Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

The Sacrifice: isma'eel or is-Haaq

27 views

Skip to first unread message

Robert Houghton

unread,

Jan 11, 2007, 12:31:12 AM1/11/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

I reply to Alothman Jan 6

You reply to my posting of Jan 5 beginning "You intimate that the Bible is
corrupt" in which I ask "why, UNDER ISLAM (a point you ignore), it is not
permitted to analyse the Koran in the way that the Bible has been analysed
for two centuries." You attempt to evade my clear point by rhetorically and
falsely putting into my mouth the 'jealous' question why everyone can
criticize the Bible, but can't apply the same criticism to the Koran.
Perhaps you know very well that I do not use the word "criticism" in its
vulgar sense; I refer to the refinements of scholarship that over two
centuries have increased our understanding of Biblical language, the
Biblical texts, Biblical history, and the forms of Biblical Literature.

You then go on to say that "Nobody is holding you from criticizing the
Quran" (but I ask about criticism UNDER ISLAM) -I know that very well, and
you know that I know; the criticism of the Koran that is not permitted, and
that I ask about is the equivalent of the criticism of the Bible, but done
by scholars whose native language is Arabic and who know Syriac, Aramaic,
and Hebrew. There is not even the basic necessity of such criticism: a
critical edition of the Koran. Obstruction is put in the way of Western
scholars who would attempt to produce a critical edition. The reason is
clear: to question a single verse of the Koran is heresy and apostasy, the
punishment for which is death. A lecturer at al-Azhar wrote a thesis
applying literary critical techniques to the Koran: the orthodox were so
enraged that he was dismissed and now has to work as a school teacher.
Thirty years ago a lecturer at the London School of Oriental Studies applied
the techniques of Biblical criticism to the Koran, publishing his work in an
obscure German journal; the clerics of the West End Mosque got wind of this
and so successfully incited Muslim students to protest that it was
impossible to promote the brilliant man to a Professorship. I was told about
this at the time by a Professor of Islamic Studies at SOAS who witnessed the
events. So it is not true that nobody is holding scholars from criticizing
the Koran. Patricia Crone has recently commented that Western scholars fight
shy of this essential work because of the political-religious pressures they
come up against.

You completely evade the drive of my posting.

I ask for evidence that the Bible is corrupt - you produce none.

I ask you to name the Muslim scholars who have studied the Koran,
linguistically, textually, and historically as Western scholars have studies
the Bible - you name none.

I ask you why their work has not been translated into European languages so
that they can contribute to learned debate - you say nothing.

I ask you to explain why analysis of the Koran is not permitted UNDER ISLAM
- you ignore the question because intellectual standards where the Koran is
concerned are non-existent.

Abdalla Alothman

unread,

Jan 12, 2007, 10:10:16 PM1/12/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

A Note to the moderator:

(asalamu alaikum waraHmatullah)

I see that recently Robert and another person have been flooding
the newsgroup by branching the messages out of their relevant
threads or by repeating the contents of a message in new threads
(i.e., Yunus and Eliyas). This sort of bothers the reader and makes
it hard -- at least for me -- to keep track of the threads. Robert, for
example, replies to:

The Sacrifice: isma'eel or is-Haaq? (the thread)

He also created the following two threads:

The Sacrifice; isma'eel or is-Haaq? (semicolon)

The Sacrifice: isma'eel or is-Haaq (no question mark)

We kindly ask you to put things back to order with Robert and
the other guy who keeps repeating himself.

Robert Houghton wrote:
> I reply to Alothman Jan 6
>
> You reply to my posting of Jan 5 beginning "You intimate that the Bible is
> corrupt" in which I ask "why, UNDER ISLAM (a point you ignore), it is not
> permitted to analyse the Koran in the way that the Bible has been analysed
> for two centuries." You attempt to evade my clear point by rhetorically and
> falsely putting into my mouth the 'jealous' question why everyone can
> criticize the Bible, but can't apply the same criticism to the Koran.
> Perhaps you know very well that I do not use the word "criticism" in its
> vulgar sense; I refer to the refinements of scholarship that over two
> centuries have increased our understanding of Biblical language, the
> Biblical texts, Biblical history, and the forms of Biblical Literature.

You already answered yourself. The outcome of the biblical criticism
affected biblical texts, biblical history, and the forms of biblical
literature.
The Quran is nither a text, nor is it history. The Quran has some
similarity
with poetry and literature, but is neither -- It is a style all by
itself. So if biblical
criticism targetted texts, history, or literature, it used
methodologies to reach
those outcomes. How can you apply those methodologies on a subject that
is neither a text, history, or literature? Use your mind, or let
someone help
you.

> You then go on to say that "Nobody is holding you from criticizing the
> Quran" (but I ask about criticism UNDER ISLAM) -I know that very well, and
> you know that I know; the criticism of the Koran that is not permitted, and
> that I ask about is the equivalent of the criticism of the Bible, but done
> by scholars whose native language is Arabic and who know Syriac, Aramaic,
> and Hebrew.

I don't understand what this guy is trying to say exactly. He says that
"I know
that he knows.." That's poor mindreading.

He says that criticism of the Koran is not permitted (UNDER ISLAM??)
I don't know if he's talking about critical analysis or plain and raw
criticism.
What he provided throughout his contributions in this newsgroup is
senseless
criticism. When he is refuted, he says: "Muslims do not accept
criticism!" Thus,
he just wants HIS criticism to be unanswered. Proof? When he doesn't
get any
replies, what conclusions does he make? "Nobody answered me! So my
arguments
are irrefutable." He doesn't take into account that his arguments are
silly, and
sometimes disgusting, and not worth of any replies.

Now, we answer you: Yes, criticism of the Quran is not permitted under
Islam. We say: "We believe! All of it (The Quran) is from our Lord."
How
can we criticize something when we are 100% sure that it is from the
Creator? So the criticism has to come from the non-believer. And we
will
answer it and they will complain because we CAN answer them back.

> There is not even the basic necessity of such criticism: a
> critical edition of the Koran.

Answer me on this one!! What is a critical edition of the Koran? What
are the characteristics of such an edition? You talk absolute nonsense.

> Obstruction is put in the way of Western
> scholars who would attempt to produce a critical edition.

That is not true. However, anyone who wants to criticize will receive
an answer. Don't you like that? Where is your so called free speech
and democracy? Even if you don't have it, you will still receive an
answer.

> The reason is
> clear: to question a single verse of the Koran is heresy and apostasy, the
> punishment for which is death.

That is your wishful thinking. The debates of abi Haneefa and before
him,
the refutations of 'ali bin abi Taalib for the khawarij and the Jews
are
documented. Those people who tried to challenge 'ali bin abi Talib or
abu Haneefa were not killed! You talk lies.

> A lecturer at al-Azhar wrote a thesis [... nonsense, etc.]

You have said wild things about Islam in this newsgroup. Nobody
held you. Your problem is that you cannot come with anything that
cannot be answered. Focus on yourself, and leave others alone. This
newsgroup can be a haven for your would-be criticism, nobody is holding
you from progressing one step. The problem is in you. You require
certain
talents to take one step ahead, but you cannot do it.

Learning the language has been an advice we have given you time and
time again. Learning it will make you progress and come up with
something
different. But you're not taking the advice. What should we do? Lash
you to
make you learn and do what you want to do properly?

> I ask for evidence that the Bible is corrupt - you produce none.

1. Producing a minimal list is not accepted by the moderators. Give
me the green light from them, and we will do what you want.

2. In the old days, producing such evidence was alright in this
newsgroup,
so you can look it up in a place that archives usenet messages like
google.

3. You have a lot of sources that you can read to get your evidence.
Islamic
sources include: (1) almilal wal-ahwaa-a wanniHal, for ibn Hazm. (2)
aljawaab
aSaHeeH liman baddala deen almaseeH for ibn tayymiya. The atheiests
also have tons and dozens of sources that are available online or in
print.
Go and look for them.

4. A lot of times, we managed to give you a couple of examples how your
book is corrupt, but you don't answer. Lately, you objected that the
magicians
with Moosa were not "crucified" (as you say). And we showed you in our
reply that in your holy books, they say your god was crucified in the
so called
gospels, but in other places in the new testament they say that your
god
was hanged on a tree. That's one example of corruption! Was your god
crucified on a cross or was he hanged on a tree?

> I ask you to name the Muslim scholars who have studied the Koran,
> linguistically, textually, and historically as Western scholars have studies
> the Bible - you name none.

imam Jalaludeen aS-SiyooTi.

Here you go.

> I ask you why their work has not been translated into European languages so
> that they can contribute to learned debate - you say nothing.

The agreement among Muslim scholars is that the translation of the
Quran
is NOT the Quran. It's your problem, you don't accept the agreement.
You
want it to be changed.

> I ask you to explain why analysis of the Koran is not permitted UNDER ISLAM
> - you ignore the question because intellectual standards where the Koran is
> concerned are non-existent.

1. He says that analysis of the Quran is not permitted under Islam.
This
is a plain lie. All the work made in tafseer represents the deepest
forms
of analysis. Have you read Sayyid Qutub's commentary on the Quran,
titled: fee thilaal alqur-aan? The Quran invites the reader to analyze
it time and time again. And analysis has been carried throughout the
centuries starting from the days of abdullaah bin 'abbaas.

2. He says intellectual standards where the Quran is concerned are
non-existent. That's also a lie. There is a complete primary branch
in sharee'ah called 'uloom (the sciences) alqur-aan (of the Quran)
that contains several branches (sciences) related to the Quran.

You talk nonsense.

Abdalla Alothman

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,

Jan 15, 2007, 12:02:25 AM1/15/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

"Abdalla Alothman" <abda...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1168514212....@o58g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

<snip> ...

> I see that recently Robert and another person have been flooding
> the newsgroup by branching the messages out of their relevant
> threads or by repeating the contents of a message in new threads
> (i.e., Yunus and Eliyas). This sort of bothers the reader and makes
> it hard -- at least for me -- to keep track of the threads. Robert, for
> example, replies to:

<snip> ...

Comment:-
I agree, this devious tactic makes it hard for everyone trying to follow any
thread to its logical conclusion. One could say it's just another form of
the well known crooked thinking trick of diversion to another question, to a
side issue, or by irrelevant objection.

It is obvious, as you say, when any commentator is losing an argument in one
thread, what better than to start another thread where they can
disingenuously reassert and reiterate their previous insinuations with
argumentative impunity. It's an agitprop ploy, frequently used by
anti-Muslims, here and elsewhere, to artfully avoid and obfuscate sound
rebuttal that is becoming more common in this forum.

