Walter_Mitty

Ansar,

The accepted canonical version of the Koran was selected from other codices that were in existence at the time. The problem is, hundreds of years before these codices, the only way allowed to spread the "word" was via oral tradition. I'm sorry, but I can't swallow that Muhammad’s "divine revelation" made in tact to the present day Koran. I know Muslims believe this but I do not. Especially in light of the other codices and variant versions--not to mention the huge time lag. Short of having a recording of Muhammad's voice, I have to treat such claims with a measure of skepticism.

As for investigating these texts...

I have to the best of my ability but I have to rely on English translations (both for Christianity and Islam). Again, if I have to speak Arabic, Greek, or Latin to understand God's divine revelation, well, whose fault is that? You can't honestly expect John Q. Christian or Muslim to be a master linguist, not to mention an archeologist and historian can you? If God's revelation is so difficult that even the local "village idiot" can't figure it out, what does that say?

The Koran verifies it's allegory you say. No surprise here but I ask you how in the blue blazes is the average Joe suppose to translate the "allegory" into "God's message"? Can you not see what I'm driving at here? I can say that the Bible is shrouded in allegory and only through deep study, prayer, historical context, and the holy spirit--combined with looking at the Bible as a whole--one can then reveal it's "true meaning". How do you disprove that? Moreover, one can apply that standard to ANY religious text.

I think the mere fact that Muslims do not agree on what the Koran says, should make my point. Of course, you'll say they are reading that which Satan has corrupted. Again, how do I know Satan has not corrupted your version. Perhaps Allah came back and redelivered his message again to Joseph Smith. Perhaps, you should be a Mormon?

Curious, have you memorized the Koran? I hear it's a high honor to do so among Muslims.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]</p>

Walter_Mitty

Ansar my friend, this I got to see! Naturally, I assume you're talking about the Muslim God.

I honestly would like to see you prove to me there is a God without citing the Koran or Allah as proof. Considering that most religions have divine prophets, sacred texts, and miracles, I'd like to know how in the devil you have come to your conclusion.


Bear in mind I'll be traveling on the 26th so I hope you can "enlighten" me by Thursday. Otherwise, I can't promise I'll have computer access so our friendly discussion might have to wait.

Cheers!

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]</p>

Buffman

I, also, will await you your verifiable proof for a supernatural God...regardless of what humans have chosen to name him/her/it. (Of course, there is another forum for that never ending effort on the part of the theist apologists.)

ansarthemystic

hello Bibliophile and Buffman

I am appaled that you both misunderstood my statement. I clearly said that the discussion the most interests me is the subject of the existence of god....no where did I state that I have absoulte proof that god exists. If you read my other posts you will see that I have always said that I have no "proof" that will be acceptable to atheists i.e Qur'an, Islam, etc.

However the subject interests me, and I have some ideas that I would like to put forth, and will do in the EoG forum without using the Qur'an as proof.. Bibliophile, I am sorry but I will not be enlightening you by Thursday, since I want to treat Ali Sena site with the same thoroughness as I have treated other subjects like Islam,Christianity, Anthropology and Philosophy.

Bibliophile you still have yet to address my questions about mistranslation, language, and the rejection of allegorical arguments....but i will answer your earlier questions in the next post

Peace and blessings

ansarthemystic

YOU WROTE: "The accepted canonical version of the Koran was selected from other codices that were in existence at the time. The problem is, hundreds of years before these codices, the only way allowed to spread the "word" was via oral tradition. I'm sorry, but I can't swallow that Muhammad’s "divine revelation" made in tact to the present day Koran. I know Muslims believe this but I do not. Especially in light of the other codices and variant versions--not to mention the huge time lag. Short of having a recording of Muhammad's voice, I have to treat such claims with a measure of skepticism."

The "accepted canonical version of the Koran"?
True there were also other codices involved,but here is the story of how we got the current Arabic Qur'an.
The Qur'an's revelations were immediately put into writing by the scribes that could write, such as Zaid,Au Bakr,Umar,Uthman,Ali,Zubair ibn Awam,'Abd Allah ibn Sa'd,Khalid,Aban,Ubayy ibn K'ab,Hanzalah ibn Rabi,Mu'auqab ibn Abu Fatimah,'Abd Allah ibn Arqam ibn Shurahbil, and 'Abd Allah ibn Rawahah, and many more to the number of 42 Companions who served as scribes. This is reported by Sahih Muslim, Buhkhari, and Uthman himself.
The verse of the Qur'an were put into writing in the Prophet's(SAW)lifetime, according to his orders, and before his own eyes. So your claim that hundreds of years before the numerous Quranic codices existed the revelation was spread by word of mouth only is untrue.
Uthman was one of the earliest to "convert" to Islam,who lived in the lifetime of the Prophet(SAW), was his friend, who became the third Caliph and who collected all of the manuscripts of the Qur'an which were in circulation over the whole of Arabia which Abu Bakr had collected before him.This is reported by Sahih Muslim, Buhkhari,and Uthman himself.
Abu Bakr, another of the Prophet's(SAW) companions, did not allow anything to be added or written that was not already put into writing during the Prophet's(SAW) lifetime.He collected all of the dispersed manuscripts of the Qur'an to compare them with those that the Companions carried with them to examine them for additions, deletions, errors, distortions, etc.
It was Uthman, the Third Caliph, who burned all copies of the Qur'an that were not in the dialect of the Quaraish tribe that Muhammad(PBUH) belonged to. In this fashion, the Arabic Qur'an,we believe, is the exact words of the Prophet as they left his lips after the verses were revealed to him. Now you can see how and why the "accepted canonical version" of the Qur'an was selected, if you believe it..which I think you stated you don't. Well its good to be skeptical, that's all I can tell you. the huge time lag you speak of is misleading since the Qur'an was put into writing DURING the lifetime of the Prophet(SAW)!

YOU WROTE: "I have to the best of my ability but I have to rely on English translations (both for Christianity and Islam). Again, if I have to speak Arabic, Greek, or Latin to understand God's divine revelation, well, whose fault is that? You can't honestly expect John Q. Christian or Muslim to be a master linguist, not to mention an archeologist and historian can you? If God's revelation is so difficult that even the local "village idiot" can't figure it out, what does that say?"

This is true...however what does one do when the translation is incorrect. Shouldn't the translated version be verified by speakers of the language it is translated from?hmmm? God's revelation is not difficult to understand, it simply must be correctly translated.Wouldn't you agree?hmmm?

YOU WROTE: "The Koran verifies it's allegory you say. No surprise here but I ask you how in the blue blazes is the average Joe suppose to translate the "allegory" into "God's message"? Can you not see what I'm driving at here? I can say that the Bible is shrouded in allegory and only through deep study, prayer, historical context, and the holy spirit--combined with looking at the Bible as a whole--one can then reveal it's "true meaning". How do you disprove that? Moreover, one can apply that standard to ANY religious text."

If the Qur'an says that such and such ayat is to be understood in terms of allegory or metaphor, is not the Qur'an clearly pointing to this verse as an allegory or metaphor?hmmm? The Qur'an does this! And how does the average human translate allegory into god's message? In the case of the descriptions of Paradise and Hellfire, wouldn't the message be that you want to go to the former, and that you should avoid going to the latter. Doesn't this message become clearer when it is described how to get into either of these states(Paradise and Hellfire are "places" without really being "places", if you understand what I men. They are more like a state of mind while, in a certain "realm" if you like.
The example you mentioned refers to what christians do. It is only necessary to read the Qur'an to discern it's meaning. The Qur'an is in plain language, and sometimes this is the easiest to distort, I must admit.

