1 readers online now  |  69 million page views

For B. Mustapha: And Muslim apologetics

Reader comment on item: [Pew Poll on] How Muslims Think
in response to reader comment: Reply to: dhimmi no more

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jul 10, 2006 at 18:37

So is it maaliki or is it maliki? My dear Mustapha your must pardon me but there is a difference between lahja (accent/dialect) and the meaning of a word: Take the case of the Arabic word Jabal. We know that in the Egyptian dialect it would be: Gabal (geem mu'atasha) and in the rest of the Arab world it is: Jabal. This is lahja. However, malik is king in any lahja and maalik is owner in any lahja.

However, maaliki or "the owner of " and Maliki or "the king of" are very different words and this has nothing to do with lahja.

The only explanation here is that the defective rasm of the Qur'an could be read as either: maaliki or maliki period which means that the word of your Allah has been edited.

As for Ababeel, sijeel and kalala and I forgot a big mystery and that is Ilaf in Surat Quraish. If your first language is Arabic (or are you another pakistani who knows no Arabic?) when was the last time you used any of these words in a sentence? Let me help you: Never. Becuase these are not Arabic words. If you read Tabari and you know that he was guessing that Ababeel and sijeel might be Persian words. Kalala? No one seems to have any clue what it means. And when was the last time you used kalala in an Arabic sentence? Let me help you: Never.

The word Ilaf has puzzled the 'Ulama and I do not think we even know what it means (any reader who is interested in a complete review of this strange Qur'anic word please see Patricia Crone's Meccan Trade). So much for the Qur'an a kitab mubeen written in Arabi fasiih.

As for "ina hahdan la sahiran" and I repeat is very poor Arabic grammar. You seem to be unaware that Suyuti in his "Itiqan" and see pages 273-274 had to work on and find explanations of this strange grammar, and we find the same in Ibn Qutayba's Ta'weel. ( For an excellent examination of this poor grammar see Wansbrough's Qur'anic Studies pages 222-223).

But here is a test for you Mustapha: plural (jami') of Nabi is it Anbia or is it nabiyiin?

As for the question of al-khamra (alcohol) your explanation is lame: the only way that it has been explained by the 'Ulama is based on the silly al-naskh wa al- mansukh. So why does your Allah seems to change his mind so often?

And why are you quoting the Bible? I'm not Christian and I'm not here to defend Christianity... And let me repeat that we cannot reconstruct the life of Muhammad reading the Qur'an. You have to use the discredited hadith and sira.

As for "A'isha she was 9 in 623 CE and only 18 in 632 CE when Muhammad died which means that she was only a child and had no clue about what went on between Muhmmad's mab'ath in 610 CE (she was not even born) and how much did a child know or comprehend? You tell me. The idea that 'A'isha is a source of so much hadith is nothing but, and you must pardon me, a big lie.

Ibn 'Abbas? Ibn 'Abbas died in 688 or is it 693 CE and Allahu 'Alam which means that he died 58 years after the death of Muhammad who died in 632CE. This is at a time when the life span of a pesron was about 35 years!! Go figure. The chances are Ibn 'Abbas hardly new Muhmmad......So much for the hadith.

As for tafseer and ta'weel we are told by your 'Ulama: " al-tafseer lal sahaba (now Ibn 'Abbas is excluded) wa al-ta'weel lel 'ulma (or lel jamii'" So it is an open seaon my dear Mustapha.

Mustapha: you are the victim of poor theology ...

Submitting....

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 For B. Mustapha: And Muslim apologetics 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.)