It's self-apparent that many hostile commentators aren't really interested
in discovering the truth about the diverse opinions of the many Muslims
subscribers or about Islam, as it is in reality, they are only here to
antagonistically carp. What is possibly worse, is that even after they have
had their frequently hostile assertions and insinuations soundly rebutted
and demolished they never concede or admit they have lost their argument,
they just bring up the self-same folderol as a carping one-liner, trickily,
incorporated in another faultfinding post.

Under this never-ending apocalyptic scenario, sensible agreement can never
be reached, as if, anti-Muslims wanted that end in the first place. Isn't
Muslim capitulation what they seek? Isn't this the 'unresolvable' substance,
the underpinning aim of many hostile criticisms of all things Islamic, in
the first place? The "widespread bigotry" as Kofi Annan remarked?

One might ask, what has "The Sacrifice: isma'eel or is-Haaq", or any similar
Qur'anic exegesis, really got to do with it? Would resolution of this
particular theological issue change anti-Muslim attitudes or curtail
hair-splitting 'missionary' polemics against Islam, where physical Christian
conversion is the only end-game?

--
Peace
--
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly
by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
prejudice. [Schopenhauer]

Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com

Robert Houghton

unread,

Jan 15, 2007, 12:15:47 AM1/15/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

I reply to Alothman Jan 13

You assert that the Koran is not a text: but as the world knows it, and as
Muslims for many hundreds of years have known it, it is a text, and it is
mere recklessness on your part to deny this. It is thus amenable to the
disciplines of textual, historical, and linguistic analysis. That it was
allegedly originally communicated orally is no objection to the application
of these disciplines; neither is it an objection that the Koran is unique.

You know very well that the criticism I am concerned with in my posting, as
I state in it, is not criticism in its "vulgar sense" but a scholarly
discipline.

Criticism that I have offered on this forum, whether it is "silly",
"disgusting", or "not worthy of any replies" is irrelevant and not the
issue. Stick to the point and spare us your rhetoric and personal attacks.

In the midst of your irrelevance you concede my point entirely: "Yes,
criticism of the Quran is not permitted under Islam. How can we criticize
something when we are 100% sure that it is from the Creator?" There can be
no objection to the analysis of the language and textual transmission of the
Koran on the alleged grounds that it comes from God. You need textual
analysis to establish the original text of the Koran; to establish that is
to do the Koran a service. You need linguistic analysis and comparison with
Syriac and Hebrew to clarify the many obscurities in the Koran: one verse in
five is incomprehensible and 'meanings" were imposed on these verses by
medieval scholars.

I do not need to explain to the followers of this forum what a critical
edition of the Koran would be. Your asking me to define it is merely a
distraction from the fact that you make no response to my saying that such
an edition is absolutely basic to the critical study of the Koran.

You say it is not true that obstructions are put in the way of Western
scholars attempting to produce a critical edition, yet I have given details.
The Muslim authorities at Topkapi, Samarkand, and in the Yemen refuse to
publish their ancient Korans and Koranic material.

You deny but do not refute my assertion that to question a single verse of
the Koran is heresy and apostasy, the punishment for which is death. Your
reference to abi Haneefi etc is obscure; no doubt it is meant as an insult
to me as ignorant in not knowing your references, like your mocking offer of
a reference and a link entirely in Arabic.

You seem to imply (but do you? - your words are obscure) that my report of
the al-Azhar lecturer who was dismissed for writing literary-critical
analyses of the Koran is "wild", but you say nothing in refutation of it,
and the report is confirmed by your own statement that criticism of the
Koran is not permitted.

You claim that giving a "minimal list" in answer to my request for evidence
that the Bible is corrupt is not accepted by the moderators. This is
incredible.

Your point about magicians being crucified is not made: you merely mention
the detail. Your claim that our saying "god was crucified" (FALSE: Jesus was
NOT crucified as God - impossible - he was crucified as Man.) is
contradicted by the statement that he was "hanged on a tree". This is
childish: the latter phrase is simply an idiom for "crucified".

You name a Muslim scholar (just one) who has studied the Koran as Western
scholars have (though you say this is not permitted), and in reply to my
question why his work has not been translated into European languages you
reply irrelevantly that "the translation of the Quran is NOT the Quran."
Quite true but wildly irrelevant. You are just bluffing.

You say I lie (moderators please note this personal abuse) when I say
analysis of the Koran is not permitted under Islam, and you cite a
commentary. But I am referring to the kind of Biblical Criticism that we
have had in the West for 200 years, and which you agree is not permitted.

How can you have intellectual standards in the study of the Koran when you
have no critical edition and criticism, as you say, is not permitted since
it comes from the Creator?

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,

Jan 15, 2007, 8:49:05 PM1/15/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

"Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:000001c731d4$06b82e30$4101a8c0@rhdt...
(RE-POSTED)

<snip> ...

> You reply to my posting of Jan 5 beginning "You intimate that the Bible is

> corrupt" ...
<snip> ...

Comment:-
What do you mean when you stated elsewhere, and I quote directly from one of
your previous transcripts on the Bible errancy (i.e. indicated by erring or
a tendency to err) issue:-

"Catholic Church does not teach the verbal inerrancy of the Bible. ...
sacred authors ... and their writings were subject to the limitations of
language, culture, and ancient literary forms. ... Thus by our standards
they are unreliable..."

Is it any wonder that Muslims and others are confused when Christians attack
Muslims and Islam for believing that the Bible, as you confirmed above, is
inherently 'unreliable' (i.e. liable to be erroneous or misleading)? In this
case, aren't you actually agreeing with Qur'an and Muslim subscribers when
they state the Bible, in fact, has been 'corrupted' (i.e. containing errors
or alterations)? <G>

--
Peace
--
If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what
is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone.
[Confucius]

Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com

Abdalla Alothman

unread,

Jan 15, 2007, 8:56:14 PM1/15/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

asalamu alaikum waraHmatullah wabarakatuh.

Zuiko Azumazi wrote:

> It is obvious, as you say, when any commentator is losing an argument in one
> thread, what better than to start another thread where they can
> disingenuously reassert and reiterate their previous insinuations with
> argumentative impunity. It's an agitprop ploy, frequently used by
> anti-Muslims, here and elsewhere, to artfully avoid and obfuscate sound
> rebuttal that is becoming more common in this forum.

In the case of our guest, he is simply confused. Yet he thinks that he
is
close to scholarship. :)

You can see that when he capitalized on the permissability of
"criticism"

under Islam, but later he got lost in the way and said:

"I ask you to explain why analysis of the Koran is not permitted
UNDER ISLAM - you ignore the question because intellectual
standards where the Koran is concerned are non-existent."

Of course we knew that he meant "criticism" not "analysis" but we can't
change what has been given to us as it is unethical. As you see he
blatantly
equates criticism and analysis, and then he makes a huge assertion
based
on his erroneous claims. Later on he replies to us as if he wasn't
confused
at all. Talk about dishonesty.

Wishing you and your family peace and good health.

Salam,
Abdalla Alothman

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,

Jan 16, 2007, 12:42:24 AM1/16/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

"Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message

news:000001c731d6$6e843930$4101a8c0@rhdt...

<snip> ...
> I asked how Muslims extract conclusions from the Bible when
> they dismiss it as corrupt. ...
<snip> ...

Comment:-
The Islamic worldview, stated in the Qur'an, is that the bible has been
corrupted, that is, it contains errors or alterations. Isn't this exactly
the same worldview as the Catholic Church's own doctrine on biblical
errancy, that you have expressed previously in this forum? Which was, may I
remind you, and I quote directly from your transcripts: "The Catholic
Church, I have to repeat, does NOT teach the verbal or scientific inerrancy
of the Old and New Testaments". By saying this, aren't you conceding, based
on your own testimony, that the bible contains errors or alterations? Aren't
you, in other words, agreeing with what Muslims have been saying about
biblical errancy (i.e. as indicated by erring) in this forum.

--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]

Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com

Robert Houghton

unread,

Jan 16, 2007, 12:52:56 AM1/16/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

I reply to Alothman Jan 6

You reply to my posting of Jan 5 beginning "You intimate that the Bible is

corrupt" in which I ask "why, UNDER ISLAM (a point you ignore), it is not
permitted to analyse the Koran in the way that the Bible has been analysed
for two centuries." You attempt to evade my clear point by rhetorically and
falsely putting into my mouth the 'jealous' question why everyone can
criticize the Bible, but can't apply the same criticism to the Koran.
Perhaps you know very well that I do not use the word "criticism" in its
vulgar sense; I refer to the refinements of scholarship that over two
centuries have increased our understanding of Biblical language, the
Biblical texts, Biblical history, and the forms of Biblical Literature.

You then go on to say that "Nobody is holding you from criticizing the

Quran" (but I ask about criticism UNDER ISLAM) -I know that very well, and
you know that I know; the criticism of the Koran that is not permitted, and
that I ask about is the equivalent of the criticism of the Bible, but done
by scholars whose native language is Arabic and who know Syriac, Aramaic,

and Hebrew. There is not even the basic necessity of such criticism: a
critical edition of the Koran. Obstruction is put in the way of Western
scholars who would attempt to produce a critical edition. The reason is
clear: to question a single verse of the Koran is heresy and apostasy, the
punishment for which is death. A lecturer at al-Azhar wrote a thesis
applying literary critical techniques to the Koran: the orthodox were so
enraged that he was dismissed and now has to work as a school teacher.
Thirty years ago a lecturer at the London School of Oriental Studies applied
the techniques of Biblical criticism to the Koran, publishing his work in an
obscure German journal; the clerics of the West End Mosque got wind of this
and so successfully incited Muslim students to protest that it was
impossible to promote the brilliant man to a Professorship. I was told about
this at the time by a Professor of Islamic Studies at SOAS who witnessed the
events. So it is not true that nobody is holding scholars from criticizing
the Koran. Patricia Crone has recently commented that Western scholars fight
shy of this essential work because of the political-religious pressures they
come up against.

You completely evade the drive of my posting.

I ask for evidence that the Bible is corrupt - you produce none.

I ask you to name the Muslim scholars who have studied the Koran,
linguistically, textually, and historically as Western scholars have studies
the Bible - you name none.

I ask you why their work has not been translated into European languages so

that they can contribute to learned debate - you say nothing.

I ask you to explain why analysis of the Koran is not permitted UNDER ISLAM

Abdalla Alothman

unread,

Jan 16, 2007, 12:56:08 AM1/16/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

Robert Houghton wrote:
> I reply to Alothman Jan 13
>
> You assert that the Koran is not a text: but as the world knows it, and as
> Muslims for many hundreds of years have known it, it is a text, and it is
> mere recklessness on your part to deny this.

When desperate ignorant people who are sprayed with a bit dishonesty
go bankrupt, they will have no problem making the truth appear as false
and making falsehood appear as the truth.

What you say above is false. When the Quran is contained within
a book it is called muSS-Haff. That's what the whole world knows.
The subject itself is given the name Quran, which means recital.
Allah also explains this fact in many places in the Quran, such as:

WHAT IS THIS BOOK?

85:21. Nay! This is a Glorious Qur'ân,

WHERE IS ITS ORIGINAL COPY?

85:22. (Inscribed) in Al-Lauh Al-Mahfűz (The Preserved Tablet)!

HOW DID THE BOOK MAKE ITS LANDING?

26:192. And truly, this (the Qur'ân) is a revelation from the Lord of
the
'Alamîn (mankind, jinns and all that exists),

26:193. Which the trustworthy Rűh [Jibrael (Gabriel)] has brought
down;

26:194. Upon your heart (O Muhammad SAW) that you may be (one) of the
warners,

DOES THE QURAN HAVE ANY PHYSICAL REPRESENTATION?
YES:

56:77. That (this) is indeed an honourable recital (the Noble Qur'ân).

56:78. In a Book well-guarded (with Allâh in the heaven i.e. Al-Lauh
Al-Mahfűz).

WHO CAN REALLY ACCESS ITS PHYSICAL FORMAT?

56:79. Which (that Book with Allâh) none can touch but the purified
(i.e. the angels).

Go to your "whole world" (which was once: The WHOLE WORLD knows that
Dubai applies Islamic Law) and find something contrary to that.

> It is thus amenable to the
> disciplines of textual, historical, and linguistic analysis.

No it's not. But you have no other strategy to challenge the Quran
except
what was already applied in your bible, so you have to make sense out
of what was applied on the bible in hope you can apply it on the Quran.
You're simply bankrupt. And your scholars are lazy and dull. They have
to come up with someting new.

> You know very well that the criticism I am concerned with in my posting, as
> I state in it, is not criticism in its "vulgar sense" but a scholarly
> discipline.

You have to understand that you are far away from the word "scholarly"
it's a foreign word to you.

> Criticism that I have offered on this forum, whether it is "silly",
> "disgusting", or "not worthy of any replies" is irrelevant and not the
> issue. Stick to the point and spare us your rhetoric and personal attacks.

Well, you should stick to the topic of the threads you wish to reply
to.
This thread is not about the text of the Quran. Can't you read the
title
of the thread? So who is the one who is deviating from the subject?

>[...] There can be

> no objection to the analysis of the language and textual transmission of the
> Koran on the alleged grounds that it comes from God. You need textual
> analysis to establish the original text of the Koran;

The Quran is a qur-aan, it's not a text. It's a recital. Usually
intelligent
people will get it from the first time, but that seems difficult for
you. Let
me ask you a question (the answer is somewhere in this message): What
does the word qur-aan mean?

Okay, what does the word READ mean? When you are asked to READ,
shouldn't there be some text within the reach of your sight? Can you
provide a direct yes/no answer without coiling around? Since we know
you wont be able to answer that question, we say: The first aaya in the
Quran is READ! It's a command to the Messenger (s). From where was
he instructed to read when he was inside a cave in a dark night?

You're the one who is denying that the Quran is a qur-aan (a recital),
it's not me who is denying anything.

> to establish that is
> to do the Koran a service. You need linguistic analysis

That has been available for centuries. There is no one to blame
except people who cannot access the material available.

> and comparison with
> Syriac and Hebrew to clarify the many obscurities in the Koran: one verse in
> five is incomprehensible and 'meanings" were imposed on these verses by
> medieval scholars.

Comparison with Syriac and Hebrew? Why? Which came first? Arabic? Or
Syriac or Hebrew? Provide proof for your answer.

There are no obscurities in the Quran.

> I do not need to explain to the followers of this forum what a critical
> edition of the Koran would be. Your asking me to define it is merely a
> distraction from the fact that you make no response to my saying that such
> an edition is absolutely basic to the critical study of the Koran.

In other words, you don't know what's a "critical edition of the
Koran" looks like. We challenge you (and the fool who invented
that term) on that.

> You deny but do not refute my assertion that to question a single verse of
> the Koran is heresy and apostasy,

That depends on who is "questioning" and the nature of the "question."
You provided a vague general case, and you got a general answer.

> You claim that giving a "minimal list" in answer to my request for evidence
> that the Bible is corrupt is not accepted by the moderators. This is
> incredible.

No, this is not incredible. The moderators have explained many times
that they don't allow this. Why don't you stop wasting my time, and ask
them instead? You say "this is incredible" yet you flooded this
newsgroup
with complaints that you cannot cite from the Bible to explain your
beliefs.
This is hypocrisy from your side.

> Your point about magicians being crucified is not made: you merely mention
> the detail. Your claim that our saying "god was crucified" (FALSE: Jesus was
> NOT crucified as God - impossible - he was crucified as Man.) is
> contradicted by the statement that he was "hanged on a tree". This is
> childish: the latter phrase is simply an idiom for "crucified".

I don't care if he was crucified as a god or as a human or as a ghost.
What matters is that your books state that he was nailed onto a cross,
but later on, they also say that he was hanged on a tree. You say that
this is an idiom, but how did you reach that conclusion? What, in the
text, made you conclude that "hanged on a tree" was an idiom?
Absolutely
nothing. Give me one proof that "hanged on a tree" is an idiom based on
the text, not on what your human gods (church) tell you.

There is a big difference between nailing someone on a cross and
hanging him on a tree. What's the conclusion? Your books are corrupt.

> You name a Muslim scholar (just one) who has studied the Koran

You asked for one scholar, and you got one. Ask for two, and you will
get two.

> as Western
> scholars have (though you say this is not permitted),

You're twisting your own words which everybody can see. You didn't
ask for a scholar who has studied the Quran "as western scholars have"
studied it. And the western methods are new, unstable, and senseless
and based on what has been applied on the Bible, which is totally
different
than the Quran -- it doesn't require a rocket scientists to discover
this basic
fact: The Bible is totally different than the Quran: The structure is
different;
the style is different; the language is different; the speaker is
different; etc.

Face it: You and your scholars are bankrupt.

> and in reply to my
> question why his work has not been translated into European languages you
> reply irrelevantly that "the translation of the Quran is NOT the Quran."
> Quite true but wildly irrelevant. You are just bluffing.

Same goes to you, but with a lot of dishonesty.

> How can you have intellectual standards in the study of the Koran when you
> have no critical edition

What's a critical edition? Can the Muslim pray with it? If not, it
can't be called
A QURAN. "Critical edition" is just a slip some fool has made on this
newsgroup
and you probably picked it up without thinking or distorted the
intention of the fool.

Salam,
Abdalla Alothman

John Smith

unread,

Jan 16, 2007, 12:57:44 AM1/16/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

> I agree, this devious tactic makes it hard for everyone trying to follow
any
> thread to its logical conclusion. One could say it's just another form of
> the well known crooked thinking trick of diversion to another question, to
a
> side issue, or by irrelevant objection.

The simple fact is their behaviour breaks standard newsgroup etiquette.
As a previous moderator of many newsgroups, I would issue a moderator
comment on this.

Cordially

John Smith

James-Yaqub

unread,

Jan 16, 2007, 1:06:05 AM1/16/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

Robert Houghton wrote:

> I ask you to name the Muslim scholars who have studied the Koran,
> linguistically, textually, and historically as Western scholars have studies
> the Bible - you name none.
>
> I ask you why their work has not been translated into European languages so
> that they can contribute to learned debate - you say nothing.
>
> I ask you to explain why analysis of the Koran is not permitted UNDER ISLAM
> - you ignore the question because intellectual standards where the Koran is
> concerned are non-existent.

Robert Houghton,

In Islam critical anaylsis of the Quran is a routine scholarly persuit
as the below listings evidence. Note that there are radical Muslims
who will not allow this, but not many.

I would not say that the Bible is corrupt. I would say that it has
been changed too many times by the hand of man and this fact alone,
should caution the reader.

In Islam we encourage understanding as a prerequesite to belief.

You seem to simplify Islam by wanting to define it in "sound bytes".
This ignores the wide variation in scriptual application which are
because of human nature, not God.

God has given us the Prophets Jesus and Muhammad (Peace be Upon them
both). It is we, not God, who err in our understanding.

Bless you Robert Houghton in your quest for knowledge,

Yaqub

You can give the gift of knowledge by donating to the Wikimedia
Foundation!

Tax-deductibility of donations | FAQ | Financial statements | Live list
of donations

List of Islamic studies scholars
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Islamic scholars) The neutrality of this article is
disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

A Hirsi

unread,

Jan 16, 2007, 1:07:08 AM1/16/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

Robert Houghton wrote:
>
> How can you have intellectual standards in the study of the Koran when you
> have no critical edition and criticism, as you say, is not permitted since
> it comes from the Creator?

Knowledge must precede everything else.
1. You do not know the language of the Holy Quran
2. You refuse to accept that you are wrong when you are corrected using
your own Bible (Refer to Uncle Sinbad)
3. You make blanket untrue statements
4. You spawn a new thread when the going gets tough so that you can
conveniently ignore the truths pointed out to you
5. You refuse to take the challenge that is in the Quran.
6. You type a lot of words but say nothing at all
7. Your posts have no substance whatsoever
8. You argue for the sake of keeping others busy answering your wild
and bogus claims
9. You falsely accuse the moderators of refusing to post your articles
instead of being patient
10. You think you can argue with us about our religion
11. You are not making any progress at all
12. You are better off the first day you stumbled into sri and asked
how we were constituted! As though we were
a secretive group
13. You ruin the discussions for all of us by repeating arguments that
have already been settled

Go away in peace...

A Hirsi

Robert

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 11:27:50 PM1/17/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

I reply to James-Yaqub Jan 16

You offer an extensive list of Muslim scholars, but the question still
asserts itself: Why do the few modern scholars not publish in the
international scholarly journals and submit themselves to scholarly
criticism, thus contributing to the pursuit of knowledge? Also, why are
their works not translated into Western languages, mainly English, so
that they can contribute to general human culture? The quality of work
published by Muslims in the West is pitiable - full of misconceptions
about Christianity, for instance.

You say that critical analysis of the Koran is a routine scholarly
pursuit, but I have no doubt that this analysis is only within the
parameters of orthodox Islam. Do Islamic scholars, for instance,
investigate any relation that there is between the Koran and Christian
religious documents in Syriac? That would be blasphemy, I suppose.

You say that the Bible has been changed too many times by the hand of
man. Can you demonstrate this? Have any consequent changes altered the
religious message of the Bible? What you say is absolutely false of the
documents of the New Testament.

Christianity too insists that understanding precedes belief, but you
cannot understand EVERYTHING about God, and as in ordinary life, some
belief is based, not on full understanding, but your trust in the
person you believe.

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,

Jan 21, 2007, 3:32:34 AM1/21/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

"Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1168950099.7...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<snip> ...

> You say that critical analysis of the Koran is a routine scholarly
> pursuit, but I have no doubt that this analysis is only within the
> parameters of orthodox Islam. Do Islamic scholars, for instance,
> investigate any relation that there is between the Koran and Christian
> religious documents in Syriac? That would be blasphemy, I suppose.

<snip> ...

Comment:-
Didn't you recently cite this article, "What do we actually know about
Mohammed?", from Professor Crone, which you called a 'brilliant essay'?

http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp

Didn't this 'brilliant essay', as you added, in its 'devastating clarity'
reveal that, and I quote:-

"One explanation for these features would be that the prophet formulated his
message in the liturgical language current in the religious community in
which he grew up, adapting and/or imitating ancient texts such as hymns,
recitations, and prayers, which had been translated or adapted from another
Semitic language in their turn. This idea has been explored in two German
works, by Günter Lüling and Christoph Luxenberg, and there is much to be
said for it. At the same time, however, both books are open to so many
scholarly objections (notably amateurism in Luxenberg's case) that they
cannot be said to have done the field much good. "

So now aren't you being self-contradictory once more over this mythical
'Syriac' hokum'? Isn't this whole Lüling and Luxenberg 'Syriac' idea,
according to your nominated authority, Professor Crone, not 'amateurish' and
that 'both books are open to so many scholarly objections"? According to
Professor Crone these works by Lüling and Luxenberg haven't 'done the field
much good'? How do you respond to Professor Crone's, as you said,
'devastating clarity', without totally contradicting yourself once more?

For verification here's your original transcript link:-

news:000001c6ebb9$26de5560$4101a8c0@rhdt...

But to me, I suppose, wilful ignorance is a blasphemy!

--
Peace
--
And in too many circles, disparaging remarks about Muslims are allowed to
pass without censure, with the result that prejudice acquires a veneer of
acceptance. [Kofi Annan]

Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,

Jan 21, 2007, 9:14:27 AM1/21/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

"John Smith" <John...@ukgroupnews.com> wrote in message
news:M8adnZD7zt3...@pipex.net...

<snip> ...

> The simple fact is their behaviour breaks standard newsgroup etiquette.
> As a previous moderator of many newsgroups, I would issue a moderator
> comment on this.

<snip> ...

Comment:-
There is an extensive analysis of newsgroup etiquette abuses in this
informative "Anti Troll FAQ." link that the much maligned SRI moderators
could use as a relevant benchmark:-

http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm

Extract:-

Subject: 4.1 Drivel

Posts without interesting content are simple to produce.
Cascades have a long history on Usenet, usually containing
wordplays round a specific theme. The Trolls version is a
cascade of drivel. two persons working online to the same
newsserver can throw a thread between themselves and create
very large numbers of posts. ...

Subject: 5.1 Ignore them and they will go away.

This is the traditional Usenet method of dealing with
Trolls, and is regularly suggested.

It is similar to the method use to train dogs, and very
young children, ignore bad behaviour and reward good
behaviour. Thus it is only likely to work if the, The Infant
or Attention Seeker theory, is true

Pro:

If you are subscribed to a Sub Target newsgroup this is
quite a reasonable method. The normal change of Sub
Targets will ensure that they do "go away", convincing you
that this is an effective way of dealing with the problem.
It however leaves the Target newsgroup in exactly the same
mess as it was before.

If you are confronted with a minor attack by merely
Irritating Trolls, or inexperienced and disorganized Trolls,
this may also work.

Con:

If you are subscribed to a Target newsgroup, this is
impossible, as up to 90% of posts may be trolls. As the
Intension is to destroy the Target Newsgroup, they will
*never* go away.

On any newsgroup there are a mixture of subscribers, non of
whom has any ability to control the postings of other
subscribers. Human nature dictates that someone will
*always* reply to a good troll. Arguably this section
should be headed "If *everyone* ignores them and they will
go away." which is arguably impossible to attain.

End extract.

The only outstanding issue for discerning subscribers is how many profligate
commentators in this forum are, in effect, Islamophobe trolls? <G> As this
"Anti Troll FAQ." article acutely reveals: "It's similar to the method use
to train dogs...", some might say! <G>. Isn't this the counteraction that's
urgently needed? <G>

--
Peace
--
Add a few drops of malice to a half truth and you have an absolute truth.

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,

Jan 21, 2007, 9:52:00 AM1/21/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

"John Smith" <John...@ukgroupnews.com> wrote in message
news:M8adnZD7zt3...@pipex.net...

<snip> ...

> The simple fact is their behaviour breaks standard newsgroup etiquette.
> As a previous moderator of many newsgroups, I would issue a moderator
> comment on this.

<snip> ...

Comment:-
As you have considerable experience as a newsgroup moderator of note, how
did you counteract the 'drivel' and 'troll' phenomenon that often passes for
say anti-Muslim 'criticism' given the 'veneer of approval' this dedicated
Islamic forum? Did you ever resort to doing a Usenet archive search to see
if the commentators actual Usenet behaviour overall contravenes standard
newsgroup etiquette? For example:-

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&num=10&q=%28islam+OR+muslim%29+author%3Ajohn+author%3Asmith&safe=off&qt_s=Search

What would such a random search , using your relative "falsehood/truthood"
criterion, reveal to moderators or other discerning subscribers intent on
maintaining the integrity of educated commentary and proper decorum about
all Qur'anic and Islamic issues? Would such proactive resolve, by
moderators, diminish the 'veneer' situation mentioned in the signature
below?

As a matter of general interest what newsgroups did you previously moderate?

Robert

unread,

Jan 21, 2007, 10:05:51 AM1/21/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

I reply to James-Yaqub Jan 16

You say that critical analysis of the Koran is a routine scholarly

pursuit, but I have no doubt that this analysis is only within the
parameters of orthodox Islam. Do Islamic scholars, for instance,
investigate any relation that there is between the Koran and Christian
religious documents in Syriac? That would be blasphemy, I suppose.

You say that the Bible has been changed too many times by the hand of

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,

Jan 21, 2007, 10:01:29 PM1/21/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

"Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1168950099.7...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<snip> ...

> You offer an extensive list of Muslim scholars, but the question still
> asserts itself: Why do the few modern scholars not publish in the
> international scholarly journals and submit themselves to scholarly
> criticism, thus contributing to the pursuit of knowledge? Also, why are
> their works not translated into Western languages, mainly English, so

> that they can contribute to general human culture? ...
<snip> ...

Comment:-
For example, here's a recent list from, the prestigious "Journal of Qur'anic
Studies" (SOAS) has published numerous papers by modern Muslim scholars in
English. This Edinburgh University Press (who holds the JQS licence) link
provides the full detail:-

http://www.eup.ed.ac.uk/journals/content.aspx?pageId=2&journalId=12154

Extract:-
JQS 1:1 (1999)

Articles in English:
The Philological Endeavours of the Early Arabic Linguists: Theological
Implications of the tawqif-istilah Antithesis and the majaz Controversy
MUSTAFA SHAH

Muhkam and Mutashabih: An Analytical Study of al-Tabari's and
al-Zamakhshari's
Interpretations of Q. 3:7
SAHIRON SYAMSUDDIN

The Meaning of Revelation and the Interpretation of the Qur'an: A Qur'anic
Perspective
ABDUALLAH SAEED

Red Dots, Green Dots, Yellow Dots & Blue: Some Reflections on the
Vocalisation of Early Qur'anic Manuscripts (Part I)
YASIN DUTTON

Fa-qad saghat qulubukuma: The Interpretation of Qur'an 66:4 by Farahi and
Islahi
MUSTANSIR MIR:

JQS 2:1 (2000)

Articles in English:
Red Dots, Green Dots, Yellow Dots & Blue: Some Reflections on the
Vocalisation of Early Qur'anic Manuscripts (Part II)
YASIN DUTTON

The Philological Endeavours of the Early Arabic Linguists: Theological
Implications of the tawqif-istilah Antithesis and the majaz (Part II)
MUSTAFA SHAH:

Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Muhammad Asad: Two Approaches to the English
Translation of the Qur'an
MUZAFFAR IQBAL

JQS 2:2 (2000)

Articles in English:
The Qur'an and Science: The Debate on the Validity of Scientific
Interpretations
BUSTAMI MOHAMED KHIR

The Linguistic Architecture of the Qur'an
HUSSEIN ABDUL-RAOF

Departure from Communicative Norms in the Qur'an: Insights from al-Jurjani
and al-Zamakhshari
BADRI NAJIB ZUBIR

JQS 3:1 (2001)

Articles in English:
The Qur'anic Narratives of the Golden Calf Episode
ISMAIL ALBAYRAK

An Early Mushaf According to the Reading of Ibn 'Amir
YASIN DUTTON

Scientific Exegesis of the Qur'an
ZAFAR ISHAQ ANSARI

JQS 3:2 (2001)

Articles in English:
The Qur'an and Hermeneutics: Reading the Qur'an's Opposition to Patriarchy
ASMA BARLAS

JQS 4:1 (2002)

Articles in English:
In Praise of the Word of God: Reflections of Early Religious and Social
Concerns in the Fada'il al-Qur'an Genre
ASMA AFSARUDDIN

JQS 4:2 (2002)

Articles in English:
Q. 21:78-9: A Qur'anic Basis for Ijtihad?
HAMID ALGAR

Seeking Refuge from Evil: The Power and Portent of the Closing Chapters of
the Qur'an
SHAWKAT M. TOORAWA

The Lexical Transfer of Arabic Non-Core Lexicon: Sura 113 of the Qur'an -
al-Falaq (the Splitting)
AFNAN H. FATANI

JQS 5:1 (2003)

Articles in English:
The Notions of Muhkam and Mutashabih in the Commentary of Elmai'i Muhammad
Hamdi Yazir
ISMAIL ALBAYRAK

Exploring the Genesis of Early Arabic Linguistic Thought: Qur'anic Readers
and Grammarians of the Kufan Tradition (Part I)
MUSTAFA SHAH

JQS 5:2 (2003)

Articles in English:
Exploring the Genesis of Early Arabic Linguistic Thought: Qur'anic Readers
and Grammarians of the Basran Tradition (Part II)
MUSTAFA SHAH

Conceptual and Textual Chaining in Qur'anic Discourse
HUSSEIN ABDUL-RAOF

JQS 6:1 (2004)

Articles in English:
The Exegetical Traditions of 'A'isha: Some Notes on their Impact and
Significance
AISHA GEISSINGER

A Primordial e Pluribus Unum? Exegesis on Q. 2:213 and Contemporary Muslim
Discourses of Religious Pluralism
SAJJAD H. RIZVI

Some Notes on the British Library's 'Oldest Qur'an Manuscript' (Or. 2165)
YASIN DUTTON

The Early Arabic Grammarians' Contribution in the Collection and
Authentication of Qur'anic Readings: The Prelude to Ibn Mujahid's Kitab
al-Sab'a
MUSTAFA SHAH

JQS 6:2 (2004)

Articles in English:
The Correlation between Definite Noun Phrases and Verb Forms in Qur'anic
Narrative Texts
HARUKO SAKAEDANI

JQS 7:1 (2005)
Articles in English
Tahir ibn 'Ashur: The Career and Thought of a Modern Reformist 'alim, with
Special Reference to His Work of tafsir
BASHEER M. NAFI

Elephants, Birds of Prey, and Heaps of Pebbles: Farahi's Interpretation of
Surat al-Fil
MUSTANSIR MIR

JQS 7:2 (2005)

Articles in English:
The Quest for the Origins of the qurra' in the Classical Islamic Tradition
MUSTAFA SHAH

Textual Progression and Presentation Technique in Qur'anic Discourse: An
Investigation of Richard Bell's Claims of 'Disjointedness' with Especial
Reference to Q. 17-20
HUSSEIN ABDUL-RAOF

End Extract

<snip> ...

> The quality of work
> published by Muslims in the West is pitiable - full of misconceptions
> about Christianity, for instance.

<snip> ...

Comment:-
In addition, you can go easily back and check modern Qur'anic papers in
international scholarly journals by Professor Fazlur Rahman, Professor
Seyyed Hossein Nasr and other Muslim scholars.

Have you actually studied any of these modern scholarly Muslim articles in
the JQS, for example (I haven't, I simply don't have the time)? And what
expert scholarly qualifications do you hold to make any such critical
judgement or valid assessment? Do you think you are a peer capable of
conducting a peer review (I'm certainly not in this highly specialist area)?
How many academic papers have you written on Christianity and Islam that
have been published in any international scholarly journal? Your own
misconceptions about Christianity are self-apparent (if one bothers to check
your 'creedal' understanding in the archives) and your 'knowledge' of Islam
is to say the least dismally weak. Did you study Islam or the Qur'an at any
recognised university, or is your perfunctory 'knowledge' pitiably derived
from the 'Apocalyptic Blogosphere' and lifted articles, slavishly copied off
the internet?

--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive

themselves. [Eric Hoffer]

Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com

Robert Houghton

unread,

Jan 22, 2007, 3:57:41 PM1/22/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

I reply to Azumazi 22 Jan

Once again you try to use your technique of argument by list of
contents and (disreputably) misrepresentation by quoting out of
context.

The Muslim scholars referred to in your quotation of me, the names of
which I requested, were "Muslim scholars who have studied the Koran

linguistically, textually, and historically as Western scholars have

studied the Bible", as you will see if you check the context by tracing
the thread back. There is no reason to believe that any of the
academics on the list you provide fall into this category.

You ask for my scholarly qualifications: as I have said before I am not
going to parade my qualifications or lack of them: I do not present my
qualifications as grounds for accepting my arguments; these stand or
fall on their own merits. Address my arguments - something you signally
fail to do - instead producing diatribe, rhetoric, misrepresentations,
fake support for your claims, and ad hominem (in the vulgar sense)
attacks.

You are absolutely unqualified to judge any misconceptions I may have
about Christian doctrine; no Christian contributor to this forum has
written to me to point out any errors.

I am perfectly aware of my lack of knowledge of Islam: Islam is more
than a life-time's study. I am ignorant; we are all ignorant; what
would be to the point would be for you to show where my ignorance has
led me into error. If you did that you would do a service to me and the
followers of this forum. You have demonstrated no sif=gnificant error
in 650 postings of mine.

John Smith

unread,

Jan 22, 2007, 4:01:37 PM1/22/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

> As you have considerable experience as a newsgroup moderator of note, how
> did you counteract the 'drivel' and 'troll' phenomenon that often passes
for
> say anti-Muslim 'criticism' given the 'veneer of approval' this dedicated
> Islamic forum?

It never occured. It never occured because what I was moderating was
extremely specialised and you did not tend to get 'drivel' and 'troll'
posts. Newbie posts, yes. But that was okay.

> Did you ever resort to doing a Usenet archive search to see
> if the commentators actual Usenet behaviour overall contravenes standard
> newsgroup etiquette? For example:-

First: Not all those "John Smiths" are me. In fact, I am probably a minority
within that pack.
John Smith is quite a common name, so you would hard pressed to sort out how
many John Smith's were posting and what their interests are over time. Some
of them may be permanently offline many years ago. I have no idea about
other John Smiths other than myself on Google (or Deja before that).
Any John Smith posting to s.r.i prior to 2006 is not me.

Second: Your "drivel" and "troll" are purely subjective.

Third: The more objective breaking of newsgroup etiquette is
- Cross-posting to multiple newsgroups that are not relevent
- Multi-posting to multiple relevent newsgroups (cross-posting _IS_
correct here)
- Inappropriate or incorrect use of follow-ups
- Failing to prune deeply-nested quotations to what is relevent in a
active deep, thread.
- Changing subject lines within a thread
- Hijacking a thread instead of starting your own thread
- Top-posting
- No subject lines

> What would such a random search , using your relative "falsehood/truthood"
> criterion, reveal to moderators or other discerning subscribers intent on
> maintaining the integrity of educated commentary and proper decorum about
> all Qur'anic and Islamic issues?

Probably nothing.
Lets hope the moderators are sufficiently competent enough to realise that
names might be duplicated on UseNet.

Would such proactive resolve, by
> moderators, diminish the 'veneer' situation mentioned in the signature
> below?
>
> As a matter of general interest what newsgroups did you previously
moderate?

Let's say software products on a private newserver by a public company whose
shares are traded on a well-known Stock Exchange whose private newgroups are
mirrored on UseNet.
Note there is nothing unusual about that, Microsoft do exactly that.

Cordially

John Smith

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 6:46:21 PM1/23/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

"Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:000201c73e3d$a9304ab0$4101a8c0@rhdt...

<snip> ...

> The Muslim scholars referred to in your quotation of me, the names of
> which I requested, were "Muslim scholars who have studied the Koran

> linguistically, textually, and historically ...
<snip> ...

Comment:-
Well let's do a quick check on the academic qualifications of Dr. Dr
Mustafa A A Shah, the first Muslim scholar given to you on the extensive
list in this link:-

news:45b4143f$0$23346$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

Extract:-

JQS 1:1 (1999)

Articles in English:
The Philological Endeavours of the Early Arabic Linguists: Theological
Implications of the tawqif-istilah Antithesis and the majaz Controversy
MUSTAFA SHAH

End extract.

Now what does this official SOAS faculty link provide:-

Dr Mustafa A A Shah
BA, PhD (London)

Departments:
Lecturer in Islamic Studies, Department of the Languages and Cultures of
Near and Middle East

Expertise:
The early Arabic linguistic tradition; classical Islamic theology and
jurisprudence

Main Areas of Research:
The early Arabic linguistic tradition; classical Islamic theology and
jurisprudence

Interests/Disciplines:
Islamic studies; Arabic

<snip> ...
> ... There is no reason to believe that any of the

> academics on the list you provide fall into this category.

Comment:-
Isn't this simple check (that you could have easily done) sufficient reason,
which completely demolishes your anti-Muslim scholar argument? Doesn't Dr
Mustafa Shah fall exactly into the category you have mentioned, "The early
Arabic linguistic tradition; classical Islamic theology and jurisprudence"?

Have you checked the academic qualifications of all the other listed
"western" Muslim scholars (I don't have the time)? If not, then your
blustering insinuations about their academic credentials are just
disparaging guesswork and have no foundation in reality. If all these
eminent Muslim experts and Doctors of Islamic Studies (all post graduates, I
would imagine) were trained in 'western' universities doesn't that
automatically make them 'western scholars', or is there some 'racial'
undertones being artfully inserted into your riposte?

Robert Houghton

unread,

Jan 23, 2007, 6:49:26 PM1/23/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

I reply to asimmehm Jan 22

You are quite right when you say that the Romans gave the Sanhedrin limited
autonomy to implement their own laws, but, as you say, this was LIMITED and
the limit was quite precisely capital jurisdiction, the fullest exercise of
juridical power. A.N.Sherwin-White, a very distinguished Oxford Ancient
Historian and expert on Roman Law and administration (NOT a theologian), in
"Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament" (p36) has the following
to say; he denies that it was "... the common practice of the Roman
government to allow capital jurisdiction to local municipal or ethnic
tribunals. ...the capital power was the most jealously guarded of all the
attributes of government, NOT EVEN ENTRUSTED TO THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANTS OF
THE GOVERNORS..." The exception was that the Sanhedrin was allowed to
execute pagan trespassers in the sacred precincts of the Temple.

When the Jews attempted to stone Jesus for blasphemy, this was not an
exercise of the Sanhedrin's power, but a lynching. The same goes for the
threatened stoning of the woman taken in adultery: this wasn't the exercise
of formal justice.

The Pharisees, but not all of them, opposed Jesus but there is nothing to
suggest that they "tried everything to prevent Jesus from spreading his
message."

You say "if all he was doing was telling people to eat with their hands."
What he was actually doing was to teach people that they need not ritually
wash their hands before eating, and in doing this he was rejecting the Oral
Law, the supplement to the Law which the Pharisees had elaborated in oral
tradition.

It is very far from true that the reference to the Paraclete in John 14 is
an obvious reference to Muhammad. Christians are astonished when they come
across this Muslim claim; a simple reading shows it to be false. "And I will
pray the Father and he will give you another Counselor [Paraclete],to be
with you forever ... you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in
you." First, Jesus is addressing his apostles and promises the Counselor to
THEM, but Muhammad did not come to them, he came 600 years later when they
were dead. Secondly the Paraclete is a SPIRIT, not a human person as
Muhammad was. Muhammad did not dwell with them and was not IN them.

It is absurd to say that people know that Muhammad is in the Bible and an
indisputable fact. More than a billion Christians deny it and have done for
1500 years. Do you explain this as gross hypocrisy and love of falsehood? It
is the height of Muslin arrogance to say that people who reject Islam know
that it is true but deny it out of wickedness.

Robert

unread,

Jan 24, 2007, 5:56:36 PM1/24/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

I reply to Azumazi Jan 23

You do not engage in debate in good faith: you are bluffing and merely
keep up the pretence of meeting my point.

You again misrepresent me by misleading partial quotation at the head
of your posting.

Instead of being committed to intellectual honesty and the pursuit of
truth you try to play the Muslim game of "outwitting" the opponent

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,

Jan 24, 2007, 5:53:01 PM1/24/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

"Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:000201c73e3d$a9304ab0$4101a8c0@rhdt...

<snip> ...
Robert originally wrote in message:

news:1168950099.7...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<snip> ...
> >You offer an extensive list of Muslim scholars, but the question still
> >asserts itself: Why do the few modern scholars not publish in the
> >international scholarly journals and submit themselves to scholarly
> >criticism, thus contributing to the pursuit of knowledge? Also, why are
> >their works not translated into Western languages, mainly English, so

> >that they can contribute to general human culture? The quality of work
> >published by Muslims in the West is pitiable...
<snip> ...

Comment:-
Robert, was given this detailed reply counteracting all of his specious
contentions:

news:45b4143f$0$23346$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

Robert's contentions being:

1. Robert insinuates: "scholars not publish in the international scholarly
journals" and "not translated into Western languages, mainly English".
Rebutted by the well respected and internationally acclaimed Journal of
Quranic Studies (JQS) list of erudite articles written by Muslim scholars in
English over a number of years.

2. Robert insinuates: "submit themselves to scholarly criticism". Rebutted
by peer review of the many scholarly articles written by Muslim scholars
that were published in the JQS.

3. Robert says: "The quality of work published by Muslims in the West is
pitiable". Rebutted by the extensive list of quality scholarly articles
published in the well-respected JQS by recognised Muslim scholars.

<snip> ...

> Once again you try to use your technique of argument by list of
> contents and (disreputably) misrepresentation by quoting out of

> context. ...
<snip> ...

Comment:-
Robert, tell us where my rebuttal was a 'misrepresentation' or 'quoting out
of context' when it demolished everyone of your spurious insinuations
against Muslim scholarship, in the context of 'western' Qur'anic studies?

<snip>

> You ask for my scholarly qualifications: as I have said before I am not
> going to parade my qualifications or lack of them: I do not present my
> qualifications as grounds for accepting my arguments; these stand or
> fall on their own merits. Address my arguments - something you signally
> fail to do - instead producing diatribe, rhetoric, misrepresentations,
> fake support for your claims, and ad hominem (in the vulgar sense)
> attacks.

<snip> ...

Comment:-
Robert, how can you claim, "The quality of work published by Muslims in the
West is pitiable", if you don't divulge your academic qualifications
demonstrating that you are an authoritative expert, capable of making any
such critical assessment of Muslim scholarship in the west? Is this more of
your insupportable huff, bluff and bluster? Robert, isn't your hyperbolising
riposte, as you readily admit yourself: "these stand or fall on their own
merits. Address my arguments ... instead producing diatribe, rhetoric,

misrepresentations, fake support for your claims, and ad hominem (in the

vulgar sense) attacks.", an prima facie example of this phenomenon that you
falsely accuse others of doing?

<snip> ...

> You are absolutely unqualified to judge any misconceptions I may have
> about Christian doctrine; no Christian contributor to this forum has
> written to me to point out any errors.

<snip> ...

Comment:-
Aren't you irrationally contradicting yourself once more? You post to an
Islamic newsgroup and expect "Christians" to point out your many mistakes
and misconceptions about Christianity and not Muslims and because
"Christians" don't, Muslims are in error. Doesn't this categorically
describe Kofi Annan's "veneer of acceptance"?

Haven't you realised there are many ex-Christian commentators (I'm not one),
who are now Muslims, that have thoroughly demolished your 'Christian'
misconceptions in this forum. The point being, you haven't taken their valid
criticism on board or accepted their rational refutations of your dubious
"Christian" interpretation.

How do you know that I'm "absolutely unqualified to judge your
misconceptions"? Surely, not from the reliable transcripts? Can you provide
any archived links, from this forum, supporting this specious claim or shall
we treat it as just evidence of more bluster, unsupported by the facts?

<snip> ...

> I am perfectly aware of my lack of knowledge of Islam: Islam is more
> than a life-time's study. I am ignorant; we are all ignorant; what
> would be to the point would be for you to show where my ignorance has
> led me into error.

<snip> ...

Comment:-
You didn't have to tell us or make this confession we all ready knew it from
your many posts. But still, everyday, you demonstrate your ignorance of
Islam and Muslims by posting articles unthinkingly lifted off the internet,
from notoriously unreliable sources in the anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic
'Apocalyptic Blogosphere'. Isn't your "Is it the Truth"; Islamic Duplicity",
unthinkingly lifted from the Answering Islam website proof of your hostile,
as you say, "lack of knowledge"?

Wasn't this "It is Truth" website argument already demolished in your recent
"Islam, Christianity and Rubbish" thread at this link:-

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/browse_frm/thread/a853e3b40f712a78/d944a5aa868959d7?lnk=gst&q=%22It%27s+the+Truth%22+&rnum=1&hl=en#d944a5aa868959d7

Perhaps, subscribers would like to review that short thread to ascertain the
"significant errors" in judgement and hyperbolising employed in your
originating post?

<snip> ...

> If you did that you would do a service to me and the
> followers of this forum. You have demonstrated no sif=gnificant error
> in 650 postings of mine.

<snip> ...

Comment:-
Why should I waste subscriber time by going back re-hashing your many
errors, mistakes and misconceptions in such a puerile challenge? It would be
easier for you to demonstrate any of your 650 posts that weren't soundly
rebutted in this forum. Is there a single one? As you have already admitted
above: "I am perfectly aware of my lack of knowledge of Islam". What more
can I add to that self-admission about the "lack of knowledge" expressed in
your 650 posts?

But the proof is there for anyone to trace. To save time, let's just take
this one particular thread, in and of itself, "The Sacrifice: isma'eel or
is-Haaq", as a prime example of your "significant errors". Isn't that
sufficient evidence about your "significant errors", misconceptions and
prejudices against Islam and Muslim scholarship, etc.? Isn't that of service
to subscriber time, when they can quickly trace and assess your credibility,
as a, unqualified and acknowledgeable, "critic" of Islam and Muslims in this
forum?

--
Peace
--
For those who do not think, it is best at least to rearrange their
prejudices once in a while. [Luther Burbank]

Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,

Jan 24, 2007, 5:56:18 PM1/24/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

"A Hirsi" <mod_i...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168884512.2...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<snip> ...

> Knowledge must precede everything else.
> 1. You do not know the language of the Holy Quran
> 2. You refuse to accept that you are wrong when you are corrected using
> your own Bible (Refer to Uncle Sinbad)
> 3. You make blanket untrue statements
> 4. You spawn a new thread when the going gets tough so that you can
> conveniently ignore the truths pointed out to you
> 5. You refuse to take the challenge that is in the Quran.
> 6. You type a lot of words but say nothing at all
> 7. Your posts have no substance whatsoever
> 8. You argue for the sake of keeping others busy answering your wild
> and bogus claims
> 9. You falsely accuse the moderators of refusing to post your articles
> instead of being patient
> 10. You think you can argue with us about our religion
> 11. You are not making any progress at all
> 12. You are better off the first day you stumbled into sri and asked
> how we were constituted! As though we were a secretive group
> 13. You ruin the discussions for all of us by repeating arguments that
> have already been settled

<snip> ...

Comment:-
As an observation, what you have succinctly described is the classic
behaviour of newsgroup trolls. As in this instance, when a trolls boasts
about the 650 articles he has insignificantly posted to this forum, all
negative in form and content, hostilely lifted of the anti-Muslim
'Apocalyptic Blogosphere' in an indiscriminate manner.

What is the general purpose of this missionary 'smear' campaign, by its
sheer volume in this forum, other than to maliciously malign Muslims in a
wholesale manner? The relevancy to Muslim subscribers is that it's
virulently anti-Muslim being artfully described as fair and valid
'criticism' of 'Islam' and not the newsgroup abuse that it really is, in
fact. One could cogently argue, under this intolerant and trolling onslaught
against Muslims, that indiscriminate stigmatising, stereotyping, vilifying,
and demonising is valid 'criticism' and not hostile bigotry, posted to
disrupt this forum. Of course, unscrupulous 'trolls' will artfully insinuate
that Muslims cannot accept 'criticism' as an excuse for their bigoted
trolling behaviour and casuistry!

As one author declared:-

"Yes, what I write IS selective; it cannot help but be selective given the
vastness as a subject of Islam. And my intention is to show that Islam IS
largely false, and if I selectively succeed in that then Islam IS false
whatever else might be said about it."

news:1163333901.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

But who are the adherents of Islam, if not Muslims? How many times has the
term Muslim been opprobriously mentioned in these 650 (?) derogatory posts?
But, using troll vernacular: "No, this is all about Islam, right!" The
trolling transcripts never lie.

Don't be fooled and duped into believing any of this concerted agitprop has
really to do with Islam or the Qur'an per se. As a parallel, its like saying
that anti-Semitism was about Judaism and the Torah and not the Jews
themselves. As Professor Halliday clearly stated, this is not the
euphemistic (politically correct <G>) Islamophobia but hateful
anti-Muslimism, if you critically study the trolling (egocentric)
transcripts in close detail, that is. This general transcript search about
Muslims reveals all:-

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author%3Arobert45%40f2s.com+%22muslim%22&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en

The transcripts never lie about trolling activity. One could say, Muslims
are the trolling sacrifice in this case.

James-Yaqub

unread,

Jan 24, 2007, 5:51:42 PM1/24/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

On Jan 21, 7:05 am, "Robert" <rober...@f2s.com> wrote:
> I reply to James-Yaqub Jan 16
>
> You offer an extensive list of Muslim scholars, but the question still
> asserts itself: Why do the few modern scholars not publish in the
> international scholarly journals and submit themselves to scholarly
> criticism, thus contributing to the pursuit of knowledge?

I'M NOT SURE WHY. PROBABLY BECAUSE THE WEST IS MOSTLY CHRISTIAN. I DO
KNOW THESE PAPERS CAN BE FOUND IN UNIVERSITYS WHICH TEACH COMPARATIVE
RELIGION.

Quallity of work

> published by Muslims in the West is pitiable - full of misconceptions
> about Christianity, for instance.
>

> You say that critiDo Islamic scholars, for instance,

> investigate any relation that there is between the Koran and Christian
> religious documents in Syriac? That would be blasphemy, I suppose.

ISLAMIC SCHOLARS HAVE GREAT REVERENCE FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT AND ARE
QUITE KNOWEDGEABLE OF IT IN IT'S ENTIRITY.

> You say that the Bible has been changed too many times by the hand of
> man. Can you demonstrate this? Have any consequent changes altered the
> religious message of the Bible? What you say is absolutely false of the
> documents of the New Testament.

THE HOLY BIBLE WAS FIRST CODIFIED IN ABOUT THE YEAR 325 BY A COUNCIL
CALLED BY EMPEROR CONSTANTINE. AT THAT TIME DECISIONS WERE MADE TO USE
ONLY FOUR GOSPELS OUT OF MANY THAT WERE AVAILABLE. THESE OTHERS STILL
EXIST IN THE VARIOUS ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CHURCHES IN THE EAST. COULD
THE GOSPELS OF THE APOSTLE THOMAS BE LESS THE WORD OF GOD THAN THOSE OF
MARK?

LATER AT THE REFORMATION SEVEN BOOKS WERE DELETED FROM THE HOLY BIBLE
FOR MOSTLY POLITICAL REASONS. THE KINGS IN EUROPE COULD NOT
COUNTENANCE THEIR BISHOPS BEING BEHOLDEN TO THE POPE SO THE "NEW" HOLY
BIBLE HAD TO REFLECT THIS.

THE KING JAMES VERSION WAS FOUND TO HAVE MANY ERRORS, MOSTLY TYPOS AS
WE MIGHT CALL THEM SO THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION WAS ORIGINATED.

THE JEHOVAH'S FOLKS HAD TO HAVE THEIR OWN SO THEY MADE THE NEW WORLD
EDITION.

IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD, VERIFIABLE WITH ANY BIBLE SCHOLAR THAT BOTH
THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS CONTAIN CONTRADICTIONS, ONE AUTHOR TO
ANOTHER. EXAMPLES SUCH AS ONE STATING THE NUMBER 400 IN REFERENCE TO
SOMETHING AND ANOTHER AUTHOR LATER IN A DIFFERENT CITING THE SAME
OCCURANCE WILL SAY THAT IT WAS 4,000. THIS IS TYPICAY AND UNGODLIKE TO
SAY THE LEAST.

ORDINARY PREACHERS NEVER ADDRESS THESE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. THESE, AND
MORE, ARE THE VERY REAL REASONS THE CATHOLICS REVER THE BIBLE BUT DO
NOT CONSIDER IT INERRANT. THEY'RE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW BETTER. THE
MESSAGE IS FROM GOD, EXCEPT MUCH OF WHAT PAUL SAYS, BUT TOO MANY MEN
HAVE DABBLED WITH IT.

> Christianity too insists that understanding precedes belief, but you
> cannot understand EVERYTHING about God, and as in ordinary life, some
> belief is based, not on full understanding, but your trust in the
> person you believe.

YES, OF COURSE, I AGREE ENTIRELY. THAT IS A REASONABLE STATEMENT.
BEING BLIND TO THE HISTORICAL REALITY OF THE HOLY BIBLE IS ANOTHER
MATTER.

ONE MAIN REASON I LEFT CHRISTIANITY AFTER 60 YEARS IS THE QURAN.
IGNORE, FOR A MOMENT, THE HOSTILITY IN THE WORLD AND CONSIDER THE THREE
BOOKS. THE OT, THE NT AND THE QURAN. OF THE THREE ONLY THE QURAN WAS
GIVEN FROM ONE SCOURCE WHICH WAS NAMED AS THE ANGEL GABRIEL. OVER A
TWENTY THREE YEAR PERIOD IT WAS MEMORIZED BY THOSE WHO RECEIVED IT AND
A FEW YEARS LATER ENSCRIBED EXACTLY AS GIVEN BY THE ANGEL. EXACTLY!
AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN CHANGED EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST.

NOW CONSIDER THE MANY SECTS IN ISLAM. THERE ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT
BELIEFS AND RULES THAT I ADMIT IT IS HARD TO LEARN THEM ALL. YOU SEE
THE QURAN IS INTENDED TO BE A "GENERAL GUIDE" TO LIFE. NOTHING MORE.
IT WAS THUS ACCEPTABLE TO ALL SECTS. EVERY MUSLIM SECT TODAY USES THE
ONE QURAN. BEYOND THAT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL RULES DEPENDING ON THE
GROUP, SECT, ONE STUDIES. THIS IS WHY WE FIND VERY STRANGE EDICTS IN,
SUCH AS, STRICT SHARIA LAW. THIS BODY OF LAW IS NOT CLAIMED TO BE THE
WORD OF GOD. CERTAINLY NOT BY WE MODERATES.

DO YOU BEGIN TO SEE THE COMPLEXITY OF THE STUDY OF ISLAM? CHRISTIANITY
TOO HAS MANY SECTS WITH DISTINCT IDEAS.

IT IS THE HOPE OF WE MODERATE AND PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN MUSLIMS THAT OUR
RELIGION WILL BE PRACTICED BY US IN IT'S PUREST SENSE. FURTHER THAT
ISLAM IN EUROPE WILL BE TEMPERED OVER TIME WITH THE NEWER GENERATIONS
OF MUSLIMS.

TO THIS END WE BELIEVE IT IS MOST HARMFUL FOR THESE SEVERE, SOMETIMES,
CAUSTIC EXCHANGES ON THE WEB TO BE SEEN BY IMPRESSIONABLE YOUTH. WE
PRAY FOR A LITTLE MORE TOLERANCE, MATURITY AND PATIENCE FROM EVERYONE.

I BELIEVE THAT A MAN SHOULD STAY IN THE RELIGION IN WHICH HE FINDS
COMFORT AND LEAVE THE JUDGING TO GOD. HE IS MORE CAPABLE AND
KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN US.

PEACE TO ALL,

YAQUB

Robert

unread,

Jan 25, 2007, 6:13:43 PM1/25/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

I reply to James-Yaqub Jan 24

You make the usual Muslim accusations against the Bible, most of which
are false and all of which are misconceived. It is, of course,
impossible for me to correct you as my replies would not be relevant to
Islam and thus would not be published on this forum. If there were a
modicum of disinterestedness among Muslim scholars, and if there were
high intellectual standards under Islam' your misconceptions would not
be current.

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,

Jan 25, 2007, 6:24:14 PM1/25/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

"Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1169632248....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

<snip> ...

> You do not engage in debate in good faith: you are bluffing and merely
> keep up the pretence of meeting my point.

<snip> ...

Comment:-
Why do you think any sensible commentator, Muslim or otherwise, needs to
respond to your 'loaded questions' about Qur'anic scholarship from a Muslim
perspective? Do you think that 'loaded questions' [i.e. a question with a
false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition] can be called debating
Qur'anic scholarship, or any other Islamic issue for that matter, in 'good
faith'? You are in no position to make any 'good faith' demands from any
commentator when you have openly declared in this forum, and I quote from
the archives:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/be5b2a27f2dd7a97?hl=en

Doesn't "selectively" artfully mean, in the context of your many anti-Muslim
posts, be recognised by its natural synonyms "discriminatory", "invidious"
and "prejudiced"? Is that understanding, debating Islam in 'good faith'?

Islam is false to you regardless of what anyone says to the contrary. You
just don't have an open mind where Islam and Muslims are concerned. This can
be verified by anyone who takes the time to read your historical
transcripts. You will not be persuaded otherwise, you have made up your mind
in advance, no matter what anyone argues; or how many times your carping
contentions are demolished by respondents. Can that historical fact be
construed as honest debate in 'good faith'?

There is an old Arabic proverb, which roughly translated, says: "The opinion
of the intelligent is worth more than the certitude of the ignorant." I'm
sure some Muslim pundit can tell us if there is a hadith that covers this
irrefutable piece of wisdom.

--
Peace
--
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who
cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. [George Santayana]

Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com

Robert Houghton

unread,

Jan 25, 2007, 6:21:10 PM1/25/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

You say that Muslim scholars do not publish in the international journals
because the West is mostly Christian. You must know that, although the West
has a culture whose foundations are Christian, it is now largely pagan, and
Western academics are certainly not Christian on the whole. But even if it
were true, this would be no obstacle to Muslims contributing to scholarly
debate.

As regards the Old Testament, Muslim scholars read it in terms of their
Islamic ideology.

Yes, Constantine called a Council of the Church when Christianity became the
State religion of the Roman Empire. Muslims attach a great deal of
misinformation to this fact, even those educated in the West. Reza Aslan,
for instance, in his book "No god but God" asserts that Constantine was a
FOUNDER of Christianity. I have even read Muslims assert that he had the
decrees of the Council imposed by imperial decree.

The Church defined the Canon of the New Testament; in doing this the Church
confirmed what had long been accepted. This can be proved by an examination
of which documents were quoted by the early theologians. The "many [gospels]
that were available" were the fantasies of the Gnostics and others; they can
still be read, and anyone can see that they are not Christian documents:
setting the Canon was not a matter of choosing from various candidates; this
is a Muslim misrepresentation. Read them for yourself. The Orthodox Churches
in the East do not use these pseudo-Gospels.

The kings had nothing to do with excluding the Apocrypha from the Protestant
Bible: it was in the hands of the theologians: the Protestants followed the
Jews, the Catholics followed the more ancient tradition of the Septuagint.

What's wrong with producing the Revised Standard Version since, since King
James's day, the study of the text and ancient languages had advanced
remarkably?

Yes, there are contradictions in the Bible: it is a collection of HUMAN
documents, though inspired by the Holy Spirit, though not as writing
machines. However, the Faith is transmitted in spite of peripheral errors.
There are many errors in the Koran, as I have pointed out. One fifth of the
Koran is incomprehensible, but medieval scholars imposed a 'meaning' on the
incomprehensible parts, which even defy ~Arabic grammar.

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,

Jan 26, 2007, 6:53:44 PM1/26/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

"Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1169632248....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

<snip> ...

> You do not engage in debate in good faith: you are bluffing and merely
> keep up the pretence of meeting my point.
>
> You again misrepresent me by misleading partial quotation at the head
> of your posting.

Comment:-
Robert, you asked and I quote: "names of which I requested, were "Muslim

scholars who have studied the Koran linguistically, textually, and

historically as Western scholars ...". To which I replied directly in this
link:-

news:45b5a47e$0$4753$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

Giving you the qualifications of just one of the 'western' Muslim scholars
on the extensive list in my earlier post. Doesn't Dr Mustafa Shah academic
qualifications, (i.e. The early Arabic linguistic tradition; classical
Islamic theology and jurisprudence), as listed on the official SOAS website,
precisely meet your earlier demand for "names of 'Muslim scholars who have
studied the Koran linguistically, textually, and historically as Western
scholars ..."? How do you construe this confirmed and well substantiated
fact, with your rhetorical "bluffing" accusation?

<snip> ...

> Instead of being committed to intellectual honesty and the pursuit of
> truth you try to play the Muslim game of "outwitting" the opponent

<snip> ...

Comment:-
Robert, all posts to this forum that use fallacious arguments are
"intellectually dishonest", the natural opposite to "intellectually honest".

As I related elsewhere, your 'loaded question' form in this specific thread,
is an argument based on something akin to a 'crooked thinking' fallacy
(which we have discussed before at length - check the archives). See this
link, if you don't know this fallacy, or for verification of that fact:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions

Your fallacious presupposition [a supposition made prior to having knowledge
(as for the purpose of argument)] being that no: "Muslim scholars who have
studied the Koran linguistically, textually, and historically as Western
scholars have studied the Bible."

