And Muslims have hundreds of tafsirs (interpretation) of the unchanging words of the Koran. Which tafsir among them do you think is the correct one? Do you prefer unchanging words or unchanging meaning??

>>We have only one book THE HOLY QURAN, never changed from its original form and it is the WORD of GOD<<

What is more important, form or substance? Even if no word in it has changed, i.e its form(in fact it has, as dhimmi has demonstrated several times on this blog) its interpretation/meaning, i.e. substance, has changed over the years. I showed you with the various translations of, 51:47 and 86:7, that in just over a period of 50 years vastly different meanings are given to the verses. The translation changes from ‘the vastness of space' to an ‘expanding' space and from between ‘backbone and ribs' to ‘between spine and testicles'.

What credence can you give to a scripture whose meaning and interpretation keeps changing with time and with the person involved?

Regards Plato


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to sTs: Calling other scriptures corrupt is itself a mark of corruption by Plato

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)