Challenging the Quran, What went wrong ??!
Jochen Katz
shari...@aol.com (SharifKhan) writes:
} Any reader of the Quran will understand immediately that the author of these
} pages meant to take the challenge in the Quran "to produce a sura like it",
} to prove a point.
Obviously most Muslims who protested against the site are
not readers of the Qur'an then.
} Many of the Muslim scholars all over the world and the Muslim readers
} immediately condemned the site and those who are behind it and requested that
} AOL immediately remove the site. AOL under that pressure, voluntarily removed
} the site.
I really wonder how anyone can write "under pressure, they voluntarily..."
Is that the also the Muslim interpretation of "let there not be
compulsion in religion"? I mean you are always free and can
voluntarily reject Islam and it doesn't constitute compulsion
if pressure is applied to you... ? How voluntarily is anything
I do when somebody holds a gun to my head? I still have the
freedom to do what I want and be shot. Does that mean there
was no compulsion?
In general I agree with your article. I very much appreciated it
that you spoke out for freedom of expression and to respond to
the challenge. Still, your above expression seems to betray
remnants of a different tradition in which other Muslims are
still imprisoned. Nevertheless, your voice is a rare one and
you got most of it right.
} Let us give a simple example. If a man claims to be the strongest man on
} earth but he is surrounded by ten bodyguards who knock down anybody who
} wants to challenge him. No-one will ever know if this man is actually
} the strongest man on earth unless he is put to the test. On the contrary,
} the more the bodyguards prevent anyone from challenging him the more doubt
} arises about this man’s claim.
Very good, this little example. I think it speaks for itself and does
not need further comment.
} Those scholars gave themselves the job of the bodyguards of the Quran,
} a job that was never trusted to them by God. Nor does God need their
} intervention to stop a challenge He issued over 1400 years ago.
}
} Actually those scholars and their followers do not differ much from the person
} who tried to meet the challenge and posted his "Sura like it" pages. Both
} are ignorant with the true challenge in the Quran and the miracle of the Quran
} that makes it impossible to produce "Sura like it".
Let's see whether your reinterpretation makes sense.
} The student of the Quran will realize that God in the Quran never claimed
} that the eloquence of the language or the style of the Quran are the basis
} of its miracle or inimitability.
Really? Why do most Muslims interpret it that way then?
} How the challenge can be taken and under what criteria ? Where the web site of
} "suralikeit, fit in this challenge ?!!
}
} For the rest of this post, please turn to our web site at,
}
} http://www.submission.org/challenge.html
Basically, this web site as well as the others with similar
material at http://www.moslem.org/omar4.htm and
http://members.aol.com/telenium99/challenge.htm
Let's look at your criteria that you want to demand:
***********************************************************************
The Challenge:
Please produce a sura like it ,that has the following criteria ,
that is similar to some of what we see in the Quran. You can write
it in either Arabic, English or any other language of your choice.
Arabic will meet all the criteria as it is the language of the Quran,
however using any other language to try to achieve all the rest of
the criteria will be acceptable. This means the challenge is open to
all the human beings in all the languages:
(1) The sura should be made up of, say, 19 sentences.
(2) The total number of words is a multiple of 19.
(3) The word God and two of his attributes should be used each, say, eleven times.
(4)The word messenger should be used five times.
(5) The word law should be used seven times.
(6) The number of the letter "Alif", "A" should be a multiple of 19.
(7) The number of the letter "L" should be a multiple of 19.
(8) The number of the letter "K", should be a multiple of 19.
(9) The number of the letter "H", should be a multiple of 19.
(10) The number of the letter "S", should be a multiple of 19.
(11)The number of the letter "R", should be a multiple of 19.
(12)The number of the letter "Y", should be a multiple of 19.
(13)The number of the letter "M", should be a multiple of 19.
(14)The number of the letter "N", should be a multiple of 19.
(15)The number of the letter "Q", should be a multiple of 19.
(16) If you choose to use numbers inside your statements, their total.
when added together, should be a multiple of 19.
If you are not using numbers then substitute this factor by manipulating
the numbers in such a way that if you multiply the number of the words
in the third verse (sentence) by the number of its letters, the total
should be a multiple of 19.
(17) While reading your statements, the reader would close his/her lips,
pronouncing your words, 19 times or a multiple of nineteen. ( as in Sura 1
in the Quran).
(18) If you add the gematrical value of all the letters you use in your
writing, they should be a multiple of 19. The gematrical values of the
Arabic Alphabets are known and can be found on our web site. The gematrical
value of the English Alphabets or any other language can be assumed as A=1,
B=2, C= 3...etc., if you choose to write it in English or any other
language. Let us know these values when you are done.
(19) These 19 sentences should make complete and perfect laws or advise
for moral correction and should be grammatically and linguistically sound.
They should be judges as being excellent in composition by people who
speak the language.
***********************************************************************
Reading all these things, I wonder if you find even one sura in the
Qur'an that meets the full set of your criteria? How many of these 19
points is satisfied by Sura 111 or Sura 108 for example?
Could you please explain that to me?
If those suras do not satisfy your criteria, does that mean they
should be removed from the Qur'an as being fake? Certainly the
definition of the challenge has to be done in a way that lets
each and every sura of the Qur'an pass its own test. All else
is silly.
I highly appreciate that somebody actually tries to define what
the challenge means, because I think the whole challenge is invalid
because the author of the Qur'an forgot to state the rules of the
game.
Thank you for making an attempt at the vital question of the rules.
Without rules there can be no competition. But, frankly, your rules
are not satisfied by most Suras of the Qur'an itself and therefore
can hardly be made criteria for anyone else either. Or why do you
think that the competitors should have rules that are harder than
the rules for the one that challenges?
Let's be fair.
Sincerely.
Jochen Katz
Maryam Butson
minds; spurs on civilisation, unites a fractured, warring people, is
responsible for the downfall of corrupt dynasties and establishes tawheedian
monotheism - then we will know the challenge has indeed been met. Hmmmmmm
wonder if it will?
Regards
Maryam
P.S. Still waiting for a response to
http://www.netlink.com.au/~maryam/abrog01.html Jochen :)
Jochen Katz
"Maryam Butson" <mar...@netlink.com.au> writes:
} When "suralikeit" has a billion followers, inspires their hearts, souls and
} minds; spurs on civilisation, unites a fractured, warring people, is
} responsible for the downfall of corrupt dynasties and establishes tawheedian
} monotheism - then we will know the challenge has indeed been met. Hmmmmmm
} wonder if it will?
Maryam, it is a nice idea, but it won't work.
When Muhammad put this challenge before the Meccans then
this was meant to be decidable in a short time. THEY should
produce something and then based on whether they could or
not, THEY should believe. Obviously, when one has to wait a
millenium before one can decide whether something met the
challenge, then it was useless for the Meccans, and is just
as wrong a criterion today.
I hope this is logical.
Every criterion for deciding whether a certain text
satisfies the challenge must in principle be decidable
in the same way also by the Meccans to whom this
challenge originally was given or it doesn't make
sense.
Don't you agree? Or do you opt for a criterion that
would have been nonsense to the original audience?
Furthermore, Muhammad could not have meant this, because
he issued his challenge when his own followers were few
and his religion had none of the above. His own Qur'an
would have failed your criterion at the time it was
issued.
Warm regards,
Jochen Katz
George
>
> When "suralikeit" has a billion followers, inspires their hearts, souls and
> minds; spurs on civilisation, unites a fractured, warring people, is
> responsible for the downfall of corrupt dynasties and establishes tawheedian
[snip]
> Regards
> Maryam
But this wasn't done by just one Sura, it was with the whole Koran,
wasn't it? Then it has nothing to do with the challenge, because the
challenge is to produce _A_sura_ like any of the suras of the Koran, not
a sura like the whole Koran.
George
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>
>When Muhammad put this challenge before the Meccans then
>this was meant to be decidable in a short time. THEY should
>produce something and then based on whether they could or
>not, THEY should believe. Obviously, when one has to wait a
>millenium before one can decide whether something met the
>challenge, then it was useless for the Meccans, and is just
>as wrong a criterion today.
>
>I hope this is logical.
Nope. This is the same hermeneutic (that important word you ignore)
put forth by "Qur'an Only" people so they may discount "obey the
Prophet".
A Muslim's assumption regarding the Qur'an, as the genre of
"religious scripture", implies that the meaning of the text
transcends any one particular period of time, or culture-- allowing
for the archtypal events during the actual period of revelation. So,
"like it" changes due simply to time-- the fact that the text,
through time and across cultures, continues to have such an impact on
actual human thought, attitude and behavior, as it did at the
beginning. Simple.
>Every criterion for deciding whether a certain text
>satisfies the challenge must in principle be decidable
>in the same way also by the Meccans to whom this
>challenge originally was given or it doesn't make
>sense.
>
>Don't you agree? Or do you opt for a criterion that
>would have been nonsense to the original audience?
Nope and No. Again, that famous Katzian lack of imagination....
For instance, when the prohibition against khamer or wine came down
the people of the time had no knowledge of pot, or crack, or smack or
valium or bourban or champagne, etc. I'm sure you can fill in the
rest, Jochen.
>and his religion had none of the above. His own Qur'an
>would have failed your criterion at the time it was
>issued.
Right. And as the text moves through time, and thus shows more of
what it really is and different aspects of what it really is-- and
thus what is or would be "like it" people still fail.... it is
harder now to come up with something "like it". They couldn't do it
when it would be easier, they certainly can't do it now.
Allahu akbar.
Upgrade this Fall
Jeremiah McAuliffe/ ali...@city-net.com
Visit Dr. Jihad! Page O' Heavy Issues
http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
khadijah chadly
> But this wasn't done by just one Sura, it was with the whole Koran,
> wasn't it? Then it has nothing to do with the challenge, because the
> challenge is to produce _A_sura_ like any of the suras of the Koran, not
> a sura like the whole Koran.
Mohammed (pbuh) started his mission with one sura
LA ILAHA ILLA'L LAH,MOHAMMED RASSUL ALLAH.
That's the nutshell of Islam, What made the Arabs to accept him
is the love they have for him there were no scholars to study the Qur'an
Jochen Katz
ali...@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe) writes:
} Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
}
} >When Muhammad put this challenge before the Meccans then
} >this was meant to be decidable in a short time. THEY should
} >produce something and then based on whether they could or
} >not, THEY should believe. Obviously, when one has to wait a
} >millenium before one can decide whether something met the
} >challenge, then it was useless for the Meccans, and is just
} >as wrong a criterion today.
} >
} >I hope this is logical.
}
} Nope. This is the same hermeneutic (that important word you ignore)
} put forth by "Qur'an Only" people so they may discount "obey the
} Prophet".
I have read books on hermeneutics and it is important to me.
Plainly, I think you are abusing the word and make it a catch all
phrase so that you can do eisegesis instead of exegesis and look
smart while abusing the text.
} A Muslim's assumption regarding the Qur'an, as the genre of
} "religious scripture", implies that the meaning of the text
} transcends any one particular period of time, or culture-- allowing
} for the archtypal events during the actual period of revelation. So,
} "like it" changes due simply to time-- the fact that the text,
} through time and across cultures, continues to have such an impact on
} actual human thought, attitude and behavior, as it did at the
} beginning. Simple.
To a certain extent you are right. For example our circumstances
of life are vastly different from Biblical or Qur'anic times into
which they were spoken/written. We have to extract principles and
the 'why' they were said in their time and then apply the principle
and not always the letter of the text. I understand that well,
because that is how Christian theology works. Islamic theology is
much more stuck with the literal interpretation and you are a
minority with your view. But even though I acknowledge that this
is how scripture (true one) should be read, I don't think it
works here. I understand why you would like to view it this
way, but it isn't appropriate. You would not argue that way
for any other challenge or competition.
Your approach is like this:
One person says, "I will pay $10,000 to the first person
to jump further than 9 m", but as he observes how people
come closer and closer to the mark, he decides to redefine
what "meter" is.
I am sure you would call that cheating. But you are happy to
redefine the Qur'anic challenge in terms that were impossible
when the challenge was posed and then you call it hermeneutics.
I do not have any interest to follow that kind of hermeneutics.
} >Every criterion for deciding whether a certain text
} >satisfies the challenge must in principle be decidable
} >in the same way also by the Meccans to whom this
} >challenge originally was given or it doesn't make
} >sense.
} >
} >Don't you agree? Or do you opt for a criterion that
} >would have been nonsense to the original audience?
}
} Nope and No. Again, that famous Katzian lack of imagination....
Better a lack of imagination than introducing dishonest
methods in the challenge.
} For instance, when the prohibition against khamer or wine came down
} the people of the time had no knowledge of pot, or crack, or smack or
} valium or bourban or champagne, etc. I'm sure you can fill in the
} rest, Jochen.
I agree with this one. that is reasoning by analogy. It is
taking the principle behind a command and applying it correctly
to the current situation.
A challenge is not like that. Commands and challenges to satisfy
certain conditions are not in the same "genre" to use your word.
} >and his religion had none of the above. His own Qur'an
} >would have failed your criterion at the time it was
} >issued.
}
} Right. And as the text moves through time, and thus shows more of
} what it really is and different aspects of what it really is-- and
} thus what is or would be "like it" people still fail.... it is
} harder now to come up with something "like it". They couldn't do it
} when it would be easier, they certainly can't do it now.
}
} Allahu akbar.
You admit that your definition is not what it originally was.
It is beyond me how God is honored and shown great and deserving
of praise when God's challenge needs the protection by cheating on
the definitions.
Let me requote what Maryam wrote and you supported:
} When "suralikeit" has a billion followers, inspires their hearts, souls and
} minds; spurs on civilisation, unites a fractured, warring people, is
} responsible for the downfall of corrupt dynasties and establishes tawheedian
} monotheism - then we will know the challenge has indeed been met. Hmmmmmm
} wonder if it will?
In effect, you want to make the challenge something that cannot
be decided in anyone's lifetime (in particular not in your own).
It has to be attempted and then people will have to wait several
hundred years to see what it will accomplish.
What does that mean? You do not want to have to deal with it.
Push it away into an indefinite future, and you can rationalize
that the challenge is still open, and therefore you have not to
face the possible failure of it. You can go on pretending that
it is still unmet and can avoid questions that gnaw on the basis
of your own identity as a Muslim. If the challenge were met,
it would mean you are following a false faith. You want to avoid
such a conclusion at all cost, so you build hedges around the
challenge and make sure none can come close and destroy the
illusion.
I call that a mechanism of denial. Not hermeneutics. But many
use hermeneutics to deny the obvious, that is not new either.
Best regards,
Jochen Katz
P.S. Some Muslims may use the "solution" of force by physical bodyguards.
But yours is only the academic rationalization version of the same
dynamics. Let me requote that one as well, it was an apt description:
} Let us give a simple example. If a man claims to be the strongest man on
} earth but he is surrounded by ten bodyguards who knock down anybody who
} wants to challenge him. No-one will ever know if this man is actually
} the strongest man on earth unless he is put to the test. On the contrary,
} the more the bodyguards prevent anyone from challenging him the more doubt
} arises about this man's claim.
Basically you say, any man who wants to challenge "the strong man"
has first to run a double length marathon, climb Mount Everest and
swim across the Atlantic before he is even allowed to meet with the
man who claims to be the strongest. ... in the hope that he will
drown on the way and never make it.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>I have read books on hermeneutics and it is important to me.
I don't believe you. Name 'em. Discuss it.
>Plainly, I think you are abusing the word and make it a catch all
>phrase so that you can do eisegesis instead of exegesis and look
>smart while abusing the text.
"Plainly"?? Like you've EVER discussed it? I sure hope you don't
actually believe yourself.
Jochen's famous ad hominems and straw men! Back up your words with
some evidence, Jochen! <laughing>
In all the years we've been together here you have NEVER ONCE
discussed the issue... but always ignored it.
YOU. HAVE. ALWAYS. IGNORED. THE. ISSUES.
ALWAYS.
>which they were spoken/written. We have to extract principles and
>the 'why' they were said in their time and then apply the principle
>and not always the letter of the text. I understand that well,
>because that is how Christian theology works.
That is not how YOUR evangelical theology works. It IS how other
Christians' theology works. You have never shown any evidence
whatsoever that you do this. People who do this understand that the
Gospels are accounts of faith--- interpretations of Jesus (God love
him!)-- not historical biographies as you seem to think. The are
similar to Qur'anic commentary-- not the Qur'an itself.
> Islamic theology is
>much more stuck with the literal interpretation and you are a
>minority with your view.
Not quite accurate to my understanding. It seems more accurate to say
that Islamic theology is stuck within medieval theological
assumptions and presuppositions. You forget all the Sufis and sufi
theology which is more symbolic than literal. But then Sufi theology
won't fit with your agenda..... so of course you ignore it in order
to prop up your delusional "crusade against Islam".
I am a minority in that my underlying approach is firmly 20th century
and many Muslims don't have a clue about this. (However, the Dr.
Jihad! Upgrade, coming this Fall, should, insha Allah, help guide
people through the issues by means of interactive animation.... WOW!
Get that Flash 3 plug-in NOW! Also: new stuff-- a travel guide to the
sites of Mecca and Medina by Mazin Mutabbagani-- WOW! How can you
stand the anticipation?)
And of course, Jochen, we aren't playing a numbers game, are we?
Remember, you hate ALL Islam... not just certain theological
varieties of it. Though, when backed into a corner you'll pull that
out.....
>Your approach is like this:
Easily one of the worst analogies ever. The "athlete" one at the end
is better.
>
>Better a lack of imagination than introducing dishonest
>methods in the challenge.
Jochen, you've never addressed the issue of methods. I, however,
discuss it at length in parts of my web site... with references, of
course. Remember? YOU are the one who always runs away from issues of
philosophy of science, ontology, paradigms & worldviews, etc.
>} For instance, when the prohibition against khamer or wine came down
>} the people of the time had no knowledge of pot, or crack, or smack or
>} valium or bourban or champagne, etc. I'm sure you can fill in the
>} rest, Jochen.
>
>I agree with this one. that is reasoning by analogy. It is
>taking the principle behind a command and applying it correctly
>to the current situation.
>A challenge is not like that. Commands and challenges to satisfy
>certain conditions are not in the same "genre" to use your word.
Oh Jochen, you really delude yourself..... Once a record is broken,
say for running a mile, the condition has changed. The challenge to
set the record is different.
With each life the Qur'an effects the conditions change-- just like
an athlete breaking a world record. The purpose of the text is to
change lives. That is what it does. For each life changed, through
time, across culture, the challenge to "break the record" becomes
more difficult. The standard for success goes up.
>} Right. And as the text moves through time, and thus shows more of
>} what it really is and different aspects of what it really is-- and
>} thus what is or would be "like it" people still fail.... it is
>} harder now to come up with something "like it". They couldn't do it
>} when it would be easier, they certainly can't do it now.
>}
>} Allahu akbar.
>
>You admit that your definition is not what it originally was.
As I read on I can say "WRONG Jochen!"
>Let me requote what Maryam wrote and you supported:
>
>} When "suralikeit" has a billion followers, inspires their hearts, souls and
>} minds; spurs on civilisation, unites a fractured, warring people, is
>} responsible for the downfall of corrupt dynasties and establishes tawheedian
>} monotheism - then we will know the challenge has indeed been met. Hmmmmmm
>} wonder if it will?
>
>In effect, you want to make the challenge something that cannot
>be decided in anyone's lifetime (in particular not in your own).
>It has to be attempted and then people will have to wait several
>hundred years to see what it will accomplish.
>
>What does that mean? You do not want to have to deal with it.
ITS THE NATURE OF THE CHALLENGE JOCHEN!
If you want to bake a cake, ya gotta let it rise! Do you not?
Your reading is really twisted.... there was no change in definition.
The text effects people reading it. To produce a text like it we have
to "wait for it to rise"..... its really a simple point. Not too
difficult to grasp.
Except for someone with your agenda-- which has nothing at all to do
with pursuit of truth, but merely the desperate grasping of dogmas.
>Push it away into an indefinite future, and you can rationalize
>that the challenge is still open, and therefore you have not to
>face the possible failure of it. You can go on pretending that
>it is still unmet and can avoid questions that gnaw on the basis
>of your own identity as a Muslim. If the challenge were met,
>it would mean you are following a false faith. You want to avoid
>such a conclusion at all cost, so you build hedges around the
>challenge and make sure none can come close and destroy the
>illusion.
Your attempts at psychological analysis are lousy. And cheap. And
weak.
Trust me Jochen, I might not be a very good Muslim. I might actually
be a lousy one, but there ain't NOTHIN' gnawing at my identity as
Muslim. I'm in the ummah, and I'm in pretty damn firmly.
>Best regards,
I don't believe that either.
>Basically you say, any man who wants to challenge "the strong man"
>has first to run a double length marathon, climb Mount Everest and
>swim across the Atlantic before he is even allowed to meet with the
>man who claims to be the strongest. ... in the hope that he will
>drown on the way and never make it.
No. That is NOT what I'm saying. Anyone can accept the strong man's
challenge, but then don't go whining that the challenge IS to run the
marathon, climb the mountain, swim the ocean. "Oh, I dont' have the
energy or time to do that<sniff><whine>"
If you didn't want to play you shouldn't have accepted the
invitation.
THAT'S today's "Jochenesque Twist of Words"...... confusing the
acceptance of a challenge with the contest itself.
If you don't want to compete in a marathon, don't sign up. Otherwise,
get ready for the long haul.
Pfffft. With analogical "skills" like that no wonder you are so far
off the path.....
Jochen: 0 points.
No. Actually, -10 because your twist was so transparant.
Jochen Katz
ali...@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe) writes:
[on the word "hermeneutics" Jochen Katz stated]
} >Plainly, I think you are abusing the word and make it a catch all
} >phrase so that you can do eisegesis instead of exegesis and look
} >smart while abusing the text.
}
} "Plainly"?? Like you've EVER discussed it? I sure hope you don't
} actually believe yourself.
I did discuss it in the very posting you responded to. I told
why I think that is not a valid exegesis of the text. You have
no obligation to be of the same opinion than me, but I gave you
my reasoning. I did discuss it.
} Jochen's famous ad hominems and straw men! Back up your words with
} some evidence, Jochen! <laughing>
The evidence was in the posting.
} In all the years we've been together here you have NEVER ONCE
} discussed the issue... but always ignored it.
}
} YOU. HAVE. ALWAYS. IGNORED. THE. ISSUES.
}
} ALWAYS.
I have not discussed hermeneutics "in general" but I have discussed
specific cases, I have applied hermeneutics, or I have discussed why
I do not buy YOUR hermeneutics.
} >which they were spoken/written. We have to extract principles and
} >the 'why' they were said in their time and then apply the principle
} >and not always the letter of the text. I understand that well,
} >because that is how Christian theology works.
}
} That is not how YOUR evangelical theology works. It IS how other
} Christians' theology works.
Yes that is how my hermeneutics works. One book would be "How to
read the Bible for all its worth" to have a good one to see it
in action. Another author I like is Craig Keener (on divorce,
on women, etc, he loves controversial issues and to interpret them
carefully exegetically and in the social setting they were spoken)
and I very much agree with the approach.
} You have never shown any evidence
} whatsoever that you do this. People who do this understand that the
} Gospels are accounts of faith--- interpretations of Jesus (God love
} him!)-- not historical biographies as you seem to think. The are
} similar to Qur'anic commentary-- not the Qur'an itself.
The question is what is the Qur'an and is what it is the
same as what it claims? That might be very different.
The problem is that the Qur'an CLAIMS to be tanzil, come down,
and Muhammad being only a channel who did not effect the message
that is written on the eternal tablets. That is the claim. But
if you look at the book, it sure doesn't give that impression.
Muhammad has his fingerprints all over it.
Now, then the question is: How do we discuss it? Do I take it
seriously in its claim of eternally Word of God, pure word of God?
Or do I read it as Muhammad's sermon (which I think is its true
nature).
I never claimed that the Bible fell from heaven. God works
WITH people and their individualities. The Bible is Word of
God and word of man at the same time.
The Qur'an demands that I treat is as pure word of God without
any human influence. So, that is the claim and that claim will
have to be scrutinized. Like it or not.
} > Islamic theology is
} >much more stuck with the literal interpretation and you are a
} >minority with your view.
}
} Not quite accurate to my understanding. It seems more accurate to say
} that Islamic theology is stuck within medieval theological
} assumptions and presuppositions. You forget all the Sufis and sufi
} theology which is more symbolic than literal. But then Sufi theology
} won't fit with your agenda.....
Last year an Iranian Sufi told me this: Sufism has nothing to do
with Islam. It is much older. It had to adapt to Islam because
they had the power and otherwise Islam had destroyed them. So
sufism put on an Islamic garb to survive.
I have not looked very much into sufism, but I have heard a number
of people say it is basically Manichaeism in its root.
I don't see that sufism (which is rather broad in itself) is
orthodox Islam. I don't find Sufism in the Qur'an or in the
Sahih collections of Hadiths.
} >} For instance, when the prohibition against khamer or wine came down
} >} the people of the time had no knowledge of pot, or crack, or smack or
} >} valium or bourban or champagne, etc. I'm sure you can fill in the
} >} rest, Jochen.
} >
} >I agree with this one. that is reasoning by analogy. It is
} >taking the principle behind a command and applying it correctly
} >to the current situation.
}
} >A challenge is not like that. Commands and challenges to satisfy
} >certain conditions are not in the same "genre" to use your word.
}
} Oh Jochen, you really delude yourself..... Once a record is broken,
} say for running a mile, the condition has changed. The challenge to
} set the record is different.
Huh? If the record is broken then the challenge is over.
The whole problem is that you (and many Muslims) seem to only
read the second line "and you cannot do it". You absolutise that
one and therefore push the stakes higher and higher so that this
becomes true.
I have to ask you again: WHAT is YOUR authority to redefine the
challenge or to define it in different terms than it was given
originally?
Why do you not have any confidence in the challenge in its
original shape?
Yes, the record for running a mile changes. Therefore, breaking
the record is an ever higher goal. I fully agree.
But the Qur'an is not changing and hence the challenge to produce
something like the Qur'an cannot be changing either. It is to
produce something like the eternally the same Qur'an.
} With each life the Qur'an effects the conditions change-- just like
} an athlete breaking a world record. The purpose of the text is to
} change lives. That is what it does. For each life changed, through
} time, across culture, the challenge to "break the record" becomes
} more difficult. The standard for success goes up.
The purpose of the text might be to effect lives. Maybe. So what?
The challenge in the Qur'an is not phrased that way. It says bring
a sura like it. And to me that pretty clearly means, like any sura
in the Qur'an. And historically Muslims have understood this to
mean the "eloquence". There are many Muslim web pages that say
exactly that. Recently some numerics has been added to the picture.
But if you say the challenge is something that can no longer be
decided in one lifetime then you have eliminated the challenge.
I say that this is the most silly interpretation I have seen.
It says to everyone: You can try, but you will never know if
you succeed, because it takes about 1000 years to find out.
And it means, from now on everyone should put their decision
on following the Qur'an on hold until we have found out whether
this new text works or not. This is obvious nonsense.
The challenge is only real if people can look at the text
(whatever they want to look for - eloquence, content like
moral teaching, or whatever else) and then decide if it
meets the challenge. But to define it in a way that makes it
impossible to decide for us is the abolishment of the Challenge
under the authority of Jeremiah McAuliffe. From now on, we have
to believe the Qur'an without taking its challenge. Challenge
time is over and we are to believe without questioning it at all.
Jeremiah just entered the ranks of the most fundamentalist mullahs
whose principle never was any different. You do it in a more
sophisticated way. They cry: Hang them blasphemer. Nobody can
be allowed to question the Qur'an. You swing the hermeneutics
hammer and declare the Qur'an unchallengable by anyone who
doesn't live at least 1000 years to be able to experience all
that is necessary to challenge it, namely doing it and coming
to a conclusion about it.
And I don't think I have to accept your abolition of the
challenge. It is still there in the Qur'an. It has not
changed.
} >In effect, you want to make the challenge something that cannot
} >be decided in anyone's lifetime (in particular not in your own).
} >It has to be attempted and then people will have to wait several
} >hundred years to see what it will accomplish.
} >
} >What does that mean? You do not want to have to deal with it.
}
} ITS THE NATURE OF THE CHALLENGE JOCHEN!
It is the nature of the Muslims that they don't want to deal
with it, not the nature of the challenge that is so difficult.
} If you want to bake a cake, ya gotta let it rise! Do you not?
But the Qur'an is already baked and doesn't rise anymore.
Or do you suggest you are baking the Qur'an and under your
hands its gonna become what it never was before?
} Your reading is really twisted.... there was no change in definition.
} The text effects people reading it. To produce a text like it we have
} to "wait for it to rise"..... its really a simple point. Not too
} difficult to grasp.
}
} Except for someone with your agenda-- which has nothing at all to do
} with pursuit of truth, but merely the desperate grasping of dogmas.
Well, my reading of it is just not mystical, but straight forward.
I have the impression somebody else is really twisted here.
And I have the impression we will not get anywhere in this
discussion because we are under different paradigms.
And I have the feeling, most Muslims share my paradigm more than
yours, even though they hate my arguments and would love to agree
with you, but they don't.
} Your attempts at psychological analysis are lousy. And cheap. And
} weak.
You are welcome to your opinion.
} >Basically you say, any man who wants to challenge "the strong man"
} >has first to run a double length marathon, climb Mount Everest and
} >swim across the Atlantic before he is even allowed to meet with the
} >man who claims to be the strongest. ... in the hope that he will
} >drown on the way and never make it.
}
} No. That is NOT what I'm saying. Anyone can accept the strong man's
} challenge, but then don't go whining that the challenge IS to run the
} marathon, climb the mountain, swim the ocean. "Oh, I dont' have the
} energy or time to do that<sniff><whine>"
}
} If you didn't want to play you shouldn't have accepted the
} invitation.
I want a play with clear rules. The main problem is that the
Qur'an never set the rules. And so, whatever you do, the Muslim
will come up with another rule to explain the challenger away.
The only rule is "you can't do it" and otherwise you are free
to invent all the rules you want to make that true. And you are
busily at it.
} THAT'S today's "Jochenesque Twist of Words"...... confusing the
} acceptance of a challenge with the contest itself.
Huh?
} If you don't want to compete in a marathon, don't sign up. Otherwise,
} get ready for the long haul.
Well, the issue is that it never said it is a marathon.
The challenge was never defined. that is the reason the whole
thing is so empty. And millions of Muslims build their confidence
in the Qur'an on an empty baloon.
If I am challenged with a marathon, I know what I am in for.
I know I have to run about 42 km. So, I will prepare appropriately.
But if I sign up and am prepared for a marathon and I arrive at
the competition and then they tell, today the challenge is to
play chess, then this is cheating.
If the challenge is to jump over the 3 meter bar, then you have
to have a fixed meter. The Qur'an is fixed. The challenge has
to be fixed. It is not clear what exactly "like" means, but it
has to be a fixed standard.
This is my opinion and you are allowed to look down on me
for this primitive understanding. I find your attempt
quite pseudo-intellectual. You can't even explain to me
what the challenge originally meant. How on earth do you
think YOU can make up your own one for today and impose it
on those who would challenge the Qur'an?
Jochen Katz
D A Rice
> } > Islamic theology is
> } >much more stuck with the literal interpretation and you are a
> } >minority with your view.
> }
> } Not quite accurate to my understanding. It seems more accurate to say
> } that Islamic theology is stuck within medieval theological
> } assumptions and presuppositions. You forget all the Sufis and sufi
> } theology which is more symbolic than literal. But then Sufi theology
> } won't fit with your agenda.....
>
> Last year an Iranian Sufi told me this: Sufism has nothing to do
> with Islam. It is much older. It had to adapt to Islam because
> they had the power and otherwise Islam had destroyed them. So
> sufism put on an Islamic garb to survive.
