Submitted by Plato (United Arab Emirates), Jan 22, 2007 at 02:36
Greetings Sister Basimah,
You start off your response by rating my comments as "rants". Dictionary.com gives this meaning of rant: " to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave "
You write: "What my young friend is trying to tell you is that everything is clear in the Koran when you need answers - which is correct - to those who can read arabic. The english translation goes a long way to be desired because arabic is very difficult to translate into english."
What you are saying is everything is clear in the Koran to "those who can read Arabic." You also say that Arabic is very difficult to translate into English (also presumably other languages). So what does one base one's faith on if one cannot read Arabic and and translations are poor replicas of the original. On the say so of a native Arabic speaker? Why should one be so naive as to believe something written in an alien language. You know the Koran also says that it is not meant for non-Arabic speakers. Read: 014.004 : "We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom. "
Is it not clearly saying (unless the translation is really, really poor) that messengers are sent only in people's own languages so that the message is clear. This is very logical since God has the power to do so. Why should the Arabs come and tell me that the messager that came to them is the only true one as the Koran itself says messages are sent in the local languages? God or anyone else cannot claim that only the one in Arabic is valid because he has ensured that it will be uncorrupted. Why did he not ensure the ones in other languages were not lost or corrupted. That would be sheer bias on Allah's part towards the Arabs. And would you like to comment on "Now Allah leaves straying those whom he pleases...." There are many more verses where it is clear that the Koran is meant for the Arabs (28:75, 13:8, 35:24).
And as you yourself say:" The Koran (or Quran - The Reading) was sent by God to the Arabic nations thru the Prophet Muhammad (peace be unto him) to cease their idolating and worship ONLY the One God." Why should we non-Arabs practice Islam? Can you please answer this.
You claim: "Very few non-Muslims (including you) cannot see thru the repetitive Koranic statements in english as being "uncut" from the original Reading that the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon HIm) was sent from God thru the Angel Gabriel and therefore uncorrupted." Why can't we non-Muslims see thru this. Is it because as Allah says: "018.057 : ..... Verily We have set veils over their hearts lest they should understand this, and over their ears, deafness, if thou callest them to guidance, even then will they never accept guidance. " Surely then we will never be able to see through this as Allah himself has ensured we cannot.
You write: "I will not debate what, please research for yourself and see as I did." I did some research and what I find is that the Koran has got many things wrong about the Bible, including who was Mary's brother, the trinity and so on. As to your saying the Bible is corrupted can you show me any ayat in the Koran which says so? All I can recollect is the Koran saying that the Christians and Jews having hidden some of the material of the injeel and taurat, not they have corrupted them. And it is logical too. For how can god's words be corrupted, whether revealed in Hebrew or any other languages as it will be immediately obvious. God's words will stand out clear from any human corruption!
You state: "Their Koran may be repetitive and maybe out of order chronologically as sent to the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) , but at least it isnt rewritten nor edited". Your research would also have told you that diacritical marks were put in about 60-70 years AH. Is it not rewriting. Why were several other recensions of the Koran burnt by Othman? Is it not a kind of editing?
To quote you again: "Being soft-spoken around the Prophet (pbuh) is a sign of respect and the Prophet (pbuh) and His family further retrospected that doing so to others is the greatest compliment and respect ul gesture you can give to one another." You don't seem to have followed my train of thought. Why are the verses in the Koran when the prophet is long gone if it is a book relevant for all times. Those verses are specific to the Prophet, otherwise there would have been a general admonition. You have no comment about the verses specific to the wives and about giving charity to the prophet. These verses are totally irrelevant today.
I had raised several important points in my messages to Mr. Fikri. You have not touched on any of them. Why should there be only one god. Why cannot god have children and partners/helpers. Merely saying the Koran says so is circular reasoning.
I also gave the example of two totally mindless verses, Surah 95 and Surah 111. You say nothing about them. Since you are here to help your friend, please do.to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave: The demagogue ranted for hours." Would you care to point out which portion of my post is extravagant, violent, wild and vehement?
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".
Reader comments (1084) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes