F0uad and 1robin Koran and Bible

[F0uad]

I do not find that maybe this could have happened or that to be a reasonable defense. Like I said this isn't that important so I will move on soon.

That was your argument though, you said it wasn't arabic because it could have happen that it borrowed words from other languages i am asking you to show me proof they weren't Arabic in the first place.

If you find that to be the case for ceratin words I will assume you are correct. You mentioned threee above so that leaves 271 left. Don't worry about it.

Are you being serious now? Don't go that path please be sincere.

195

In plain Arabic language.

196 ​

And surely the same is in the

Scriptures of the ancients.a
English Translation of the Holy Quran with Commentary by Maulana Muhammad Ali​

If the quran is in pure Arabic then how is it in pure Arabic when it is contained in ancient scriptures written before Arabic was known. There is no Arabic in the Torah or injil etc..... ​

Next time quote the number of the chapter please, so its easier for me.

Looked it up and its from Surah 26 here its it context and a better translation:

Verily this is a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds:
With it came down the spirit of Faith and Truth-
To thy heart and mind, that thou mayest admonish.
195: In the perspicuous Arabic tongue.(DOT)
196: Without doubt it is (announced) in the Books of former peoples.
Is it not a Sign to them that the Learned of the Children of Israel knew it (as true)?
Had We revealed it to any of the non-Arabs,
And had he recited it to them, they would not have believed in it.

And it goes on..
It doesn't say that its revealed in Arabic in verse 196 it says that the new revelation was mentioned in the previous scriptures.

 

[F0uad]

You sure know how to make the posts big and ask many questions, perhaps you could shorten the length of your other posts to make it easier. O btw, i know most of these arguments come from Answering-Islam.

1. 
   95 (Moses) said: What was thy object, O Samirs?
   

Samirs as I am sure you know means a Samaritin. The above verses are concerning the making of the Golden calf. There is no evidence whatsoever that Samaritans existed until 1000 years after this time frame.

Its not Samirs but Samiri and it doesn't refer to a Samaritan next time please quote the Surah(Chapter) and maybe its better for you to use the Sahih translation.

2. According to Surah 19:28, 3:33-36​

The Quran claims that Mary the mother of Jesus was the daughter of Imran and Amram, Moses and Aron's father. She is said to be their sister. Obviously Muhammad gor Mary and Mariam confused. A very human mistake. The Quran also says that:​

The answer could easily be found on google, this argument is a very old one could also be used against the bible itself.

In the Semitic languages sister doesn't only mean sister but also descendant or being a part of the same religion, or how someone will address a pious women.
Do you really think that Christians, Muslims, Hanifis, Pagans, Jews and unbelievers didn't know the difference between Mary and Marjiam they were ''famous'' around that time.

A son also can mean descendant for example ''Matthew 1:1 Jesus Christ, the son of David. ''

Does this also mean that Matthew confused people? No its how they spoke in those times.

Or in ''Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, ....."

Does this also mean that Luke was confused?

24

So a voice came to her from beneath her: Grieve not, surely thy Lord has provided a stream beneath thee.

25 And shake towards thee the trunk of the palm-tree, it will drop on thee fresh ripe dates.a ​

This is almost identicle (so close that any attempt at saying it isn't looks desperate) to The Proto-evangelium of James. It even has the same verse concerning water the Quran has. The only difference is Allah is substituted for a baby Jesus. The same story can be found in the Gospel of the nativity of Mary. Both of these works are offical labeled as gnostic (meaning un devine knowledge). What is even more interesting is that the groups that had these false gospels showed up in Arabia between the 4-6 century.​

​

So proof they are false? What i find the most funny is that a Church Fathers could decide what they put in the bible even if some disagreed, there is no proof that one Gospel or scripture was authentic and the other wasn't. For example the Gospel of James was considered to be very famous and popular among the people and there were several Church Fathers that considered them to be Authentic. Yet it was discarded since it did not fit into the teachings they wanted.
And i actually have read both accounts they are not the same in detail.

The Quran says Pharoh crucified the sorcerers during the plagues: approx 1400BC​

124 ​

​

I shall certainly cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, then I shall crucify you all together!

Crucifixion didn't exist until far later when it was used in it's most primitive form by: ​

Crucifixion (or impalement), in one form or another, was used by Persians, Carthaginians, Macedonians, and Romans. Death was often hastened. "The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim."[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Ancient_crucifixion

This given the oldest date possible as approx 600BC for the first crucifixion.That verse also seems to thrown in an Islamic practice that wasn't used in Egypt.​

The New International Dictionary Of The Bible says: Crucifixion was one of the most cruel and barbarous forms of death known to man. It was practiced, especially in the times of war, by the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians, and later by the Romans. So dreaded was it that even in the pre-Christian era, the cares and troubles of the life were often compared to a cross

Read: Crucifixion Or ?Crucifiction? In Ancient Egypt?

It gives you Biblical passage's, it gives you founding from Egypt and explains everything in detail without being biased.
​

Who do you believe Surah 18:89-98 are referring to by O Dhu-l-qarnain? Most Muslims say alexander but a commentary I have says Darius.

Alexander.

This one is just funny not meaningful: Sura4:171 says: And say not, Three.

How can I recite this verse without saying the word that it says not to say? Like I said it was just funny.

Its referring to the Trinity.

I do not know what was going on with the formating here I couldn't fix it.
To be continued shortly.

You sure know to ask very much without waiting for a reply.
​

 

[F0uad]

I will reply on your third message in detail later on, however i could not find Theodor Nöldeke in the list of Academe des inscriptions.

Also could you maybe make a list of the problems to make it easier, i find it funny how it starts with ''The present Koran is identical with the original.''.

 

[1robin]

I will reply on your third message in detail later on, however i could not find Theodor Nöldeke in the list of Academe des inscriptions.

Also could you maybe make a list of the problems to make it easier, i find it funny how it starts with ''The present Koran is identical with the original.''.

Hello Fuad, I have gotten tangled up with with the type of person I dislike to debate the worst. He says he is a Christian but has defended every other religion except Christianity, he has attemted to dismiss Prophecy, Paul, John, all respected Commentaries, plus large sections of scripture both old and new testament. He finds me every where I post and make stupid comments. I have to threaten to report him or put him on ignore. In addition those Baha'i guys keep changeing their positions require a whole new line of response. Sorry I have been distracted. I will post something simple here and then gather everything said so far in this thread in a small list. We are getting kind of spread out here.

I just wanted to post a couple of things:

1. Theodor Nöldeke (1836 – 1930) was a celebrated German Semitic scholar, who in 1859 won the prize of the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres for his "History of the Qur'an". Quotations on Islam from the Noteworthy - WikiIslam
In 1859 his history of the Qur'an won for him the prize of the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and in the following year he rewrote it in German (Geschichte des Korans) and published it with additions at Göttingen. In 1861 he began to lecture at the university of this town, where three years later he was appointed extraordinary professor. In 1868 he became ordinary professor at Kiel, and in 1872 was appointed to the chair of Oriental languages at Strassburg, which he resigned in 1906.
Theodor Nöldeke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1859 his history of the Qur'an won for him the prize of the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and in the following year he rewrote it in German
Theodor Nöldeke - Meaningful Search
In 1859 his history of the Qur'an won for him the prize of the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and in the following year he rewrote it in German (Geschichte des Korans) and published it with additions at Göttingen
Theodor N%C3%B6ldeke - eNotes.com Reference

2. A word does not become Arabic or especially pure Arabic by some Arabs using it. We use Achtung, Carp e dieum, and Coup de grace', etc..... In the English dictionary those words are said to be German, latin, and French not english. However it is not my burden of proof. The Quran made the original claim that it is Pure Arabic. That is a claim to knowledge and so by the rules of debate the burden of proof is on Islam not me.

3. It is not a suffecient defence to define Crucifixion as any manner of torture or execution that involves a stick. There would be no need for seperate words or concepts like impalement, the rack etc.. if that were the case. However if it can be shown that the Arabic word for crucifixion used in the Quran means all forms of punishment involving a stick then I could accept that. I believe some of the info you sent attempted to do this, if you assure me that was the case then I will accept that as reasonable and drop the crucifixion contradiction. Fair enough?

I noticed the first line said that the Quran was the same as the original in that paper as well. It seemed out of place and maybe was my copy and paste mistake, and as I was not using his statements for that purpose I just ignored it.

I will soon consolidate a list of the claims so far.

Shalom,

 

[F0uad]

1. Theodor Nöldeke (1836 – 1930) was a celebrated German Semitic scholar, who in 1859 won the prize of the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres for his "History of the Qur'an". Quotations on Islam from the Noteworthy - WikiIslam
In 1859 his history of the Qur'an won for him the prize of the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and in the following year he rewrote it in German (Geschichte des Korans) and published it with additions at Göttingen. In 1861 he began to lecture at the university of this town, where three years later he was appointed extraordinary professor. In 1868 he became ordinary professor at Kiel, and in 1872 was appointed to the chair of Oriental languages at Strassburg, which he resigned in 1906.
Theodor Nöldeke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1859 his history of the Qur'an won for him the prize of the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and in the following year he rewrote it in German
Theodor Nöldeke - Meaningful Search
In 1859 his history of the Qur'an won for him the prize of the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and in the following year he rewrote it in German (Geschichte des Korans) and published it with additions at Göttingen
Theodor N%C3%B6ldeke - eNotes.com Reference

I knew the person before you quoted him and i also knew hes works. However the problem is that he works are from 1800 till 1900 they have been disputed already. If you really want to have a discussion ''debate'' about the languages i have to ask you to study the subject in detail.

2. A word does not become Arabic or especially pure Arabic by some Arabs using it. We use Achtung, Carp e dieum, and Coup de grace', etc..... In the English dictionary those words are said to be German, latin, and French not english. However it is not my burden of proof. The Quran made the original claim that it is Pure Arabic. That is a claim to knowledge and so by the rules of debate the burden of proof is on Islam not me.

Its well accepted by Muslims that its fully Arabic you are the one claiming it isn't so i think the burden lies with you. The Quran is open for everyone to see and study so its defiantly you who has to proof it. You only replied on my second argument here my first argument was they were Arabic in the first place. I also can give you examples that my language ''Dutch'' or my original language ''Ancient Berbers'' has words that are the same in other languages yet they are considered to be Dutch or Berbers.

3. It is not a suffecient defence to define Crucifixion as any manner of torture or execution that involves a stick. There would be no need for seperate words or concepts like impalement, the rack etc.. if that were the case. However if it can be shown that the Arabic word for crucifixion used in the Quran means all forms of punishment involving a stick then I could accept that. I believe some of the info you sent attempted to do this, if you assure me that was the case then I will accept that as reasonable and drop the crucifixion contradiction. Fair enough?

Have you honestly read the link i gave and saw the biblical passages? Your claim was that in the time of the prophet moses(p) there was no crucifixion but according to Historians, Ancient Egyptian foundlings, The biblical encyclopaedia and biblical verses there were. So i hope you accept the fact there is no contradiction?

I noticed the first line said that the Quran was the same as the original in that paper as well. It seemed out of place and maybe was my copy and paste mistake, and as I was not using his statements for that purpose I just ignored it.

I will soon consolidate a list of the claims so far.

Thanks i will be waiting for this.

Shalom,

Salaam

 

[1robin]

I knew the person before you quoted him and i also knew hes works. However the problem is that he works are from 1800 till 1900 they have been disputed already. If you really want to have a discussion ''debate'' about the languages i have to ask you to study the subject in detail.

I will list the claims he made that I would like to discuss as you asked me to. I made the statements above only to show that it is a well known fact that he did recieve that French prize.

Its well accepted by Muslims that its fully Arabic you are the one claiming it isn't so i think the burden lies with you. The Quran is open for everyone to see and study so its defiantly you who has to proof it. You only replied on my second argument here my first argument was they were Arabic in the first place. I also can give you examples that my language ''Dutch'' or my original language ''Ancient Berbers'' has words that are the same in other languages yet they are considered to be Dutch or Berbers.

Since the Quran made the first claim then it is it that must first provide proof. My claim was made much later than the Quran's so the burden does not lie with me. When you challenged the bible, I did not say that it was true unless you prove it isn't, I actually showed you how it was true. There is nothing about adopting a word from another language that makes it now that cultures own. If the bible said it was in pure Greek but there were latin words in it that the Greeks had borrowed from Rome then the bible would be wrong wrong.

Have you honestly read the link i gave and saw the biblical passages? Your claim was that in the time of the prophet moses(p) there was no crucifixion but according to Historians, Ancient Egyptian foundlings, The biblical encyclopaedia and biblical verses there were. So i hope you accept the fact there is no contradiction?
Thanks i will be waiting for this.
Salaam

I am close to drooping this one but not because any type of torture or punishment by stick is a crucifixion. The word didn't even exist in ancient Egypt. The reason I would drop this one is because the word used for crucifixion in the Quran may not mean a cross only. I believe the Quran is still wrong about this but as I can not show this then I must drop it. That is the honorable action.

I am involved with family stuff for independance day and so you should just wait until I can consolidate everything and restate it again for your response. Thanks
Peace out

 

[F0uad]

I will list the claims he made that I would like to discuss as you asked me to. I made the statements above only to show that it is a well known fact that he did recieve that French prize.

Well all i was saying that i cannot find hes name on the list.

Since the Quran made the first claim then it is it that must first provide proof. My claim was made much later than the Quran's so the burden does not lie with me. When you challenged the bible, I did not say that it was true unless you prove it isn't, I actually showed you how it was true. There is nothing about adopting a word from another language that makes it now that cultures own. If the bible said it was in pure Greek but there were latin words in it that the Greeks had borrowed from Rome then the bible would be wrong wrong.

Again there is no proof of borrowing i used it as a second argument. According to Muslims and Arabic speaking people it is fully Arabic all the words have a meaning in Arabic so disproof them?

I am close to drooping this one but not because any type of torture or punishment by stick is a crucifixion. The word didn't even exist in ancient Egypt. The reason I would drop this one is because the word used for crucifixion in the Quran may not mean a cross only. I believe the Quran is still wrong about this but as I can not show this then I must drop it. That is the honorable action.

Ok i have a kind of similar question to you about some biblical passage's.

I am involved with family stuff for independance day and so you should just wait until I can consolidate everything and restate it again for your response. Thanks
Peace out

Sure ill be here.

 

[1robin]

Well all i was saying that i cannot find hes name on the list.

Hello F0uad, Did you say you live in a Dutch country? I found at least a dosen sites that each say he recieved the prize but I could't find it in the list on Wiki either. Wiki is not always accurate.

Theodor Nöldeke
Theodor Nöldeke (2 March 1836 – 25 December 1930) was a German Semitic scholar, who was born in Harburg and studied in Göttingen, Vienna, Leiden and Berlin. In 1859 his history of the Qur`an won for him the prize of the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and in the following y...
Found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Nö
Theodor Nöldeke - Encyclopedia
However I will take my own medicine and say since it was my original claim and I can't prove it without doubt then I will withdaw the prize issue, because that was a footnote anyway and not the subject. He is with or without the prize one of the most respected scholars on the Quran and he made the same claim about foreign words that dozens of other scholars have.

Again there is no proof of borrowing i used it as a second argument. According to Muslims and Arabic speaking people it is fully Arabic all the words have a meaning in Arabic so disproof them?

1. It is the Quran's original claim to knowledge that is being challenged that by all excepted rules of debate require the Quran ro prove it's case (not me). No religion is true unless found guilty. A extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Even though it is not my burden I am the only one that has provided any evidence.
2. When a discussion concerns what culture a word is, then the only important factor is it's origin. What language a word is is determined on it's origin alone.
or·i·gin  noun

1.Something from which anything arises or is derived; source; fountainhead: to follow a stream to its origin.

2.rise or derivation from a particular source:the origin of a word.
(as can be seen by this definition only a words source is used to determine it's language, even if another culture uses it that does not effect the source culture that invented it.)

3.the first stage of existence; beginning: the origin of Quakerism in America.

4.ancestry; parentage; extraction: to be of Scottish origin
Origin | Define Origin at Dictionary.com

There is no argument whatsoever that the use of another languages words makes them Arabic, no more than if a executive of Toyota buying a buick makes the car a Toyota. As the definitions ALL state that only origin determines language type. It is no defence to say a word is Arabic when you can not show it was created by Arabs. Adopting a word does not change it into your cultures word because it was created by another culture. The words Coup de' grace did not become American (english) because I used them. They were made in the french culture and so are forever more French. I look for reasons to grant your position on issues like the Crucifixion one. I am giving Islam the benefit of the doubt. I would appreciate the same from you when your position is undefendable. Trying to defend the undefendable or falsely shift the burden of proof suggests desperation. You must either prove that at least a good portion of these words were created by Arabic people because your Quran states that they were. Even though the burden of proof is without doubt totally on you I have been the only one that has posted any evidence concerning these words so far.

Acadian:​

1. Adam = man or mankind. The correct Arab word: Basharan or insane.
2. Eden = garden. The correct Arab word: Janna.

Aramaic:​

1. Qiyama = resurrection.

Assyrian:​

1. Abraham/Ibrahim - a name. The correct Arab equivalent: Abu Raheem.

Egyptian​

1. Pharaoh = king or potentate (also a title). Used 84 times in the Quran.

Ethiopic:​

1. Malak = angel (2/33)

Greek:​

1. Iblis - corruption of the Greek word diabolos = devil.
2. Injil - corruption of the Greek word eua(n)ggelion = Gospel. Correct.

Hebrew:​

1. Ahbar = teacher.
2. Darasa = to find the deepest meanings of the scriptures by exact and thorough studies.
3. Furquan (also used in Syriac, pwrqn) = to make free, salvation.
4. Issa or Isa = Esau (brother of the patriarch Jacob). The Quran says it means Jesus. Correct Arab for Jesus: Yeshuwa.
5. Jahannam (Gehinnom or Gehenna) = originally the valley of Hennom or Hinnom near Jerusalem, intensely used for Pagan (Baal) sacrifices to fire, and it therefore later gave the name to Hell.
6. Jannatu Adn = paradise, Garden of Eden (today reckoned by science to have been in south Iraq – if it ever existed).
7. Malakut = reign, the country of Allah/God. NB: No original Arab word ends with -ut.
8. Masani = repetition.
9. Maun = to find sanctuary.
10. Rabbani = teacher.
11. Sabt = day of rest (Sabbath).
12. Sakinat = the presence of Allah/God.
13. Tabut = ark.
14. Taghut = mistake.
15. orah (Taurat) = Jewish holy scriptures, the Torah.
16. Tufan = deluge
17. There also are Hebrew words like; heber, sakinah, maoon, turat, jehannim.

Persian:​

1. Firdaus = the highest or 7. Heaven. Correct Arab: Jannah.
2. Haroot or Harut = Persian name for angel. Also see “Maroot”.
3. Hoor = disciple. Correct Arab: Tilmeeth.
4. Jinn = good or bad demon. Correct Arab: Ruh.
5. Maroot or Marut = Persian name for angel. May in reality be the Hindu god of the wind.
6. Sirat = path. Correct Arab: Altareeq.
7. Syriac (liturgical language used in Eastern Christian churches - derived from Aramaic).
8. 2/50 furqaan (original Hebrew?) - from pwrqn, Syriac = Salvation.
9. 52/29 kaahin - from khn, Syriac = “priest” - meaning a pagan soothsayer or diviner (69/47).
10. 3/45 mashiih = “the Christ”.
11. 57/12 muhaymin - from mhymn’, Syriac = “the faithful”.
12. 21/87 nuun - (title used for Jonah (Yunus)), from nwn, Syriac =“fish”.
13. 2/85 qiaama - from qymt, Syriac = “resurrection“. (also 2/113, numerous times).
14. 5/85 qissiis - from qshysh, Syriac = “Christian priest”.
15. 4/85 Qur’an - from qyrn, Syriac = “scriptural lesson” or “reading”. (also MANY other places).
16. 3/73 rabbinic - from rbn, Syriac = “perceptor, doctor.” (also 5/48, 5/68).
17. 16/102 ruuh al-qudus, from rwh.qwdsh’, Syriac = “Holy Spirit”.
18. 20/80 tuur - from t.wr’, Syriac = “mountain”. 1000 Mistakes and errors in the Quran

This particular list even gives the Arabic word that could have been used in some cases but wasn't. I can also provide the original definitions for the word when it was invented by it's culture of origin. This also shows that Muhammad tried to use the word but he did so slightly out of context. Once again this suggests the Quran was made by a faulty human being making typical human mistakes.

Sure ill be here.

Wouldn't have it any other way my friend.

Ok i have a kind of similar question to you about some biblical passage's.

Before we go any further if you want we can solve this one particular issue and you can include your comments on the bible if they are similar to what we are discussing here. Once that is done we can then move on to the consolidated list I have been talking about, but lets put this to bed first if that is agreeable.

 

[1robin]

F0uad you have absconded again. Just kidding I expect you are busy but I found something related to this topic and thought I would throw it in as well. These are misspelling of Arabic words found in the Quran. I am the last to concentrate on spelling as you have seen my Grammer sucks but then I do not claim to be perfect. The Quran does.

1. 2/177: aaman should be tu’minuu.
2. 2/177: aata should be tu’tuu (2 times).
3. 2/177: aqaama should be tuqimuu.
4. 2/177: sasbriina should be saabiruuna (because its position in the sentence - and plural should be masculine). 5 mistakes in one verse.
5. 3/59: Kun feekunu should be Kun fekaana.
6. 4/162: mukiimiin (feminine plural) should be mukiimuun (masculine plural - see 7/160).
7. 5/69: Saabbi’uuna should be Sabi’iina. (= Sabians).
8. 7/56: qaribun should be qariba.
9. 7/160: asbatan (feminine plural) should be sebtan (masculine - human plurals are male in Arab).
10. 20/63: haazaani should be haazayn.
11. 21/3: ‘asarru should be ‘assarra.
12. 22/19: ‘ikhtasamuu should be ‘ikhtasamaa.
13. 41/11: at’e’een should be at’e’atain.
14. 49/9: ‘eq-tatalu should be ‘eqtatalata.
15. 63/10: ‘akun should be ‘akuuna.
16. 63/20: hadhane (nominative) should be hadhayne (accusative).
17. 91/5: ma should be man.

There are more but this should show that there are grammatical mistakes (mostly declinations) in the Quran - many or few does not matter too much, as a god makes no mistakes at all. According to Ali Dashti: “Twenty-Three Years: A study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad” there are more than 100 divergences in the Quran from normal Arab linguistic rules and structures.
A clear conclusion: Correct and good Arab language in the Quran cannot be used as a proof for that Allah sent down the Quran, as there are numerous mistakes – on the contrary: The mistakes may prove that no god was involved.
NB:

Would any site that was trying to slam Islam put this last statement on their site?

If you find any mistakes anywhere, please inform us. If it is a real mistake, it will be corrected.

1000 Mistakes in the Quran: Making & Translation of Holy Book of Islam
Italics are mine.

Shalom,

 

[1robin]

F0uad, Surely you didn't surrender already. Just kidding but I haven't heard from you in a while.

 

[F0uad]

Hey Robin sorry for my late respond i have been busy and its Ramadan.

However i think your confused i never said they are originally Arabic, since the Quran itself doesn't say it there is no reason for me to belief in it. All i was saying is that you cannot proof if the Origins are Arabic or not since we would have need a dictionary of the language Ishmeal(p) the son of Ibrahim(p) spoke.

I would advice you to do some research in the subject before coping a list written down by a non-Arabic speaker.

2. When a discussion concerns what culture a word is, then the only important factor is it's origin. What language a word is is determined on it's origin alone.

I know what Origin means you didn't have to copy the definition my English isn't that bad. However the verse you quoted before ''16:103'' doesn't say ''pure'' but clear so it doesn't mean it was in ''Ancient Arabic'' in the first place.

16:103- And indeed We know that they (polytheists and pagans) say: "It is only a human being who teaches him (Muhammad SAW)." The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Qur'ân) is a clear Arabic tongue.

M Asad and Pickthall translate it similar to Hilali/Khan too and they do not use the word “pure” either as they just use the word “clear”. Hence all three famous translations disagree with the one you brought forward from Ali where the most of arguments originate from.

Just to further prove the verse should not be translated with the word “pure” we can look at the Arabic word used by the Quran to describe the Arabic tongue; it is “Mubeen”. We can refer to Ansar Al-Adl as he writes: To understand mubeen in a sense that negates words of foreign origin would be illogical in light of its context in other verses. For example, Allah says:

31:11 Such is the Creation of Allah. now show Me what is there that others besides Him have created: nay, but the Transgressors are in manifest error.
The phrase that has been rendered here as 'manifest error' is dalaalim mubeen. Hence, it it obvious that mubeen refers to something clear, especially in the sense that it is obvious.

Thinking that Muslims did not know there are Foreign words in the Quran is very silly you should check out the Great Scholar Tabari who lived 1000years before Theodor.

There is no argument whatsoever that the use of another languages words makes them Arabic, no more than if a executive of Toyota buying a buick makes the car a Toyota. As the definitions ALL state that only origin determines language type. It is no defence to say a word is Arabic when you can not show it was created by Arabs. Adopting a word does not change it into your cultures word because it was created by another culture. The words Coup de' grace did not become American (english) because I used them. They were made in the french culture and so are forever more French. I look for reasons to grant your position on issues like the Crucifixion one. I am giving Islam the benefit of the doubt. I would appreciate the same from you when your position is undefendable. Trying to defend the undefendable or falsely shift the burden of proof suggests desperation. You must either prove that at least a good portion of these words were created by Arabic people because your Quran states that they were. Even though the burden of proof is without doubt totally on you I have been the only one that has posted any evidence concerning these words so far.

You have to realise that the text is judged by its overall language as opposed to a few foreign words it uses. To show this I shall put forward a paragraph and you can decide with what language I have wrote the paragraph in:

“Nicolas and Mohammed entered the lab an began their experimentation with industrial food, the modus operand they chose to use was already decided but they did get distracted as they peered out of the window in their chalet overlooking the circus; they could see camels, lions, apes and Asian, European and Arab tourists lining up to get into the circus. As they glanced to their right they saw a museum, mobile phone shops and auto-mobiles ground to a halt due a few rickshaws and chariots breaking down. As they began their work they were interrupted by Doctor Pablo who was wearing a stethoscope around his neck, he was clearly perturbed and explained he was not aux fait with the building layout and has got himself lost and he is now late for his clinic”.

I am sure you will say the text was written in English despite many foreign words being involved. The foreign words in the text are many. However we would still say the paragraph was in English as the foreign words utilized have been absorbed into the English language and because the paragraph is composed in English.

Thus the Quran is in Arabic for the same reason despite foreign words being included, which were incorporated into the Arabic language at the time; thus the foreign words were Arabized and became part of the Arabic language according to Tabari. If this is the case (which was believed to be the case by the great scholar Tabari) then there is no claim to start with.

The list you copied has many errors i can discard all of them just at looking at them without the Arabic. Plus the website is very offensive see highlighted area:

Please inform all and everybody and all relevant fora - f. ex. Internet pages for debate or information - about the address 1000 Mistakes and errors in the Quran. It is information that is urgently needed by many, not least by Muslims. No god made a book with so many mistakes and other wrongs - and if the Quran and Islam are made up by humans or dark forces, where are the followers of this inhumanly dark and brutal war religion heading for in a possible next life?

Btw Ahmad Von Denffer and many others have refuted this case a long time ago you really shouldn't keep using arguments that go back a couple of centuries ago. If you are interested more on the subject please read this article first: The Ten Wise Jews: The Source Of The Qur'an? You will come to the conclusion that Anti-Islamic ''Preachers'' have developed the arguments and stories in the past.

Let me give you a little example so you can see the similarities:

Bet (Hebrew) =
Bayt (Arabic) =
House (English),

Yom (Hebrew) =
Yawm (Arabic) =
Day (English),

Navi (Hebrew) =
Nabi (Arabic) =
Prophet (English),

Shalom (Hebrew) =
Salaam (Arabic) =
Peace (English),

Ach (Hebrew) =
Akh (Arabic) =
Brethren (English),

Saddaka (Hebrew) =
Saddaqa (Arabic) =
Charity (English),

Shlema (Hebrew) =
Islam (Arabic) =
Submission (English),

Elah, or Elohiim (Hebrew) =
Allah, or Allahumma (Arabic) =
Alah, or Alaha (Aramaic) =
GOD (English).

For a English speaker who doesn't know Hebrew, Arabic or any other language's you have mentioned, you are very sure of your case. I think you already know but Ancient languages look-alike and sound alike and on many ocassions uses the same words.

 

[F0uad]

F0uad you have absconded again. Just kidding I expect you are busy but I found something related to this topic and thought I would throw it in as well. These are misspelling of Arabic words found in the Quran. I am the last to concentrate on spelling as you have seen my Grammer sucks but then I do not claim to be perfect. The Quran does.
​

1. 2/177: aaman should be tu’minuu.
2. 2/177: aata should be tu’tuu (2 times).
3. 2/177: aqaama should be tuqimuu.
4. 2/177: sasbriina should be saabiruuna (because its position in the sentence - and plural should be masculine). 5 mistakes in one verse.
5. 3/59: Kun feekunu should be Kun fekaana.
6. 4/162: mukiimiin (feminine plural) should be mukiimuun (masculine plural - see 7/160).
7. 5/69: Saabbi’uuna should be Sabi’iina. (= Sabians).
8. 7/56: qaribun should be qariba.
9. 7/160: asbatan (feminine plural) should be sebtan (masculine - human plurals are male in Arab).
10. 20/63: haazaani should be haazayn.
11. 21/3: ‘asarru should be ‘assarra.
12. 22/19: ‘ikhtasamuu should be ‘ikhtasamaa.
13. 41/11: at’e’een should be at’e’atain.
14. 49/9: ‘eq-tatalu should be ‘eqtatalata.
15. 63/10: ‘akun should be ‘akuuna.
16. 63/20: hadhane (nominative) should be hadhayne (accusative).
17. 91/5: ma should be man.

There are more but this should show that there are grammatical mistakes (mostly declinations) in the Quran - many or few does not matter too much, as a god makes no mistakes at all. According to Ali Dashti: “Twenty-Three Years: A study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad” there are more than 100 divergences in the Quran from normal Arab linguistic rules and structures.
A clear conclusion: Correct and good Arab language in the Quran cannot be used as a proof for that Allah sent down the Quran, as there are numerous mistakes – on the contrary: The mistakes may prove that no god was involved.
NB:

Would any site that was trying to slam Islam put this last statement on their site?

1000 Mistakes in the Quran: Making & Translation of Holy Book of Islam
Italics are mine.

Shalom,

Sorry but i had to face palm here Robin.

Before you reply do you know anything about Arabic i mean it would be kinda silly to claim there are any if you don't know the language in the first place?

This argument came forth from Newton and has been refuted, discarded and thrown away a long time ago also.

Just do a quick search up about the 7Ahruf's, qira'aat and modes and if you don't want to do that just go to the primary source for the responses A2raab al-Quran, by Ibn Jafar, al-NaHHas (raHimuhu ALLAH), which is a 5-volume book over 2500 pages long covering Arabic grammar in the Qur'an. He compiled a collection of all the scholarly linguistic opinions regarding the various grammatical structures of the Qur'an. He died approximately 1100 years ago, and has answered every single question brought up by anyone today a answer can be found there. Other sources include three references on Arabic grammar, as well as tafseer Ibn Katheer and al-Tabari, two of the most respected explanations of the meanings of the Qur'an.

You can also take a look at:
Response to Grammatical errors in the Qur'an

 

[1robin]

Well hello F0uad. I thought I had lost you. I see you came back with quite a bit of info. It will take me a bit to get through as I am busy at work. I have a question though, What is it that you do for Ramadan?

 

[1robin]

Sorry but i had to face palm here Robin.

Before you reply do you know anything about Arabic i mean it would be kinda silly to claim there are any if you don't know the language in the first place?

Of course I know very little about Arabic but as I am not citing myself or claiming to be a scholar then it doesn't matter. I was wondering when the old reliable "you don't speak Arabic card would show up". I am not saying it is the case but a wrong and biased defence a thousand years ago would still be wrong today.