YOU WROTE: I think the mere fact that Muslims do not agree on what the Koran says, should make my point. Of course, you'll say they are reading that which Satan has corrupted. Again, how do I know Satan has not corrupted your version. Perhaps Allah came back and redelivered his message again to Joseph Smith. Perhaps, you should be a Mormon?

Muslims DO agree with what the Qur'an says, but a lot of us DO NOT agree with how it has been translated. And no I will not say that what they are reading, Satan corrupted, as you assume. The role that Satan plays in existence is not as you assume, you were stating what christians think..."Satan did it!!!!" yadayadayada...Mankind has tried to corrupt the Bible and the Qur'an not Satan.
I have heard the talk that Satan has corrupted the Qur'an, and some of the talk is done by Muslims, and that the book we are reading is the corrupted one, but we judge the book by what it says, not what others say about it.

YOU ALSO WROTE: "Perhaps Allah came back and redelivered his message again to Joseph Smith. Perhaps, you should be a Mormon?"

This is preposterous!, I hope you were joking. MOrmons are racists, believe that Jesus was not God, but a god, and they STILL worship him. Plus the Qur'an says that there will be no other prophet after Muhammad(PBUH), but theere I go using the Quran to prove a statement &lt;Ansar slaps himself repeatedly&gt;.

YOU WROTE:"Curious, have you memorized the Koran? I hear it's a high honor to do so among Muslims."

No, actually I studied Islam for 10 years from the time when I was 12 until I was 22. I am now 25 going on 26, so I have only been practicing Islam for 3 1/2 years.Insha'Allah I will commit the Qur'an to memory fully.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: ansarthemystic ]

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: ansarthemystic ]</p>

Walter_Mitty

I'll try to get back to you one more time on Thursday--Allah willing!

Buffman

ansarthemystic

I have always said that I have no "proof" that will be acceptable to atheists...

I might suggest that you have no proof that will pass the scientific method of validation. Atheists are not the only people who use that method to separate fact from fiction. I am surprised that you appear to be unaware of that. Or perhaps you had something else in mind.

At this juncture, since you admit that you have no verifiable evidence for the existence of the supernatural, I will leave this discussion in the very capable hands of Bibliophile. Thank you for attempting to deal with my remarks.

Walter_Mitty

Ansar:
I really don't understand the phrase "hide behind allegory, language and translators mistakes" that you used. If there is a dispute about certain translation, isn't the responsible scholar supposed to investigate it? I think so. I've heard christian apologetics use the argument without knowing for themselves what the real translation s are, so I can understand why you are wary of any mistranslation arguments. However atheists also use the incorrect and numerous translation argument against christianity without investigating a proper translation. Do you not think it also neccesary to understand the language of something written in a language you are not familar with? How about this? If theere is a description of an afterlife, and no human has come back from an afterlife to confirm anything(if there is even an afterlife to begin with), is it wrong to assume that these statements are allegorical and /or metaphorical.I think atheists reject allegory arguments for two reasons:1)some religious scholar is misleading them or the atheist thinks he is being mislead or 2)the atheist really can't argue against the allegory argument,so they reject it.


Biblio: Again, I only speak English. I am relying on the translations of numerous experts. Furthermore, one has to evaluate these experts just as you evaluate the sources because almost everyone has biases. Regardless, if “scholars” were required to speak multiple languages, scholarly research would grind to a halt! In regards to Christianity and documents, I have read as many translations of the variant sources as I can. Some of the authors are clearly biased, some try to look at those documents from a purely historical or archeological standpoint. Regardless, I have almost reached a strong atheistic stance in regards to the Christian version of God and I feel quite comfortable in making that assessment.


Ansar:
1)some religious scholar is misleading them or the atheist thinks he is being mislead or 2)the atheist really can't argue against the allegory argument,so they reject it.


