Walter_Mitty

Anasar,

To make my point I shall stick to Koran, Surah 9:5.

I already knew that much like the Bible, there are numerous translations of the Quaran. What I did not know was which versions of the English translations are considered to be close to the Uthmanic Quaran*.

Since I have access to all things academic, I consulted someone whom I consider to be an expert, namely, a professor of religious studies.

This is what he told me over coffee:

The M.M. Pickthall version is alleged to be one of the more accurate translations and is consequently held in high regards by most Sunni Muslims. The Ysufali version also gets high marks in many scholarly circles.Then there is also the Shakir and Khalifa versions as well as NUMEROUS other translations.

In regards to Koran, Surah 9:5, here’s what these translations say:

Pickthal version: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Yusufali version: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

Shakir version: "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Khalifa version: "Once the Sacred Months are past, you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."

The Uthman Quaran* (so named after the caliph Uthman ibn Affan who is alleged to have commissioned its recording) is generally accepted among Muslim Orthodoxy as the authoritative recording of the oral tradition. Naturally, they assert that this oral tradition can be traced back to Muhammad.

1) I am also told that during Muhammad’s lifetime—not to mention afterwards—that it was very difficult to write the Arabic script with any accuracy. Evidently, the script made it impossible to distinguish some consonants from others with similar forms, namely, because they lacked modern diacritical marks. Due to this problem it was very hard to translate certain differences among the various tribal dialects. (Bear in mind that the tribes relied on a oral tradition which is alleged to be traceable back to Mohammed)

2) There were MANY variant versions of the Quaran in existence when the Uthman translation was being assembled. I am also told that many of these versions were used until the 4th century, when finally the Uthman translation won out as canonical. As proof of this I ask you to find Arthur Jeffery’s “Materials for a History of the Text of the Quaran” which identifies some 15 primary codices. The bottom line here is that much like the Bible, the Muslims also had to decide which works were “divine”. Also, like the Bible, this did not happen over night and was subject to much debate—despite God’s alleged guidance.

3) Many of these variant versions reflected certain theological preferences of different groups of Muslims. Also, it’s pretty safe to say—at least in academia—-that it’s almost laughable to think that there was one uniform text that can be traced back to Muhammad. In fact, my “expert” tells me that there were quite literally thousands of variant readings at the time the Uthmanic version was assembled. This in turn makes it impossible to tell what the true original form may have been.

(See also Richtungen der Ilamischen Koranauslegung by Ignacz Goldziher for proof of these theological differences)

Other problems:

The Quaran suggests that many revelations may have been forgotten (87:6-7). It also says this at (2:106) and goes on to suggest that Allah sends another verse that’s equal to, or better than, that which is lost. In addition (16:101) admits that verses are substituted. Of course, these changes are “divinely” sanctioned according to (22:52).

What my expert points out to me is that the Quaran affirms both lost revelations and their replacements, though there is no guarantee that the replacement will be the same as that which was lost. (Talk about the ultimate circular argument!)

Quaran 22:52

I also learned something else that is quite interesting. Namely, that 22:52 admits that many verses have been changed. This is due to none other than Satan himself influencing the Prophets.

Yusufali: "Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom:"

Pickthall: "Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise;"

Shakir: "And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the Shaitan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise,"

Khalifa: "We did not send before you any messenger, nor a prophet, without having the devil interfere in his wishes. GOD then nullifies what the devil has done. GOD perfects His revelations. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise."

Of course, Allah somehow fixes these revelations but it’s lost on me as to how He goes about this.

Summation:

1) Numerous “other than Arabic” translations are in existence. According to you, everyone else needs to speak Arabic to get the “true meaning” ® of the Quaran. If so, how in the seven heavens and nine hells does Allah expect we Infidels to be saved if we can’t speak Arabic?

2) Numerous people who claim to be Muslims use these “other than Arabic” translations. Why does Allah allow this if those translations are wrong?

3) Numerous Arabic versions existed right up until the 4th century, how can I be sure that the Uthmanic version came from Muhhamad?

4) It’s common knowledge that Orthodox Muslims allow their theological biases to influence how they interpreted the Quran. This can also be seen in the Orthodoxy of Christianity and Judaism. So, how do I know which interpretation is the “sacred” version and which is based on theological biases?