This argument came forth from Newton and has been refuted, discarded and thrown away a long time ago also.

I had never heard of this guy until now.

Just do a quick search up about the 7Ahruf's, qira'aat and modes and if you don't want to do that just go to the primary source for the responses A2raab al-Quran, by Ibn Jafar, al-NaHHas (raHimuhu ALLAH), which is a 5-volume book over 2500 pages long covering Arabic grammar in the Qur'an. He compiled a collection of all the scholarly linguistic opinions regarding the various grammatical structures of the Qur'an. He died approximately 1100 years ago, and has answered every single question brought up by anyone today a answer can be found there. Other sources include three references on Arabic grammar, as well as tafseer Ibn Katheer and al-Tabari, two of the most respected explanations of the meanings of the Qur'an.

You can also take a look at:
Response to Grammatical errors in the Qur'an

So I am to throw out one group of scholars and their claims and adopt the ones you gave me. I had forgotten all about this thread and have lost my train of thought.


I suggest we start a fresh diologue on some different issues instead of reopening arguments that we were half through with and which I have forgotten. In order to keep it simple I say that each of us make one claim or point at a time as well as countering the point we recieved. So roughly one claim and one counterclaim per post. This grammer stuff requires more research than I have time for and I have even deleted the history of the sites where I was doing so. DEAL??

What did you ever do with those Baha'i guys? I think they adopt the opposite interpretation for every single verse from what the universal concensus is. They make for strange conversations.

 

[F0uad]

Well hello F0uad. I thought I had lost you. I see you came back with quite a bit of info. It will take me a bit to get through as I am busy at work. I have a question though, What is it that you do for Ramadan?

Going to the mosque more often, pray more, recite the whole quran, trying to be a better person, fast and so on.

Of course I know very little about Arabic but as I am not citing myself or claiming to be a scholar then it doesn't matter. I was wondering when the old reliable "you don't speak Arabic card would show up". I am not saying it is the case but a wrong and biased defence a thousand years ago would still be wrong today.

I think i never heard a intellectual imam/scholar concluded that each word in the Quran is fully Arabic. However my point was, to proof that the words aren't or are Arabic is impossible.

I had never heard of this guy until now.

He was famous in the old days

So I am to throw out one group of scholars and their claims and adopt the ones you gave me. I had forgotten all about this thread and have lost my train of thought.

I suggest we start a fresh diologue on some different issues instead of reopening arguments that we were half through with and which I have forgotten. In order to keep it simple I say that each of us make one claim or point at a time as well as countering the point we recieved. So roughly one claim and one counterclaim per post. This grammer stuff requires more research than I have time for and I have even deleted the history of the sites where I was doing so. DEAL??

Ok i will be here and please forgive me if i respond late.

What did you ever do with those Baha'i guys? I kept talking to them and I have never heard scripture butchered so bady. Not even the gnostics or heretics had such bizarre biblical understandings. I think they adopt the opposite interpretation for every single verse from what the universal concensus is. They make for strange conversations.

They were pretty annoying so i left them. When i ''refuted'' there claim they jumped into 20 different subjects to make a case what made me really upset and they keep doing this over and over. Also i had the feeling they were ignoring my counter-claims.

 

[1robin]

Going to the mosque more often, pray more, recite the whole quran, trying to be a better person, fast and so on.

How much can you recite? Wrong or right you are probably a better Muslim than I am a Christian. Of course your system requires this thank goodness mine does not or I would be in trouble.

I think i never heard a intellectual imam/scholar concluded that each word in the Quran is fully Arabic. However my point was, to proof that the words aren't or are Arabic is impossible.

Every indication I saw was that the Quran claims to be either perfect or pure Arabic. I saw you submitted some stuff that countered this but I have lost track of that issue so I will move on to something fresh.

He was famous in the old days

I take it, this is not Isaac Newton we are discussing.

Ok i will be here and please forgive me if i respond late.

Very well.

They were pretty annoying so i left them. When i ''refuted'' there claim they jumped into 20 different subjects to make a case what made me really upset and they keep doing this over and over. Also i had the feeling they were ignoring my counter-claims.

Ditto.

My next post will contain my new challenge and then you can counter it and offer your first challenge to me in your response if that is agreeable.

 

[F0uad]

How much can you recite? Wrong or right you are probably a better Muslim than I am a Christian. Of course your system requires this thank goodness mine does not or I would be in trouble.

Not sure what to say here, being a Muslim or christian is not really about having knowledge or knowing verses/chapters but accepting God as your saviour, protector, creator. Works and deeds are just a reflection on how sincere a person is. I have memorized a couple of chapters.

Every indication I saw was that the Quran claims to be either perfect or pure Arabic. I saw you submitted some stuff that countered this but I have lost track of that issue so I will move on to something fresh.

Next time you quote a verse i will automatically qoute the historical context to make it easier for the both of us what the verse actually says.

My next post will contain my new challenge and then you can counter it and offer your first challenge to me in your response if that is agreeable.

Ok, i will be asking some questions regarding the salvation and the sign of Jonah if i may.

 

[1robin]

Not sure what to say here, being a Muslim or christian is not really about having knowledge or knowing verses/chapters but accepting God as your saviour, protector, creator. Works and deeds are just a reflection on how sincere a person is. I have memorized a couple of chapters.

You have a unique view of Islam from my experience which is fine of course.

Next time you quote a verse i will automatically qoute the historical context to make it easier for the both of us what the verse actually says.

