If I ever get world enough and time, I will check in on my counterpart Ziauddin Sardar's Blogging the Qur'an series at the Guardian, and start Blogging Blogging the Qur'an. It will be extremely illuminating, I believe, to compare our two treatments of the same material. If anyone has read his entries and has any observations, please note them here. In the meantime, I'm keeping up my own series, primarily exploring how mainstream Muslim commentators have understood the Qur'anic text.
This early Meccan sura “has no rival,” says Muhammad Al-Ghazali, “in its uncompromising affirmation of the Absolute Unity of Allah.” It takes its name from the two Arabic letters that begin it, ta (ﻁ) and ha (ﻩ). Ibn Abbas and other early commentators have suggested that ta ha (طه) is actually a phrase from an ancient Arabic dialect, meaning “O man,” in which case it may be that here Allah is addressing Muhammad, as he does in v. 2 — where once again consoles his downcast prophet, telling him he is not being given the Qur’an in order to distress him. Everything belongs to Allah (v. 6) and he knows all secrets (v. 7), for he has the best names – that is, the highest attributes (v. 8).
Then verses 9-99 tell yet again the story of Moses, which has already been touched on in suras 2, 7, 10, and 17. But, as Al-Ghazali observes, “every time the story appears different aspects of it emerge. Each version has details which are not included in any other version.” But the repeated aspects have their usefulness as well. Al-Ghazali also points out that this sura is very concerned with reminding and bidding the faithful to remember truths that they have already learned: the Qur’an itself is a reminder (v. 3); the believers should pray regularly so as to remember Allah (v. 14); Moses asks Allah to be given Aaron as a helper, so that together the brothers can praise and remember him without ceasing (vv. 29-34); Allah grants this, and warns Moses not to grow slack in remembering him (v. 42); Allah instructs Moses to go speak to Pharaoh so that perhaps Pharaoh will remember or show some fear of Allah (v. 44); Allah never forgets (v. 52), but after the mysterious Samiri fashions the idol of the calf, he tells the people that this is their god, but that Moses has forgotten that (v. 88); Allah tells Muhammad that he told him the whole story of Moses again as a reminder (v. 99); Allah gave the world the Qur’an so as to bring some people to remember him (v. 113); Adam forgot his covenant with Allah (v. 115); Allah will forget on the Day of Judgment those who forgot his signs (ayat, or verses of the Qur’an) in this world (v. 126).
Sufis say that when Moses approached the Burning Bush and heard the voice of Allah (vv. 10-17), he attained the states of fana, or absorption of the self into the deity, and baqaa, life in union with Allah. His shoes, they say, represented his separation from Allah, which is why Allah tells him to take them off (v. 12). According to Ibn Masud Baghavi in Ma’alimut-tanzil, what Moses saw wasn’t actually fire at all, but the heavenly light (Nur) of Allah.
Anyway, Allah equips Moses with the staff that turns into a snake (v. 20) and a hand that would turn brilliant white “without disease” (v. 22), and sends him off to confront Pharaoh. Allah grants Moses’ request to take Aaron along (v. 36) and tells him the story of how he was plucked out of the river by “one who is an enemy to Me and an enemy to him” (v. 39) as a baby and returned to his mother (v. 40). The story is told as if the hearers are already familiar with the outline of the story of Moses from the Book of Exodus.
When Allah tells Moses and Aaron again to go to Pharaoh (v. 44), they respond that they’re afraid “lest he hasten with insolence against us, or lest he transgress all bounds” (v. 46). Allah responds that they should not be afraid, for he is with them, and sees and hears everything – recalling the message of consolation he gave to Muhammad in vv. 5-7. So Moses and Aaron do their duty, telling Pharaoh that Allah is the only God and has “made for you the earth like a carpet spread out” (v. 53), and that punishment awaits the disbelievers (v. 48). But Pharoah rejects their message (v. 56) and says he can match their miracles (v. 58). When his magicians, however, profess their faith in Allah (v. 70), Pharaoh threatens them in language that eerily foreshadows Allah’s own recommended punishment (revealed later) for those who make war against Allah and Muhammad (5:33): he tells them he’ll crucify them, or amputate a hand and a foot on opposite sides (v. 71). Evidently the punishments are fine – the only problem is the person administering them, and for what reason.
Allah saves the Israelites from Pharaoh by parting the sea so that they pass on dry land (vv. 77-79). Moses ascends the mountain to meet Allah, but doesn’t receive the Ten Commandments. Instead, Allah asks him why he hurried up the mountain in advance of his people (v. 82) and tells him that he is testing Moses’ people by allowing Samiri to lead them astray (v. 85). Moses scolds Aaron for doing nothing when he saw them beginning to go astray (v. 92). Samiri explains that he took “a handful (of dust) from the footprint of the Messenger” to fashion the calf (v. 96). Muslim commentators generally agree that he took this dust from one of the hoofprints left by the angel Gabriel’s horse, as Gabriel led the Israelites in battle. Moses punishes Samiri, telling him “thy punishment in this life will be that thou wilt say, ‘touch me not’ (v. 97). Ibn Kathir explains: “This means, ‘Just as you took and touched what was not your right to take and touch of the messenger’s foot print, such is your punishment in this life, that you will say, ‘Do not touch (me).’ This means, ‘You will not touch the people and they will not touch you.’” This may be a hint that Samiri is a Samaritan – a people who generally did not (and do not) intermingle with outsiders.
Verses 100-112 warn about the dreadful Day of Judgment. Then verses 113-123 tell us that Allah has sent down an “Arabic Qur’an” so that people may fear him (v. 113) – this is one of the verses that establishes the proposition that the Qur’an is essentially in Arabic and cannot be translated. Allah tells Muhammad “be not in haste with the Qur’an before its revelation to thee is completed” (v. 114). This is because, says Ibn Abbas, Muhammad would recite revelations rapidly as they were being revealed, trying to remember them. He should trust in Allah’s power to make him remember. After that the Qur’an returns to the story of Adam’s fall; Satan tempts Adam to eat from the Tree of Eternity (v. 120) – not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as in Genesis. Allah expels Adam and Eve from the Garden but tells them that those who follow his guidance will not lose their way (v. 123).
Verses 124-135 conclude the sura with more warnings: the disbelievers will be raised up blind on Judgment Day (v. 125); Muhammad should be patient with the unbelievers (v. 130), because their punishment is coming (v. 129); nor should Muhammad envy their worldly goods (v. 131); the unbelievers ask for a sign, but they have ignored all of Allah’s previous revelations (v. 133).
Next week: Sura 21, “The Prophets”: “Closer and closer to mankind comes their Reckoning, yet they heed not and they turn away.”
(Here you can find links to all the earlier "Blogging the Qur'an" segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)
Robert
Do you ever sleep?
Robert
Do you ever sleep?
Would love to see that idea realized: Blogging Blogging the Quran.
Well, I notice that no one needs to email questions to Robert and wait for answers only when you approve.
Maybe you should post the Guardian's series at Dhimmi Watch.
My main problem with the Qur'an is that I can never remember where the apostrophe goes.
Was there any story floating around the Middle East in Mohammed's time that he did not "borrow" to flesh out the Qur'an?
I'm surprised that there is not an Islamic version of the Great Flood.
Robert.
Thought you might be interested to know that Ziauddin Sardar cropped up as the author of a book review in THE TIMES a couple of weeks ago. This time, enthusiastically endorsing a new potboiler from Geza Vermes, purporting to debunk the Resurrection of Christ. You could never guess from the review that Sardar has any kind of islamic agenda.
I wrote to the Times Editor, critiquing the sweeping and unsupported statements which litter the review. No reply, but then calling cruddy journalism into question is probably not a welcome initiative.
"If I ever get world enough and time," --RS.
From first sentence, above.
Robert, thanks for your reference to 17th Century English poet Andrew Marvell. Carpe Diem! (And I know you are!)
*
To His Coy Mistress
by Andrew Marvell
Had we but world enough and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime.
We would sit down, and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love’s day.
Thou by the Indian Ganges’ side
Shouldst rubies find; I by the tide
Of Humber would complain. I would
Love you ten years before the flood,
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews.
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires and more slow;
An hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
But thirty thousand to the rest;
An age at least to every part,
And the last age should show your heart.
For, lady, you deserve this state,
Nor would I love at lower rate.
But at my back I always hear
Time’s wingèd chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
Thy beauty shall no more be found;
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song; then worms shall try
That long-preserved virginity,
And your quaint honour turn to dust,
And into ashes all my lust;
The grave’s a fine and private place,
But none, I think, do there embrace.
Now therefore, while the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like morning dew,
And while thy willing soul transpires
At every pore with instant fires,
Now let us sport us while we may,
And now, like amorous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour
Than languish in his slow-chapped power.
Let us roll all our strength and all
Our sweetness up into one ball,
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Thorough the iron gates of life:
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.
"Blogging Blogging the Qur'an"
This suggests possiblities, to-and-fro world-without-end possiblities.
Chapter 20 – Ta Ha
Date of Revelation and Context
The Surah was revealed very early at Mecca. The Surah continues to deal with Christian beliefs and doctrines which formed the primary theme of the preceding Chapter (C-19 Maryam). One of the basic doctrines of Christianity is that the Law is a curse. The Surah opens with an emphatic repudiation of the Christian doctrine. The Law, it says, is not only not a curse but is positively a great Divine boon and mercy, and instead of being a burden and an encumbrance, its object is to afford solace and spiritual contentment to man. This is one of the principal objects of the Qur’an which it fulfils most adequately. The Holy Prophet is comforted with the message that God has revealed the Qur’an to lighten man’s burdens and not to add to his difficulties. It means all human major needs and requirements.
Subject-Matter
The Surah proceeds to tell Christians that in order to understand and realize the truths embodied in the Qur’an, they should ponder over the circumstances and conditions through which Moses had to pass. It is stated that after his spiritual upbringing had been complete and he was found fit to be entrusted with the great responsibilities of a Prophet. Moses was commanded to go to Pharaoh and convey to him the Divine Message. Pharaoh refused to accept it, behaved arrogantly and sought to kill Moses. There upon Moses was commanded by God to take the Israelites out of Egypt to Canaan. Pharaoh pursued them with his might host but Divine punishment overtook him and he was drowned in the sea before the very eyes of the Israelites. Moses then went up to the ‘Mount’ where the Law was revealed to him.
The Surah then administers a subtle rebuke to Christians. They are told that when before the advent of Jesus the Israelites believed in the doctrine that God was One and later great stress had also been laid in the Qur’an upon Divine Unity and upon the importance and significance of the Law or the Shari’ah, how could a teaching which regarded the Law as a curse and entertained and preached polytheistic doctrines intervene between these two strictly monotheistic creeds? Next, mention is made of Divine punishment that would overtake Christian nations for their sins and iniquities after they had enjoyed material prosperity for a thousand years. Of these the last three centuries would be marked by uniform progress and prosperity of a very high order. This would make them disdainfully ignore the Divine warning that a dreadful fate was in store for them. The Surah emphatically declares that this event will certainly come to pass and Christian nations of the West will be seized with a terrible visitation; lofty mountains shall crumble and become like scattered dust (w. 105, 106). The then subject with which the Surah has opened is rehearsed, viz., that the Qur’an easily yields to understanding and comprehension because it has been revealed in the national tongue of the people who are its first addresses. Like the Christian Scriptures it usually does not talk in parables and metaphors which may leave the subject confused and lacking in clarity, but explains its teaching in an easily comprehensible language. The importance of the Law is driven home by strong and forceful arguments and it is shown to be not an unmitigated curse but a great Divine blessing.
Then mention is made of the expulsion of Adam from ‘the garden.’ This incident on which the whole fabric of the Christian doctrine of atonement stands is either misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted, and misrepresented by Christians. The truth is that the birth of Adam took place according to a fixed Divine plan, and Divine plans never miscarry or fail in their object. While according to the Bible, God created Adam in His own image (Gen. 1:27) and the, beguiled by Eve, Adam fell into sin, the Qur’an declares that having been created in God’s own image and likeness, Adam could not possible have been guilty of and such fall. It describes him as only having slipped into an inadvertent lapse (v. 116). The Surah ends with a stern warning to disbelievers that Signs and miracles of their own devising will never be shown to them and that if, in spite of having seen many heavenly signs they still have persisted in denying the Divine Message. They will be punished as were punished the disbelievers of the former Messengers of God.
---------------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for None
"This incident [Adam in the Garden of Eden] on which the whole fabric of the Christian doctrine of atonement stands is either misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted, and misrepresented by Christians."
-- from a posting by a Muslim apologist above
The deep misunderstanding of Christianity that this reveals, and the arrogance of the assumption that Christians have "misunderstood" or "deliberately misinterpreted" and, therefore, "misrepresented" that which the Muslim apologist devoutly takes to be literally true (most Christians now give it a figurative interpretation) -- Adam and Eve in the Garden -- and insists that Christians have "misunderstood" and "misinterpreted" and "misrepresented" -- is a perfect display of Muslim views of those who belong to the two prior-in-time monotheisms. Those Christians, those Jews, always misunderstanding, misinterpreting, misrepresenting, the One True Faith, which is Islam, and which was available to them because Islam always somehow existed and long predates Judaism and Christianity. What a crazy mishmash, what a crazy history, True Believers in Islam must force themselves to accept. And think of how much of the Qur'an and Hadith they have to ignore, if they wish, as the Muslim apologist glibly insists, to offer "love for all." Quite a feat.
Poor deluded Khokar. Mohammed is neither "holy" nor a "Prophet." Indeed, he never prophesied anything. You revere a charlatan.
Mo is a "Profiteer," not a Prophet.
*
"The Surah opens with an emphatic repudiation of the Christian doctrine." -Khokar
Gee, I wonder why that is? (sarcasm). Mohammed hated Christians as well as Jews, you know, "Infidels?" Of course he's going to denigrate Christianity. Hello. An anteater could discern the obvious transparancy of the Qur'an, the plagiarisms from the Bible, and the power-hungry motives of Warlord Mohammed, pretending to be a prophet.
Urge you to read: "Psychology of Mohammed" by Dr. Masud Ansari, who explores the dual absurdities of the Koran and the prophetship of Mohammed.
*
>>Those Christians, those Jews, always misunderstanding, misinterpreting, misrepresenting, the One True Faith, which is Islam, and which was available to them because Islam always somehow existed and long predates Judaism and Christianity. What a crazy mishmash, what a crazy history..." --Hugh
Really. Like what I said. An anteater could discern the outright lies and "crazy mishmash" of Islam.
Khokar - Islam did not exist until circa 610, the year Mo claimed to have his first "revelation" in the cave. It DID NOT exist prior. And nothing you say in protest will ever change that ineluctable FACT.
Here's a short extract from one of ZS's Quran blogs:
##The "terror verse" is also a favourite of both fictional and real baddies. It reads: "We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. They serve other gods for whom no sanction has been revealed." (3:149) Yet, the apparent meaning attributed to this verse could not be further from the true spirit of the Qur'an. Here, the Qur'an is addressing Prophet Muhammad himself. The verse was revealed during the battle of Uhad (circa 625), when the small and ill-equipped army of the prophet faced a much larger and well-equipped enemy. He was concerned about the outcome of the battle. The Qur'an reassures him and promises the enemy will be terrified by the prophet's unprofessional army. Seen in its context, it is quite clear that it is not a general instruction to all Muslims; but a commentary on what was happening at that time.##
So that's all right then.
The fact that modern-day terrorists might see some sort of parallel between their own "unprofessional armies" and Mohammed, and between the "much larger and well-equipped enemy" and modern western forces, does not appear to enter into ZS's complacent head.
"I'm surprised that there is not an Islamic version of the Great Flood."
Posted by: tanstaafl
----------------------------------------
There is, but it's a little different than the flood story of the Jews, Christians, Mandeans, and ancient Babylonians.
Noah (Nuh) is one of the five principal prophets of Islam, generally mentioned in connection with the fate of those who refuse to listen to the Word. References are scattered through the Qur'an, with the fullest account at surah 11:27–51, entitled "Hud".
In contrast to the Jewish tradition, which uses a term which can be translated as a "box" or "chest" to describe the Ark, surah 29:14 refers to it as a safina, an ordinary ship, and surah 54:13 as "a thing of boards and nails". Surah 11:44 says it settled on Mount Judi, identified by tradition with a hill near the town of Jazirat ibn Umar on the east bank of the Tigris in the province of Mosul in northern Iraq.
The flood was sent by Allah in answer to Noah's prayer that this evil generation should be destroyed; yet as Noah was righteous he continued to preach, and seventy idolaters were converted and entered the Ark with him, bringing the total aboard to 78 humans (these seventy plus the eight members of Noah's own family). The seventy had no offspring, and all of post-flood humanity is descended from Noah's three sons. A fourth son (or a grandson, according to some) named Canaan was among the idolaters, and was drowned.
Baidawi gives the length of the Ark as 300 cubits (157 m, 515 ft) by 50 (26.2 m, 86 ft) in width, 30 (15.7 m, 52 ft) in height, and explains that in the first of the three levels wild and domesticated animals were lodged, in the second the human beings, and in the third the birds. On every plank was the name of a prophet. Three missing planks, symbolising three prophets, were brought from Egypt by Og, son of Anak, the only one of the giants permitted to survive the Flood. The body of Adam was carried in the middle to divide the men from the women.