Biblio: I already answered #1. As for #2, the great flaw in regards to “allegory” is that Muslims, Christians, Jews, and umpteen other religions, do not uniformly follow there own “allegories”. Some Muslims interpret an allegory as a sanction to do great violence, some do not. The same with the other religions. Now you seem to be hell bent on proving that the Koran is not a violent text “if they only understood it”. Well, I have to go with facts Ansar. The FACTS are that Allah’s allegories are being misinterpreted by thousands of Muslims and many times this leads to violence. So, before worrying about a handful of atheists, you may wish to try and get your own house in order.

Once more...

Quoting Robert Green Ingersoll and applying his words to the Quaran:

“It may be urged that millions have not the capacity to understand a revelation, although expressed in the plainest words. To this it seems a sufficient reply to ask, why a being of infinite power should create men so devoid of intelligence, that he cannot by any means make known to them his will?”


Ansar: So why do you reject allegorical arguments? Specifically since it is not a scholar's assumption, in the case of the Qur'an. The Qur'an specifically states that it 's descriptions of Paradise and Hellfire are allegory since humans will not understand these places without reference to something earthly.


Biblio: Well that’s great regarding heaven and hell. But my concerns are those Muslims, or Christians, etc., that seem to misinterpret those allegories as sanctions for violence! If all Muslims uniformly interpreted their allegories and Koranic verses in the same manner, I may well seriously consider it. Until then, I am very skeptical.


Ansar:
This is true...however what does one do when the translation is incorrect. Shouldn't the translated version be verified by speakers of the language it is translated from?hmmm? God's revelation is not difficult to understand, it simply must be correctly translated.Wouldn't you agree?hmmm?


Biblio: How do I determine which translation is correct when I do not speak Arabic? Answer: I have to wade through umpteen English translations and I have to sort through numerous “experts” and their opinions—many of which have theological biases—and then form my own opinion. Moreover, you are going from the assumption that the Koran is THEE one true text. To that I ask you if you have thoroughly reviewed any of the following:

The Torah and its variant documents

The Bible and its variant documents

Some modern day holy books:
The Book of Mormon, The New World Translation, The Manual of the Mother Church, Science & Health.

Other religions:
Hinduism: Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Mahabharata, & Ramayana

Buddhism: Tripitaka & Theravada

Janism: Siddhanta & Anuyega

Sikhism: Guru, Granth, & Sahib

Baha’l: Kitab-I-Aqdas

As you would say, “God’s revelation is not difficult to understand” if it’s correctly translated. Of course, in the spirit of empiricism and scholarly communication, you would have to review and translate many “holy texts” before you can safely say that. Just applying that standard to the sacred writings I list could take a lifetime. Again, please refer to the above Ingersoll quote for my opinion on this matter.

As for the Koran itself…

A most excellent book that my “expert” recommended is the following:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/157392198X/qid=1027600462/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1932489-4785605" target="_blank">The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book</a> by Ibn Warraq; Prometheus Books, 1998.

Warraq brings up some interesting points including:

Uthman was caliph from 644-656. He was asked for an official codex by one of his generals because the troops were fighting over which reading of the Koran was correct. The problem is…

1.The Arabic of the Koran was not a dialect.

2.There are variations between the number and names of the people working with Zaid. (One version lists somebody already dead at that time!)

3.In these stories there is no mention of Zaid's involvement in an earlier rescension.

Modern Muslims assert that the current Koran is identical to the version that Muhammad recited. But earlier Muslims were more flexible. 'Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost. Codices were made by different scholars (e.g. Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai ibn Ka'b, 'Ali, Abu Bakr, al Aswad).

'Uthman's codex supposedly standardized the consonantal text, yet consonantal variations existed into the 4th century AH. An unvowelled script added to the problem. Also, 'Uthman tried to destroy rival codices but variant readings survived. Standardization was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of Ibn Mujahid. Even he admitted 14 versions of the Koran. These are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations.

The 'Uthmanic recension was necessary to deal with the uncertainty regarding the canonical text.