Occasionally you see this view that Sufism was there for all time. This
is the same view saying that Islam was there since Adam (a.s.). In a
sense, both are true, since both the words "Sufism" and "Islam" have
both a universal, and a specific, sense. In their universal meanings,
both Sufism and Islam have been around since the first human walked the
earth.
As for saying Sufism pre-dates Islam, can anyone name a Sufi who came
before the Prophet (s.a.w.)? I have never seen anyone name any Sufi
before the Prophet (s.a.w.). In fact, all the traditional Sufi chains
of transmission (silsila) trace themselves back to the Prophet (s.a.w.).
Most trace their chains of transmission through Ali (r.a.), though the
Naqshbandiyya trace their chain of transmission through Abu Bakr (r.a.).
> I have not looked very much into sufism, but I have heard a number
> of people say it is basically Manichaeism in its root.
Do they know what they are talking about?
All present-day scholars of Sufism, including Western scholars, that I
know of today say that Tasawwuf (Sufism) has its heart in the Qur'an,
and comes from Islam. For example, this was the view of A. J. Arberry,
and continues to be the view of William C. Chittick, Carl Ernst, and
others who specialize in this topic.
The view that Sufism came from other religions was a view prevalent
among some Western scholars of the last century and early this century.
No academic who specializes in Sufism that I have heard of takes this
view seriously any more.
An excellent historical overview of the view of Western scholars towards
Sufism can be found in Prof. Carl Ernst's book, "The Shambhala Guide to
Sufism."
> I don't see that sufism (which is rather broad in itself) is
> orthodox Islam. I don't find Sufism in the Qur'an or in the
> Sahih collections of Hadiths.
Well, Jochen, you have already admitted (above) that you have not looked
very much into Sufism, so it wouldn't be surprising if you didn't know
much about it.
Regarding the Islamic origins of Sufism, see for example "The Shambhala
Guide to Sufism" by Carl W. Ernst, or other books by him. Another
excellent source, focusing specifically on Jalaluddin Rumi, is "The Sufi
Path of Love" by William C. Chittick.
For Sufism and how it has its origins in the Qur'an, see the books "The
Qur'anic Sufism" by Mir Valiuddin, or "What is Sufism?" by Martin Lings.
These books talk specifically about how Sufism is rooted in the Qur'an.
I think an excellent overview of Sufism on the WWW is provided by Prof.
Alan Godlas. His web page, "Sufism, Sufis, and Sufi Orders: Sufism's
Many Paths" can be found at
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/Sufism.html
Prof. Godlas has also recently translated some excerpts of Sufi
commentaries on the Qur'an -- links to these can be found on the above
page.
Even many Christians who have deeply studied Islam, and Sufism in
particular, have come to the conclusion that Sufism is fully rooted in
Islam. Probably the most famous of these is Louis Massignon, who is
well-known for his "magnum opus" on the life of Hallaj. Another
Christian who also states this conclusion (though he has not focused on
Sufism specifically) is G. Basetti-Sani, in his very interesting book
"The Koran in the Light of Christ" (thanks to Br. Abdulrahman Lomax for
directing me to that book).
Hope that helps to clarify things. :)
Wassalam,
__________________________________________________________________________
Fariduddien Rice Email : drice @ mpce.mq.edu.au (remove the spaces)
Learn about Islam & Tasawwuf --> http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/
__________________________________________________________________________
Brahim MACHKOUR
Salam all,
By the time, we would know if someone could bring something
as beautiful and powerful as the Quran. Mohamed did, you may
say he is a very goor writer, we would reply he could'nt write
and read.
Now you can keep exposing your complicated views, it has no
effects because all you do is draw hypothesis... at least on
this issue.
the challenge is clear, and even if you think you understand
more than billions of muslims, I think that as a christian you
better read the bible and let the Quran as holly as it has
always been. You criticize the Quran and its validity and you
seem to assume that the bible is geniune... however, by
comparing the bible with the Quran, I think muslims made a lot
more to keep their book as it has been revealed.
The confidence we build on the Quran is not based on the
challenge but rather on the content of the Quran, its wisedom.
We are interested in true teachings, not a challenge. The
challenge was mentioned for people like you. Those who will
never admit the Quran is Allah's word.
Wa salam
Brahim Machkour.
>
> The challenge was never defined. that is the reason the whole
> thing is so empty. And millions of Muslims build their confidence
> in the Qur'an on an empty baloon.
>
> If I am challenged with a marathon, I know what I am in for.
> I know I have to run about 42 km. So, I will prepare appropriately.
>
> But if I sign up and am prepared for a marathon and I arrive at
> the competition and then they tell, today the challenge is to
> play chess, then this is cheating.
>
> If the challenge is to jump over the 3 meter bar, then you have
> to have a fixed meter. The Qur'an is fixed. The challenge has
> to be fixed. It is not clear what exactly "like" means, but it
> has to be a fixed standard.
>
> Jochen Katz
>
Jeremiah McAuliffe
>In article <6ov1iv$i2l$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
>ali...@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe) writes:
>
> [on the word "hermeneutics" Jochen Katz stated]
>} >Plainly, I think you are abusing the word and make it a catch all
>} >phrase so that you can do eisegesis instead of exegesis and look
>} >smart while abusing the text.
>}
>} "Plainly"?? Like you've EVER discussed it? I sure hope you don't
>} actually believe yourself.
>
>I did discuss it in the very posting you responded to. I told
>why I think that is not a valid exegesis of the text. You have
>no obligation to be of the same opinion than me, but I gave you
>my reasoning. I did discuss it.
No. You did not. Giving your interpretation is NOT discussing the
issue of hermeneutics-- tracing your interpretation back through a
method and to one's assumptions and presuppositions that are brought
TO the text.
Your hermeneutic of the Qur'an (doing it is not the same as knowing
what you are doing) is based on your agenda.... and your agenda is
contra-Islam.
While my agenda is NOW pro-Islam, it was not when I began to
encounter the texts..... and it is at that point where my methods and
assumptions and so on can be discovered-- clearly in my detailed
writing... for instance. I begin with phenomenology. Where do you
begin? Why, with evangelical Christian dogma!
>} Jochen's famous ad hominems and straw men! Back up your words with
>} some evidence, Jochen! <laughing>
>
>The evidence was in the posting.
Yeah. Right. Maybe I missed it. Please re-present it.
>} In all the years we've been together here you have NEVER ONCE
>} discussed the issue... but always ignored it.
>}
>} YOU. HAVE. ALWAYS. IGNORED. THE. ISSUES.
>}
>} ALWAYS.