Noah spent five or six months aboard the Ark at the end of which he sent out a raven. But the raven stopped to feast on carrion, and so Noah cursed it and sent out the dove, which has been known ever since as the friend of mankind. Masudi writes that God commanded the earth to absorb the water, and certain portions which were slow in obeying received salt water in punishment and so became dry and arid. The water which was not absorbed formed the seas, so that the waters of the flood still exist.
Noah left the Ark on the tenth day of Muharram, and he and his family and companions built a town at the foot of Mount Judi named Thamanin ("eighty"), from their number. Noah then locked the Ark and entrusted the keys to Shem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark
Oops, except for the first sentence, the post to tanstaafl above should be in quotes.
Love for all, Hatred for None
Posted by: A Khokar at April 9, 2008 12:16 PM
LOL, that's not the message of the Koran, as you WELL know.
"Sons of apes and pigs" ring a bell?
Provoslavni - Probably the renaming of Noah threw me.
But (off topic) the earliest flood story is from the "Epic of Gilgamesh". Recently evidence has been uncovered that indicates the Black Sea was a fresh water lake. Theory has it been covered with a flood of sea water from the Mediterrean. Such an event would have a lasting effect on the collective memories of human populations living in the area.
The Qur'anic account would seem to have been borrowed from the Jewish tradition. Rather hypocritical for Mohammed and Muslims to oppress the very people who contributed to the foundations of their faith. (At one point Mohammed has his followers orient themselves to Jerusalem to pray. Later he (or Allah, hard to tell the difference) changes his mind and has everyone bow to Mecca. Allah would seem to be fickle, or is it Mohammed trying to make points with the folks in Mecca? Hard to tell.
Awhile ago, when the movie 'Prince of Egypt' came out, I and my husband decided that before taking our children to see it, we would read the original Exodus account aloud. So, over a period of about a week, each night after dinner we read aloud from the book of Exodus, beginning with Exodus 1:1 and concluding our reading at Exodus 20:21.
It was a shattering experience. The sheer power and beauty of this particular book of the Bible takes one's breath away.
What was also noteworthy was that our children were then capable, on watching 'Moses: Prince of Egypt', of accurately discerning where the film-makers had taken liberties with the story. Likewise, Jews and Christians encountering the Mohammedan foefic riffs on the same story, and the sheer arrogance of the Mohammedan claim that THEIR version is the 'original', are inclined to fall about laughing.
NO person of any real intelligence and common sense, who has read, and re-read, the Book of Exodus, would EVER be convinced that the jejune and distorted - indeed, downright perverted - renderings of that story, in various places in the Qur'an, were the original and that the account as written by Jews in Hebrew, and known to Christians from accurate translations, was the derivative. NO-ONE with even the smallest literary sense, let alone any historical and archaeological knowledge of the ancient near and middle east, would buy the Mohammedan claim for one nanosecond.
There is No Coercion or Exercise of Monopoly in Religion
Jews, Christian or Muslims; they all lay their individual claims on their religious ancestry traced back to Abraham. But some how there is a common perception found among the earlier denominations; Jews and Christian that God of Muslims, called as ‘Allah’ is not the same God that Christians or Jews like to believe?
Although Christians (per force) are obliged to believe in the God of Jews, as described by the Jews because Christians claim to be the followers of Jesus* who happened to be the Reformer of Judaic which Jews very discreetly disowned him at the time of his advent; declared him an apostate and put him on the cross to die a humiliating death. Later as the time pass by; there came a time that Christian, (the follower of the Jesus*) devised a new mythology of Trinity and intently tried to monopolise the God to there selves.
This may not be difficult to ascertain that Christian as well as Jews; by not understanding the God’s game well, of which we all human are just a subjects, have tried to literally take the God as some commodity (neaaoz billah) and some how the old denominations are all out to hijack this God into their own folds, monopolise it and leave all the others high and dry.
But the monopoly - yes one can do; hijack or monopolise to any extent and also derive out the benefit from it to the maximum; that is not to monopolise the God Himself but the ‘teachings of the God imparted to them’; this type of monopoly can also be exercised with the teachings held with their predecessor or the successors. We need to understand this and its related mechanism involved in the design of it.
The aim of God Almighty and His Teachings prescribed for the mankind may fairly be described as to bring the mankind form the darkness to the light-n-freedom and take them to the summit to embroil in the bliss of the enlightenment so achieved.