It is clear that in the year 30 AH no official redaction existed. Tradition itself admits that there were various 'schools,' one in Iraq, one in Syria, one in al-Basrah, besides others in smaller places.

Many experts also think the Koran was plagarized, for example: Muhammad preached a message of Jewish Messianism and became involved in a joint attempt by Jews and Arabs, citing common Abrahamic decent, to reconquer Palestine. Due to this, the earliest non-Muslim sources report strong anti-Christian sentiment. Eventually the Arabs fought with the Jews in Palestine and needed to establish a separate religious identity. They were hindered by lack of religious structure, so they borrowed heavily from the Samaritans. Both religions place a similar emphasis on the unity of God, the fatiha resembles a Samaritan prayer, the Koran only seems to know of the Torah or the Psalms (the Samaritans do not recognize the rest of the Hebrew scriptures), the importance of Moses, and the similarities between the Samaritan view of the Messiah and the Muslim concept of the Mahdi.

Samaritan structure with Muslim parallels:

Prophet

Samaritan-Moses
Muslim-Muhammad

Major event

Samaritan-Exodus
Muslim-Hijra

Scripture

Samaritan-Pentateuch
Muslim-Koran

Holy Mountain

Samaritan-Mt. Sinai/ Gerizim
Muslim-Mt. Hira

Sanctuary near Mountain

Samaritan-Shechem
Muslim-Mecca

(See also--Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (1977).)

Back to Warraq…

Historical errors include: Mary being the sister of Aaron(S. 3:31ff), Haman being Pharaoh's minister (S.28:38), and the conflation of Gideon and Saul (S. 2:250). There are contradictory attitudes toward non-Muslims. S. 2:189 says to fight against unbelievers and Suratut-Taubah says to make war on those who disagree, but S. 2:579 says there is no compulsion in religion and S. 24:45 says to dispute only kindly with Jews and Christians.

Ansar, Warraq goes on to list NUMEROUS proofs of the Koran being plagiarized from Judaism. In fact, he presents so much evidence that I do not have the time to paraphrase or quote it all.

Ansar, at this point I may have to concur with Buffman. I’m sorry but before we proceed you really need to read Warraq. He makes a very compelling case and based on his work, I can plainly see that the Koran is the work of many men.

Furthermore, many credible experts also believe this. This tends to make the importance of mistranslations, allegory, and “the Koran is not a violent book”, a non-issue. Ansar, I’m a reasonable man and I am applying the same critical evaluation of sources to the Koran as I did to Christianity.

I am also a trained researcher and part of my daily job is to critically evaluate sources. One needs to look at author biases, consensus of experts, historical facts, source quality, etc., before one draws a conclusion. The longer I do this in regards to the Koran, the more I feel confidant in stating that this is not the work of God.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]</p>

ManM

ansarthemystic,
I do not know anything about Islam, so please forgive me if this is a simple question.

Did Allah create death?

ansarthemystic

Ibn Waraq? You have got to be kidding me, right? His scholarship is the worst I have seen! I am suprised that atheists even mention his name. That's like mentioning Ali Dashti, Ali Sena,Mohamed Ibn Zakria al Razi Zomroda of Ibn al Rawendy,and Salmon Rushdie as credible critics of Islam. Most christian apologetics use ibn Waraq as a propaganda tool.His polemics are vehemently anti-Islam, just like Ali Sena's, The former so-called Muslim who founded the website Faithfreedom.org.
He uses sources like Samuel Zweimer, and Dr, Morey,Bernard Lewis. I may be young, but like I said, I studied Islam for 10 years before I became a Muslim. I am very familiar with the writings of Muslim apostates. And the public thinks that these people are credible because they are former Muslims, since they have been "in the fold", yet these same apostates claim that the Muslim masses are unaware of the "real" Islam. Why should we believe that they know the "real" Islam when they use sources from non-Muslims that know nothing of Islam like they do since they know the "real" Islam!? Give me a break, my friend! Waraq's scholarship is very poor indeed!