>
>I have not discussed hermeneutics "in general"
Thank you. Finally an admission of truth.
>but I have discussed
>specific cases, I have applied hermeneutics,
To be human IS to interpret, Jochen. You say nothing more than "I
breath". ALL people breath by virtue of being human and alive. ALL
people "do hermeneutics" by virtue of being alive and human.
To discuss religion at the level you pretend to inhabit one must
discuss the mechanics of breathing--- not just say "I breath". Which
is what you are doing vis a vis hermeneutics.
> or I have discussed why
>I do not buy YOUR hermeneutics.
No. Because again, you would have to talk about the "how" of
hermeneutics, which you steadfastly refuse to do. Mostly, I would
guess, because you are simply over your head.
But here is a clue again: I begin with phenomenology. But you already
know that because of your courteous and complete reading of the
material at my web site-- because you do for others what you want
them to do for you.
>} >which they were spoken/written. We have to extract principles and
>} >the 'why' they were said in their time and then apply the principle
>} >and not always the letter of the text.
>} That is not how YOUR evangelical theology works. It IS how other
>} Christians' theology works.
>
>Yes that is how my hermeneutics works. One book would be "How to
>read the Bible for all its worth" to have a good one to see it
>in action. Another author I like is Craig Keener (on divorce,
>on women, etc, he loves controversial issues and to interpret them
>carefully exegetically and in the social setting they were spoken)
>and I very much agree with the approach.
So, you are saying that the Gospels are already faith-statements in
Jesus and not biographical history??
Perhaps we need a bit more detail here about your hermeneutical
assumptions. For instance, literary comparison uncovers common
literary techniques in the Gospels that say "something important
here". Those would have been understood by the original audience, but
might look like historical statements to us. For instance, the virgin
birth.
>
>} You have never shown any evidence
>} whatsoever that you do this. People who do this understand that the
>} Gospels are accounts of faith--- interpretations of Jesus (God love
>} him!)-- not historical biographies as you seem to think. The are
>} similar to Qur'anic commentary-- not the Qur'an itself.
>
>The question is what is the Qur'an and is what it is the
>same as what it claims? That might be very different.
No. That is not the question here. That is a later question. The
question is if you actually know what you are doing when you approach
a text.
>The problem is that the Qur'an CLAIMS to be tanzil, come down,
>and Muhammad being only a channel who did not effect the message
>that is written on the eternal tablets. That is the claim. But
>if you look at the book, it sure doesn't give that impression.
>Muhammad has his fingerprints all over it.
This is an issue of theology and assumptions. Again, big clue: I
begin with phenomenology.
In addition, however, you are taking this claim out of the total
ethos..... It is also "in the Arabic tongue"..... very specific. The
transcendent is made concrete in the Qur'an. Similar to in Christian
theology wherein the transcendent is made concrete in the being of
Jesus.
>Now, then the question is: How do we discuss it? Do I take it
>seriously in its claim of eternally Word of God, pure word of God?
>Or do I read it as Muhammad's sermon (which I think is its true
>nature).
That is indeed the existential question for you. But all indications
are you made your decision before you even looked at it. And you
continue to reaffirm your decision to be a dogmatist, rather than a
truth-seeker. (From carefully reading my site you know exactly what I
mean by "dogmatist".)
There is no indication that you were EVER open to the possiblity that
the Qur'an might be what it claims. Certainly now you are not open to
that possiblity-- indeed, it seems you have closed yourself off to it
as a possiblity.
>The Qur'an demands that I treat is as pure word of God without
>any human influence. So, that is the claim and that claim will
>have to be scrutinized. Like it or not.
Which isn't the same as saying "without any human CONTEXT". Of
course, as you already know... we talk about the Qur'an and context
quite a bit.
Nice twist Jochen, but it didn't slip by me in spite of the fact that
I'm really tired. Allahu akbar.
>
>I have not looked very much into sufism,
Then again, thank you. You again proven my point. You take up issues
with certain Qur'anic theologies, but not with others. But then you
want to make those certain theologies the whole of Islam, and then
delude yourself into thinking you've demolished or cast legit
questions on Islam as a whole.
>I don't see that sufism (which is rather broad in itself) is
>orthodox Islam.
Ah yes! Your interpretation from a grand study of texts!
I suggest you just might begin with Shaikh 'Abd 'Al-Qadir Al-Jilani.
His "Sufficient Provision for Seekers of the Path of Truth" takes one
through the basics of required behavior deep into the heart and
soul.... Check out Rumi. Check out al-Ghazzali.
>} Oh Jochen, you really delude yourself..... Once a record is broken,
>} say for running a mile, the condition has changed. The challenge to
>} set the record is different.
>
>Huh? If the record is broken then the challenge is over.
No. You are really deluding yourself in a way that is almost scary.
The challenge is to break the record-- for the mile run, the shotput,
the triathalon, the 100 yard butterfly, etc.-- The challenge is
ALWAYS there. The challenge always has the same goal: break the
record. Meeting that challenge changes.
So too with the Qur'anic challenge to produce something like it.
>The whole problem is that you
The problem is with YOU, Jochen, and your fierce and sickening
dogmatism-- again, you know exactly what I mean by that word, right?
>I have to ask you again: WHAT is YOUR authority to redefine the
>challenge or to define it in different terms than it was given
>originally?
Where have I done so? Yet *another* straw man Jochen?
>Yes, the record for running a mile changes. Therefore, breaking
>the record is an ever higher goal. I fully agree.
Thank you. Within the midst of your "intellectual panic" you still
have some regard for truth and reason.....
>But the Qur'an is not changing and hence the challenge to produce
>something like the Qur'an cannot be changing either. It is to
>produce something like the eternally the same Qur'an.
I guess the idea is just too subtle for you to grasp. Too difficult
for you to understand. That's ok.
The Qur'an is a book that has a visible effect on human life and
behavior. A book "like it" must also have that effect.
>} With each life the Qur'an effects the conditions change-- just like
>} an athlete breaking a world record. The purpose of the text is to
>} change lives. That is what it does. For each life changed, through
>} time, across culture, the challenge to "break the record" becomes
>} more difficult. The standard for success goes up.
>
>The purpose of the text might be to effect lives. Maybe. So what?
"So what?"?????? You gotta be kidding! You are getting really bad
Jochen.... look at yourself! You are not being authentic..... I KNOW
you are smarter than that.
>The challenge in the Qur'an is not phrased that way. It says bring
>a sura like it. And to me that pretty clearly means, like any sura
>in the Qur'an. And historically Muslims have understood this to
>mean the "eloquence". There are many Muslim web pages that say
>exactly that. Recently some numerics has been added to the picture.
