69 million page views

Teaching one Sufi at a time

Reader comment on item: Islamism 2.0
in response to reader comment: Truly Uninspiring

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Dec 5, 2009 at 09:44

Our dear Sufi and the topos of "oh it is all about the context" when his Arab masters have no clue what this opaque revelation is really saying

>Plato Your conclusions are deeply flawed.

Really? We shall see

>You quoted the Quran out of context and apply your deduction to the entire Quran.

Oh the context thing. Hello: "the Qur'an is text with no context." And it ain't no history book either. We do not even know what it says and an example would be Q4:29 that you just quoted as you shall see below

And where are a few examples:

1. What does the word ilaf (the most celebrated strange word in the Qur'an or the so called ghareeb al-Qur'an) in surat Quraish mean? And how can we understand your bogus "context" of let us say surat Quriash if we cannot understand a single word that means a lot in the mind of the author of this sura and a word that no one back then or now have a clue what it really means you tell us ya ayuha al-falyasoof al-kabeer and do you know what this means?It means that tafseer wa ta'weel surat Quraish is all bogus and it is all guessing

2. In surat al-fatiha and the rasm of the word MLK was read as Maaliki (the owner of) in the Cairo Qur'an and was also read as maliki (the king of) in the Tunisian Qur'an and Muhammad must have heard it as one or the other and it could not have been both. Do you know what this very simple example means? It means that we really do not know what the Qur'an really says

3. In surat al-tahreem the first few verses have no meaning but if we turn to let us say Tabari we read about a little drama in Abul Qasim's little abode and about a certain Mariyya al-Qibtiyya ( a name that you will not find in the Qur'an) but if you turn to Ibn Kathir you get another story about Abul Qasim eating some bad 3asl nahl (oh I do not translate Arabic for wannabe Arabs like you) and he had bad breath and this bad breath made his wives angry! So much for Quranic drivel

So you see it is either there was indeed a Mariyya al-Qibtiyya or Abul Qasim ate some bad 3asl nahl and he had bad breath and it cannot be both! So which one is it? So much for the bogus "context."

For the readers the Muslim Ulama 300 years after the death of Muhammad that were sitting in distant Mesopotamia and Iran trying to figure out what this opaque revelation that is written in the basic defective rasm with no short and at times long vowles and no shadda or hamza realized that they really do not know what the Qur'an really says so the solutions were as follows:

1. Create asbab al-nuzul or reasons for revelations as in the case of surat al-tahreem and this is our dear Sufi's little Paki context

2. And if they did not disagree as in most cases then they came up with the celebrated saying:

al-tafseer lel sahaba wa al-ta'weel lel fuqaha/ulama

In other words it is all guessing

3. And when things just did not make any sense as in the case of Q2:256 or ayat la ikrah fi al-deen or the no complusion in religion versus ayat al-sayf or the infamous Q9:5 they came up with the funny and bizarre al-nasikh wa al-mansukh or abrogation

4. But the doctrine of abrogation dictated that the Ulama had to establish a sequence of the various chapters of this opaque revelation et voila surat al-tauba or chapter 9 which is the most violent must be the last revealed sura and this way Q9:5 would abrogate Q2:256

5. The next and most painful fact faced by the ulama was the fact that the Qur'an is full of mistakes in grammar (eg: ina hadhan la sahiran) and mistakes in spelling (al-RHMN) and mistakes in syntax (Q79:30 and ma3a v. da3da as per Muqatil) and the way out of this mess is the celebrated saying by 3A'isha

hadha 3amalu al-kuttab 'akhta'u fi al-kitab

Where she blames the scribes for any grammatical or spelling mistakes or any mistakes in syntax in the Qur'an

But do you know what this means? It means we do not have Allah's so called copy of al-lawh al-mahfooz

So much for the perfect Qur'an

6. Oh that is not all if we turn to surat al-ruum we read

ghulibat al-ruum blah....blah....blah wa ba3da ghalabihim sayaghlibuna

Oh the Romans (read this as the greeks) were defeated blah...blah...blah...and after their defeat they will defeat

Well the problem here is Allah's rasm or his words (assuming that the masorites got the right nuqat) is


Now here is real history in 616 CE the Persians defeated the Greeks and the Greeks defeated the Persians in 627CE and the Greeks were defeated by the invading Arabs in 633CE! \

Now notice that

1. You will not find the word al-majus or the Persians in the above verses

2. You will not find the fact that the Arabs will defeat the Greeks

3. The Ulama realized that this is really strange more so when the above verses can be read (by slight changes in the short vowles without any change in the rasm or Allah's wrods)

ghalabit al-ruum blah....blah....blah...min ba3di ghulbuhum saughlabun

or the Romans (read this as the Greeks) defeated and after their defeating (read this as victory) they were defeated

And this is indeed what happend they defeated the Persians and were defeated by the Arabs

And you see it is either one or the other

So much for Quranic context and so much for the bogus claim by Muslims that the Quran told us in advance that the Greeks will defeat the Persians but the author of the Qur'an forgot to tell us that the Greeks will be dfeated! What a scandal

> I think we can agree that there is no religion in the world whose followers at some point in time have justified their terrible crimes against humanity through their faith.

Really? Then where would i find Buddhsits that justify violence in the name of the Buddha? You will not find them and do you know what this also means? It means that you are saying that if other religions are violent then why not Islam? So is islam violent our dear Sufa the fake?

>The very same chapter in the Quran that you quoted, Chapter 4 (An-Nisaa)

ROTFL it is al-Nisa'

>has the following verse: 4:29 (Yusuf Ali Translation) - O ye who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves in vanities: but let there be amongst you traffic and trade by mutual good-will: nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily Allah hath been to you Most Merciful.

Oh let me guess you cannot read the Arabic right ? And are you aware the Yusuf Ali's translation is a poor translation?

>The verse I have quoted clearly states that suicide is not acceptable.

Wrong it does not clearly states anything and how dare you tell us what it says when you cannot even read Arabic? and let us see here is your Allah's rasm


And the masorites edited your Allah's rasm as follows


or and do not kill one another and this is how al-Tabari (and you and Yusuf Ali ain't Tabari) read it and this is indeed the correct reading here of the word ANFSKM (and the root of the word is NFS) and notice that Allah did not say la tantahiru or do not commit suicide and he did not say la taqtul nafsak or do not kill yourself

So much for your bogus context

> In fact, we are all given a wonderful gift called life.

go and tell the poor Muslims living in the biggest slum in Asia in the city of Karachi that life is wonderful. They will think that you are out of your mind and if they know that you are a Sufi they will shout: kafir kafir

>Just like we don't go around taking other people's gifts, Allah has stated that we are not to take this away from ourselves let alone others. You speak of the Quran as instigating hatred and violence.

Hello: how about ayat al-sayf and how about ayat al-irhab ?

> Yet, using your own words one can conclude that you are instigating hatred against Muslims inside those of us unaware of the teachings of the Quran.

The one who is either in denial or is unaware about what the Qur'an really says seems to be you

> If you have read the Quran as you seem to indicate,

Hello: I can read the Qur'an in Arabic something that you cannot do

> then you should know that you are among the few who have taken the time to do so. For just like in Christianity or Judaism, there are many followers who have not read the words of their Creator. Please be mindful with your words as we all should.

I urge you to stop your delusions and ,learn to read a real book


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 Teaching one Sufi at a time by dhimmi no more

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

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2022 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.)