This plan of God required Him to introduce a media called Prophets of God. They were assigned with the duty to impart the teachings; staring from the basic to present day excellence which through the ages has successfully been materialised by upbringing the older religious denominations from darkness to the light; by rearing them even to the nitty gritty of day to day life ( as in the case of Judaic), the nurturing and grooming them (as in the case of Christianity) and finally bringing them at its par excellence stage and thus completing the grand plan in religion at its summit in Islam.
This can easily be concluded from above that older denominations were entrusted with the special teachings and duty as per requirement of the time and with in the frame work of the God’s plan; to be reared, groomed and be benefited from the light bestowed upon them and there upon transfer this all to the next generations and their successors with an endeavour to join the successors with all their achievements as duly prophesied and told by their own divine teachers- the prophets.
There is no coercion or exercise of any monopoly in the religion. The final Holy Book is Quran which supersedes all the previous Holy Books. Quran says [2;3] ‘This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous.’
And in [14:2] ‘Alif Lam Ra. This is a Book which We have revealed to thee (Muhammad) that thou mayest bring mankind out of the depths of darkness into light, by the command of their Lord, to the path of the Mighty, the Praiseworthy’
O mankind; [5:4] ‘This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion.’
----------------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for None
Tanstaafl,
You're correct. It seems that everything that appears good or accurate in the Quran was stolen from Jews or Christians (and even then twisted) while the evil seems to have sprung whole-cloth from Muhammed's sick mind.
A. Khokar,
I have a few questions. The first is easy. You quote the Qur'an to say that there is no doubt in it. What does "Alif Lam Ra" mean that you quote in the next paragraph? Various chapters of the Qur'an begin with letters that no one seems to understand. This is only a very small indication of the extreme doubt and ambiguity of the Qur'an.
A more serious question. All of the scholars that I have read indicate that there are no historical or archaeological sources that support the existence of either Muhammad or Mecca as related in the Islamic traditions. Lack of such evidence as to Mecca is devastating to the Islamic project. Mecca provides the space away from Christian and Jewish influence to allow for an independent and illiterate "Muhammad" to receive the revelation, the manpower of polytheists to provide the converts for the "Muslim" army and the wealth from trade to finance the conquests. Without Mecca, the traditional explanation of Islamic origins fails. Evidence of other trading centers exists, but not Mecca. Can you cite me to any historical evidence of either? No, the Islamic traditions do not constitute historical evidence; they were written over 150 years after the facts alleged.
Another question. God in the Jewish and Christian scriptures finds his creation to be good and loves his creatures. Can you cite me to any verses in the Qur'an that say that God loves his created humans or finds his creation to be good? I find a great many verses where God exults in the destruction of his creatures, but none that indicate that he loves them.
A third question. The Qur'an describes Jesus as the Christ, the son of Mary, and the Word of God conveyed unto Mary by the Spirit of God. Can you cite me to any verses in the Qur'an that explicate those extremely important words and offices? They seem to be empty vessels devoid of meaning in the Qur'an. This suggests that they convey the meanings well known in the region at the time, the meaning supplied within the Christian Church.
The description of Christ Jesus actually appears to be an attempt to express the Nestorian understanding of Christ Jesus as having two natures, the human from being the son of Mary and the divine from being the Word of God.
A fourth question. The Qur'an makes much of its being a clear Arabic revelation and that God sends messengers to warn people in their own native language. In view of that understanding of the Qur'an and God, how can Islam hold itself out as a universal religion? In its self-understanding, the Qur'an can be "clear" only to native Arabic speakers.
To respond to your question about "Allah," the best explanation that I have seen is that the word comes from the Christian Church. It apparently was the Syriac word for God used by Nestorian Christians. Note the connection above to the Nestorians.
A last question. What in the world are "jinn" and how can anything that represents that they exist be the literal word of God?
Cheers,
Abu el Banat
(Darcy, please google the name. My middle daughter loves West Wing.)
[Tanstaafl; You're correct. It seems that everything that appears good or accurate in the Quran was stolen from Jews or Christians ……] Posted by: Provoslavni at April 10, 2008 11:03 AM]
Dear Provoslavani and Tanstaafl,
Weighing it by the same Scale, one may find then; that Christianity may be left with nothing in their scale weighing pan. All belongs to Judaic; from Alfa to Zetas.
-----------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for None
Posted by: Abu El Banat at April 10, 2008 2:21 PM
Dear Banat,
I have submitted my contribution...available at:
Jihjadwatch.org 11 April 2008
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020629.php#comments
You may please read before we come to further discussions.
Cordially
A Khokar