5) The Quaran confirms that there have been omitted revelations. It confirms that there have been replacements which “may” be equal to or better than the original. The Quaran also confirms that Satan influences the prophets to make mistakes. Granted Allah fixes these mistakes but how, pray tell, are we to discern between that which is of Satan and that which is of Allah?

If Allah is “all powerful” and can make the universe—-not to mention making donkeys talk and bushes burn--why can he not make one book that is uniformly followed among his followers? According to Muslim’s, the Torah and the Bible have been corrupted by Satan. Naturally, the Quaran is alleged to be how Allah goes about correcting this.

Why did Allah allow Satan to make these changes in the first place? Considering that millions of people are following corrupt texts, I would have to say that Allah is not being very ethical. If Allah is all-powerful, HE could certainly prevent Satan from changing any text period but apparently he chose not to.

To answer your other question, the version of the Quran that I read was the Yusufali version. I read it cover to cover after September 11th. I wanted to see what kind of nonsense had the power to inspire people to fly planes into skyscrapers. Naturally, I’m sure you’ll tell me that these chaps were not True Muslims ®. To be honest with you, that answer is just as tedious from Muslims as it is when I hear it from the True Christians ®.

What makes me chuckle is that you are hiding behind allegory, mistakes of the translators, context, and language. The problem is, the Christians and the Jews are doing the SAME thing.

In short: I reject the Quaran because I think it's a product of men--much like the Bible and the Torah. Furthermore, I think the Quran may have been plagarized from Christianity and Judaism. Finally, I see NOTHING divine in any of the three. If these are examples of "divine inspiration" then I fear God has Alzheimer’s.

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

Buffman

ansarthemystic

Is this a sincere statement/question?

I meant that I did not mean aliteral war between the two religions, but I was wondering why atheists lump the two religions together when they are different. I am much happier when Atheists reject Islam BECAUSE it's theistic INSTEAD of because they think it is just a variation of christianity and judaism.

I can only speak for myself, but quite simply, once a human accepts the existence of a supernatural world, everything after that is merely street front, widow dressing, paraphernalia used to attract unsuspecting potential buyers. (It's the Macy's-Gimbel's-Wanamaker's battles of 100 years ago. The battle of the Temples-Cathedrals-Mosques.)

The natural, human, fear of death and the unknown, coupled with curiosity and a need for order, can be pacified/controlled/conditioned/ utilized by a religious organization to create an army of blind faith automatons to do whatever their clerical masters request of them. That is why, when the chips are all on the table, Democracy and Religion are enemies; the the most outspoken enemy of Democracy if Islam. (That does not mean that I necessarily think that Democracy is a better form of government. Personally, I prefer an informed federal republic form of government...if I can't have a Benevolent Dictator.)

How is the Gabriel of the Qu'ran different than the one found in the Holy Bible. A man made, supernatural, angel. What makes the miracles found in one (so-called) sacred book more valid than those found in the others? Please don't use the ridiculous argument that it is because the Qu'ran is the last, best and most sacred book. The Moromons, or the Scientologists, or the dozens of other religious faith beliefs that have come into being since the Qu'ran would, or at least should, take you to task if you used that approach.

Buffman

Bibliophile

Just read your post. What magnificent homework. Thank you.

hinduwoman

Another Islamic apologist! Send him off to <a href="http://www.faithfreedom.org" target="_blank">www.faithfreedom.org</a> where he can argue about the lack of violence in Koran with Ali Sinha.

ansarthemystic

I have been waiting for someone to suggest this site, and answering-islam.org. Allah willing I will begin my responses tommorow since there are many accusations on both sites and it will take some time, and probably will become tedious to most readers who are not truly interested in the subject. But in any event I will refute each and every claim and accusation.

peace and blessings

ansarthemystic

bibliophile and buffman

Time constraints are preventing me from answering right now, but I will begin giving answers tommorrow as I alrady told hinduwoman.

I have heard each and every one of the claims against Islam before, and I have even heard the questions asked of me countless times.

None of the claims against Islam will hold any water because I have answered them for myself AND OTHERS YEARS AGO before I acceptied Islam.

So I will be refuting all of these accusations insha-Allah( god willing)!

Again, I maintain, the only noteworthy reason to deny Islam is to deny the existence of god based on existing evidence. all other claims are thoriughly invalid, as i will be showing here, if anyone is willing to stick around and read.