I am not sure what you mean but as long as it means more work for you and not me then have at it.

Ok, i will be asking some questions regarding the salvation and the sign of Jonah if i may.

You must have been watching Deedat during Ramadan. That was his go to. I have selected what I will post but am very busy at work so didn't post it yet but will soon. Selah,

 

[1robin]

My claim is that there is good reason to believe that Muhammad's revelations that began in the cave were demonic or psychological. I have always found this interesting but it takes too long to hash out normally but is good for this thread.

In receiving the Qur’an, the Islamic tradition tells us that Muhammad used to go into convulsions similar to epileptic seizures, break out in cold sweat, and his mouth used to foam. This indicates that Muhammad was either afflicted with epilepsy or another neurological illness, or he was demon possessed. In fact, Jesus exorcized demons that had tormented the possessed persons in this very same way: "Suddenly a man from the multitude cried out, saying, "Teacher, I implore You, look on my son, for he is my only child. And behold, a spirit seizes him, and he suddenly cries out; it convulses him so that he foams at the mouth; and it departs from him with great difficulty, bruising him. So I implored Your disciples to cast it out, but they could not." Then Jesus answered and said, "O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you and bear with you? Bring your son here." And as he was still coming, the demon threw him down and convulsed him. Then Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, healed the child, and gave him back to his father. And they were all amazed at the majesty of God …" (Luke 9: 38-43). There are striking similarities between the symptoms that boy suffered from and what used to happen to Muhammad when he claimed divine revelation. Instead, was it a satanic inspiration all along?
The Qur'an is not a miracle; linguistic, scientific and historical problems, contradictions, abrogation, and satanic inspiration in the Qur'an

Since the first tactic of the Islamic scholars I have seen is to dismiss anything that isn't flattering by saying they do not accept it. I can understand that for things that are not known very well. Muhammad's fits are very well attested in many texts and in numerous examples. Here are a few:
The method of revelation was not always the same according to Islamic tradition, over the years to follow, when Mohammad received revelation of the Quran, he would faint, foam at the mouth and tremble at times. The book True Guidance Part IV, records the Hadiths regarding the manner which Mohammad received his revelations,
The authoritative Hadith (Tradition) relate that Muhammad used to faint whenever revelations came to him. It is claimed he used to act like a drunkard (See Al-Sirah al-Nabawiya, by Ibn Hisham; chapter on how the revelation came). In his book, Al-Quran al-Majid, Darwaza claims that Muhammad was taken out of this world. Abu Huraira says that "whenever Muhammad received revelation, he was overwhelmed by trembling." Another account says: "He became distressed, foamng at the mouth and closing his eyes. At times he snorted like a young camel" (Ahmad b. Hanbal I, 34, 464, VI. 163)…..Umar b. al-Khattab said: "When revelation descended upon Muhammad, one could hear it near his face like the humming of bees" (Ahmad b. Hanbal, I. 34)[6]

Mohammed and his attempted Suicide during the period of silence (610-613)​

Following the first appearance of the "angel" and the proclamation of his "Call" there was a period of silence for about three-years. During this period, Mohammad was distraught and often thought about suicide, wishing to throw himself off the mountains of Hira or Qubays.
What is the Qu'ran ( Koran ) (Quran)

Just by the number of Muslim sources and by the principle of embarrassment these accounts show that his physical condition is well established as it concerns his revelations. Since this mimics in exact detail what is said in the bible about demon possession, known as common symptoms for hundreds of years of demon possession, and is the very inverse of the occurrences of Gabriel in the bible.
A comparison between the Quran and the bible as it concerns Gabriel;
The bible: In both instances where Gabriel shows up and delivers a message he immediately said who he was, and/or where he was from and to not be afraid.
The Quran: The first appearance terrified Muhammad; he did not know who it was or where he was from.
He suggested it was a Jinn I believe and was talked into the opposite conclusion by his first wife. (that last part about his wife came from memory and it's accuracy is unknown).
The bible: The message was delivered in a comforting manner was easily understandable and resulted and is consistent with the entire bible.
The Quran: Gabriel causes numerous examples of fear, trembling, foaming at the mouth, noises of camels and bees to come from Muhammad, suicidal thoughts, and messages that conflict and contradict the bible.
At the very least these are not the same supernatural beings. They have the completely opposite effects and results.

The last possibility is epilepsy. His experiences are consistent with this and epilepsy is known to produce vivid religious visions. I do not regard this as likely for other reason but I do not see any inconsistency for a malevolent spirit troubling Muhammad plus gnostic texts and per-Arabic tradition producing the Quran.

I know this is a lot to review but the claim is simple. That Muhammad had contact with a or several evil entities not Gabriel. I apologize if anything about what I said that seems disrespectful but there is no other way to state this issue.

 

[1robin]

One last detail on the cave event:

"I cannot read," Muhammad answered, because he was illiterate. The spirit squeezed him again so tightly he that thought he would die, and commanded him again, "Read." "I cannot read," he answered. The The spirit tightened his grasp and squeezed him more and said for the third time, "Read." Afraid that he might die, Muhammad said, "What shall I read?" After his encounter with the spirit, Muhammad was afraid that what happened to him was from a Jinni. Then later, Muhammad declared in the Quran that the spirit who squeezed him was the angel Gabriel. We read in Surat Al-Baqarah 2:97:
Chapter 2: Muhammad's Call
Whatever was in the cave is something I hope never to meet. There is no paralel in the bible where spirits call prophets with violence. The opposite is the case and should be.

Selah,