Digest.
"It is incumbent upon each of us to avoid or mitigate 'fallacious'
reasoning, whether in the narrow confines of an academic or professional
discipline, or the amorphous and uncertain circumstances of daily life. The
exercise of sound reasoning, to the extent of our individual abilities, is a
large part of the analysis aspect of intellectual honesty." ... [UOC]
End digest.

So my advice is stop making these unwarranted and gratuitous kind of
"intellectual honesty" allegations, when it's quite obvious that you have no
clear idea of what the concept means, otherwise you wouldn't use so many
arguments founded on fallacies of the type described above.

--
Peace
--
The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it
intentionally with fallacious arguments. [Friedrich Nietzsche]

Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com

Abdalla Alothman

unread,

Jan 27, 2007, 8:25:37 PM1/27/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

Robert Houghton wrote:
>
> Yes, there are contradictions in the Bible: it is a collection of HUMAN
> documents, though inspired by the Holy Spirit, though not as writing
> machines.

It can't be inspired and a source of contradictions at the same time.
Uninspired books are in better condition than the bible.

> There are many errors in the Koran, as I have pointed out.

You haven't pointed out a pin, and your posting history is available
for everybody to see.

The Quran has absolutely no errors. It is from the Creator (tt), and
anyone who wishes to challenge the Quran should start right away.
So far we have seen opinions about you from Muslims, Christians,
and non-Muslims. You don't seem to be in good shape, I tell you.

> One fifth of the Koran is incomprehensible,

You can't say that because you can't read the Quran. You
can't even learn a language to partially fulfill your agenda.

> but medieval scholars imposed a 'meaning' on the incomprehensible
> parts, which even defy ~Arabic grammar.

You don't know Arabic, so you can't talk about Arabic grammar.
Although I think it's quite silly, but I'll go ahead and ask you the
question: Can you prove your statement?

Abdalla Alothman

Robert

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 1:26:49 AM1/29/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

I reply to Alothman Jan 28

Your position is absurd. I state that one fifth of the Koran is
incomprehensible, and you reply that since I don't know Arabic I
cannot say this. As you well know I do not make the assertion on my
own authority; I report what is widely stated by Western scholars.

But even if your absurd argument were valid it wouldn't touch the
issue: it doesn't show that the Koran is not one fifth unintelligible.

You are following the desperate Muslim practice of swearing that black
is white in order to defend Islam. Your hands are tied because the
Koran itself says that it is in clear Arabic. Muslims CAN'T argue
disinterestedly to arrive at agreement on truth: Islam blocks them.
This is what makes argument with dogmatic Muslims futile.

John Smith

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 9:37:59 PM1/29/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

> So now aren't you being self-contradictory once more over this mythical
> 'Syriac' hokum'? Isn't this whole Lüling and Luxenberg 'Syriac' idea,
> according to your nominated authority, Professor Crone, not 'amateurish'
and
> that 'both books are open to so many scholarly objections"? According to
> Professor Crone these works by Lüling and Luxenberg haven't 'done the
field
> much good'? How do you respond to Professor Crone's, as you said,
> 'devastating clarity', without totally contradicting yourself once more?

Why is there a contradiction Zuiko?

For any academic source, I might find myself in agreement with some points,
disagreement with other points.
I might agree with the research data and disagree with the conclusions drawn
from it.
I could also praise the quality of research or criticise it.
It is extremely unlikely that I would be 100% for or against for any
article.

If I praise the quality of research does that mean I must _ALSO_ be in 100%
agreement with its conclusions?
Only a simpleton would draw that conclusion.
Only a simpleton would entertain that these are contradictions.

Cordially

John Smith

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 9:40:49 PM1/29/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

> What is the general purpose of this missionary 'smear' campaign, by its
> sheer volume in this forum, other than to maliciously malign Muslims in a
> wholesale manner?

Have a look here Zuiko:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6265417.stm

I dont have to smear or malign Muslims.
They will do it all by themselves.

> The relevancy to Muslim subscribers is that it's
> virulently anti-Muslim being artfully described as fair and valid
> 'criticism' of 'Islam' and not the newsgroup abuse that it really is, in
> fact. One could cogently argue, under this intolerant and trolling
onslaught
> against Muslims, that indiscriminate stigmatising, stereotyping,
vilifying,
> and demonising is valid 'criticism' and not hostile bigotry, posted to
> disrupt this forum.

So if those 6 men had succeeded and I complained here in s.r.i on behalf of
the maimed and injured and dead, that is demonising right?
I would rather it never happened.
I would rather live comfortably in peace.
But Islam constantly intrudes, mostly negatively. And _YOU_ dont acknowledge
that, ever.

> Of course, unscrupulous 'trolls' will artfully insinuate

> that Muslims cannot accept 'criticism'...

Well you cant. I have _NEVER_ seen you say, "you have a point". Not once.
The fact that you have never said so, means the above statement is true and
there is nothing artful about it.
It is not a game here. It is not Muslims versus non-Muslims. The day will
come when some radical Muslim will have you by the throat, you will be
begging for your life and he will decide that you are not Muslim enough and
kill you.

> This general transcript search about
> Muslims reveals all:-
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author%3Arobert45%40f2s.com+%22muslim%22&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en
>
> The transcripts never lie about trolling activity. One could say, Muslims
> are the trolling sacrifice in this case.

Spare me. Considering that most of the atrocities rouind the world are by
Muslims (and if you want I can put in a big post with URL after URL) these
days, you should be grateful of activity by non-Muslims to alert Muslims
that there is something wrong with Islam. How much blood has to be spilt by
Muslims before you will take notice?

Cordially

John Smith

Abdalla Alothman

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 9:49:31 PM1/29/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

Robert wrote:
> I reply to Alothman Jan 28
>
> Your position is absurd.

Really?

> But even if your absurd argument were valid it wouldn't touch the
> issue: it doesn't show that the Koran is not one fifth unintelligible.

Same goes to you. You made a claim, but you didn't prove it.
You can't prove it. And since there's no proof, I'm not obliged
to prove the opposite. Bring your proof if you are truthful.

> You are following the desperate Muslim practice of swearing that black
> is white in order to defend Islam. Your hands are tied because the
> Koran itself says that it is in clear Arabic. Muslims CAN'T argue
> disinterestedly to arrive at agreement on truth: Islam blocks them.
> This is what makes argument with dogmatic Muslims futile.

You say 1/5 of the Quran is incomprehensible. You don't provide
what does the 1/5 consist of. You can't show 100% or 1% of this
claim. Yet, you want Muslims to prove you wrong. The logic you
follow is from other poor christians. It is shallow. It is a
marshmallow.

Abdalla Alothman

James-Yaqub

unread,

Jan 29, 2007, 9:44:13 PM1/29/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

On Jan 25, 3:13 pm, "Robert" <rober...@f2s.com> wrote:
> I reply to James-Yaqub Jan 24
>
> You make the usual Muslim accusations against the Bible, most of which
> are false and all of which are misconceived. It is, of course,

Robert you stated in a recent response to my query that you have only
an academic interest in Islam and that you wish to understand it.
Your posts do not, in my opinion, support this claim. You seem to
search out things to complain about and when answers are given you
invariably refute them citing scholars.

This need that you seem to have where Muslims' opinions of their own
religion are always trumped by by non-Muslim scholars indicates
clearly that you are more interested in being contentious than you are
in understanding. Lately you assert that scholars claim that 20% of
the Quran is incomprehensible (or something close to that) and nay-say
the opinions by Muslims when they say that reading in Arabic conveys
slightly different meanings. Robert, English is a new language.
Arabic is very old. The two are different, very different. I'll let
that go at that. No doubt you know scholars who will disagree with
this.

In all your posts I've never once read anything nice about Muslims or
their religion. The centrist mind is capable of weaving a path
through obstacles to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion of a
question. You move along capitalizing on nit-picky little things like
a mis-spelled word in one of my posts and never arrive at anything of
value to the honest seacher. With you it's always bitch, bitch
bitch.

This, then, is my last post to you Rober Houghton. I have no time for
petty competiveness with one who looks at the non-Christian world and
will see only "wrongfulness".

In your style I am reminded of some I have know who are "obsessive
compulsive". Those with this dis-order commonly tell others that they
are wrong among other things. If you have this dis-order then you are
understandable. If you do not then I'll have to believe that you are
one of those pesky Christians in disguise who like to stir up the
pot. If this is the case you give good Christians a bad name.

If you want to know why I left Christianity just read a few posts by
those Bible people who are always right.

No religion, including Islam, was ever made by God. He occasionally
reveals directives to us which are meant to be aids in living. It is
men who have made these into religions. All God wants us to do is to
get along with each other. Is is possible that you could agree with
this? But this is what I believe and, in Heaven/Paradise we will all
sit and wonder why we were so foolish when here on Earth missing
opportunities for good and wasting our time ragging on the other guys'
beliefs.

Goodbye RH.

James-Yaqub

Zuiko Azumazi

unread,

Feb 1, 2007, 1:08:00 AM2/1/07

to s...@stump.algebra.com

"John Smith" <John...@ukgroupnews.com> wrote in message

news:a6ydnWCmQJhYeyDY...@pipex.net...

<snip>

>> What is the general purpose of this missionary 'smear' campaign, by its
>> sheer volume in this forum, other than to maliciously malign Muslims in a
>> wholesale manner?

> Have a look here Zuiko:

<snip> ...

Comment:-
But as usual your quip artfully introduce a "red herring", in your meagre
attempt to rebut the argument. Unless you can demonstrate that what you are
now gratuitously alluding too was "in this forum" and not outside it (i.e.
ignoratio elenchi)? Can you provide any linked transcript evidence of these
new spurious insinuations of yours previously mentioned by any SRI
commentator?

You're trickily 'changing the topic', which I repeat, is the commentary
previously made in this 'forum' and not the BBC report. One can say that
puerile heckling of this kind is just another, unconscionable and fallacious
ploy (i.e appeal to 'guilt by association'), that demonstrates, once more,
the "missionary smear campaign" (i.e. argumentum ad odium), conducted
against Muslims and Islam in this forum, by hostile critics like yourself,
on a constant fallacious basis.

Can't we say that many of the so-called 'criticisms', hostilely aimed at
Islam and Muslims in this forum, follows the disingenuous pattern explained
below?:-

Synopsis:-
"Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order
to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an
argument by leading attention away from the argument and onto another topic.
This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1.. Topic A is under discussion.
2.. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A
(when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3.. Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of
discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim."

End synopsis.

Do you think discerning subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, aren't aware of
such fallacious tricks (bracketed above) used by hostile "critics" in this
forum?

0 new messages