Peace and blessings!

Walter_Mitty

Ansar,

I'd be interested in hearing how you validate the "accpeted" version of the Quran. Also, I'd be interested in hearing how you do it withot hiding behind language, allegory, translators mistakes, etc. Finally, what about all those other codices that WERE in existence. What if Satan influenced Muslims to follow the accepted version and one of those other codices happen to be "Allah's Will".

Buffman,

Thanks! Actually, this is something I've been meaning to investigate and Ansar gave me the excuse.

Echo

Then clarify it for me please.

Why? If I'm ignorant of some aspect of Islam, then you are in the position to help me acquire a better understanding. But all I've seen you do is present quotes that are tinged with violence and then follow up with more accurate translations that *still* suggest violence.

I don't speak Arabic, and I never knew Muhammed, so maybe your translations really are a more accurate reflection of what Muhammed (or God, presuming he was the author) was trying to say. I'm simply not in the position to evaluate your translations with any authority. I would like to know, however, if there is a widespread movement in the Muslim community to rework common English translations of the Koran to correct some of these gross mistranslations? Is this just something that you and a few other people have problems with, or is it generally well known among scholars in the field that English versions of the Koran are faulty and misleading?

ansarthemystic

I apologize for the way I spoke to you, I just get frustrated because all of these things about Islam I have heard millions of times before, and they have already been refuted, so either people are not satisfied with the answers or they simply ignore them.

Generally speaking their is a growing movement here in America to to correctly translate the Qur'an into English. Thus far the "better" translation is the one by Maulana Muhammad Ali.Among the translations mentioned by bibliophile and his "expert" the only one accepted by many Muslims is Yusuf Ali's. The other ones are accepted by non-arab scholars, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Arab Muslims generally reject them, especially Pickthal.

However in the Middle East and other non-Western countries this type of translation work is totally unacceptable in the eyes of the Muslim rulers and clerics. They have fooled the ignorant masses. They also want the "infidels" to see that they want to kill them and that it is "sanctioned in the Qur'an. Besides when they tell doubtful people to murder unbelievers, all they have to do is recite the proper "verse"

Bibliophile,
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.

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.

Lastly,
Buffman and Hinduwoman, the sites you mentioned rely heavily on Hadiths and as I told Bibliophile you can not use Hadiths as part of your argument, because 1) NO Muslim believes that Hadith are divinely inspired.2) Muslims do not agree about the importance or necessity of Hadith, but we agree on the Qur'an. And 3)almost ninety percent of all hadiths known have been shown to be Jewish, christian, or Muslim fabrications that either wanted to diparage Islam and Muhammad(PBUH),or they wanted to make Muhammad(PBUH) and Islam Look good by lying. The other ten percent are called Hadith Qudsi, and are written by the most respect men Muslim(RAA) and Buhkhari(RAA), and are still argued over! So you see, even though the scholars tell us that we know a lot about Muhhammad's(PBUH)life, we know next to nothing. For example the ahadith tell us that Muhammad(PBUH) was a white man with blue eyes an short hair. Yet other sources say that Muhammad's(PBUH) grandfather and father were among the "blackest" men in Arabia, and that his hair was so long that he always wore a turban, and that he never even took it off for ablutions. Who are we to believe?

So Insha'Allah after I review the faith freedom site today I will respond. I have already reviewed Answering-islam.org and they are bogus. I will elaborate on this later

Peace and blessings

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

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

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

ansarthemystic

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Buffman:
[QB]ansarthemystic

Is this a sincere statement/question?

I meant that I did not mean aliteral war between the two religions, but I was wondering why atheists lump the two religions together when they are different. I am much happier when Atheists reject Islam BECAUSE it's theistic INSTEAD of because they think it is just a variation of christianity and judaism.

It is a very sincere statement. Once we get the misconceptions out of the way the real discussion, the one I am actually interested in...i.e is there a god?...will get tackled.When an atheist tells me they reject Islam because of this and that about Islam I consider them insincere. It's almost like they are waiting for the proper god-concept or religion or "holy Book" to believe. I always thought that an atheist simply did not believe that god exists. So let's talk about that....AFTER I refute EVERY negative thing that has been said about Islam on this board.

peace and blessings!