Yes. You pick and choose what type of theology you want to define as
"Islamic" in order to fulfill your agenda and crusader-type personal
myth.
Each surah? Each AYAT contains the whole message to someone who has
ears to hear! Subhan Allah one million times!
>I say that this is the most silly interpretation I have seen.
>It says to everyone: You can try, but you will never know if
>you succeed, because it takes about 1000 years to find out.
With an attitude like this-- its silly because it will take some
time-- nothing much of value would get done, would it?
Where do you draw the line Jochen? It may take generations to go to
another star. So why even bother thinking about it or thinking of
trying? It will take years to get to Mars, so let's not. It will take
an hour for me to get to the mall, so let's not. It will take 70
years to do this cross-generational study, so let's not.
What a small world you must live in. You want to talk about the
Infinite and you bug out over 1000 years. <laughing>
>And it means, from now on everyone should put their decision
>on following the Qur'an on hold until we have found out whether
>this new text works or not. This is obvious nonsense.
Love your reductionism. Bright move. (uh, not really-- it was a
sarcastic statement)
I guess its better than waiting for the Son of Man to come descending
with the angels..
Hmmmm. What does God always say about those who demand the full Truth
be shown to them now? Something about not having faith.....
>The challenge is only real if people can look at the text
>(whatever they want to look for - eloquence, content like
>moral teaching, or whatever else)
Jochen. "The Text" is the whole thing. All of it.
>meets the challenge. But to define it in a way that makes it
>impossible
Nothing like a little hyperbole, eh? Whine when you aren't up for the
challenge?
What is it Jochen, the challenge is impossible (nice admission) or
you are just too impatient to wait 1000 years (which was your first
"reason" for whining about not being up to the challenge).
>to believe the Qur'an without taking its challenge. Challenge
>time is over and we are to believe without questioning it at all.
My, your reasoning is so air tight. :-/
One challenge to "questioning it at all" is quite a leap.
>Jeremiah just entered the ranks of the most fundamentalist mullahs
>whose principle never was any different.
Ah! So now I *am* orthodox and even fundamentalistic? I thought I was
an odd-ball minority worthy of dismissal.
Really, Jochen! You can't have your cake and eat it too!
>You do it in a more
>sophisticated way. They cry: Hang them blasphemer. Nobody can
>be allowed to question the Qur'an. You swing the hermeneutics
>hammer and declare the Qur'an unchallengable by anyone who
>doesn't live at least 1000 years to be able to experience all
>that is necessary to challenge it, namely doing it and coming
>to a conclusion about it.
I'm sorry you are not up to the challenge, and are such a poor sport
about it to boot. Whine, whine, whine!
>And I don't think I have to accept your abolition of the
>challenge.
You seem ready to sink to just any depth. I did not abolish the
challenge-- did I?
Break the record Jochen. THAT is the challenge. Quit whining because
you aren't up to it.
But no, Jochen, you don't have to accept any of it-- remember? "To
you is your religion and to me is mine" Wait. We'll wait too. God
Himself will tell us of our disputes. Just think! Only have to wait
about 50 more years..... maybe much, much less.
>} >In effect, you want to make the challenge something that cannot
>} >be decided in anyone's lifetime
Funny. Kind of like quantum theory, or the earth is round, or the
moon is made of green cheese.
What selective patience you must have. Again-- you pretend to desire
the Infinite, and you bug out over time.
>} ITS THE NATURE OF THE CHALLENGE JOCHEN!
>
>It is the nature of the Muslims that they don't want to deal
>with it, not the nature of the challenge that is so difficult.
<sadly shaking head and chuckling> That almost made sense, Jochen.
>} If you want to bake a cake, ya gotta let it rise! Do you not?
>
>But the Qur'an is already baked and doesn't rise anymore.
I am seriously worried about you, Jochen.... the Qur'an and "what it
is like" is IN TIME in in a HUMAN CONTEXT. It is so simple, so
standard a Muslim idea, so basic........
But its the same old point: it doesn't matter who or what answers
your questions because you are not interested in answers. Deaf, dumb
and blind...... they *will not* believe.
>Or do you suggest you are baking the Qur'an and under your
>hands its gonna become what it never was before?
Oh please, Jochen. How cheap are you going to get?
>} Your reading is really twisted.... there was no change in definition.
>} The text effects people reading it. To produce a text like it we have
>} to "wait for it to rise"..... its really a simple point. Not too
>} difficult to grasp.
>}
>} Except for someone with your agenda-- which has nothing at all to do
>} with pursuit of truth, but merely the desperate grasping of dogmas.
>
>Well, my reading of it is just not mystical, but straight forward.
Can't get more straight-forward than what I've said, bucky! Another
text "like it" has to do the same thing the original did and
does.......
>I have the impression somebody else is really twisted here.
>And I have the impression we will not get anywhere in this
>discussion because we are under different paradigms.
You don't even know what the word means.
>And I have the feeling, most Muslims share my paradigm more than
>yours, even though they hate my arguments and would love to agree
>with you, but they don't.
Is this somehow relevant to the issue? Or is just your strawman/ad
hominem bs again?
>} Your attempts at psychological analysis are lousy. And cheap. And
>} weak.
>
>You are welcome to your opinion.
Thank you.
>} No. That is NOT what I'm saying. Anyone can accept the strong man's
>} challenge, but then don't go whining that the challenge IS to run the
>} marathon, climb the mountain, swim the ocean. "Oh, I dont' have the
>} energy or time to do that<sniff><whine>"
>}
>} If you didn't want to play you shouldn't have accepted the
>} invitation.
>
>I want a play with clear rules.
No, Jochen. You like to change the rules and pick and choose which
rules you want to follow at a particular time.
>The only rule is "you can't do it" and otherwise you are free
>to invent all the rules you want to make that true. And you are
>busily at it.
Nice straw man. I sure didn't say this. Try Jochen! If you are so
confident than history will prove you correct!
>Well, the issue is that it never said it is a marathon.
So, now you know. Of course, it is kind of self-evident. To write a
book "just like" one that sits on the bottom of the seller's list for
2 weeks and then goes out of print sure isn't the same as writing a
book "just like" Hamlet-- which continues to be popular and speak to
people of life issues.
You swallow camels.
>The challenge was never defined. that is the reason the whole
>thing is so empty. And millions of Muslims build their confidence
>in the Qur'an on an empty baloon.
You're ranting, Jochen.
>
>If I am challenged with a marathon, I know what I am in for.
>I know I have to run about 42 km. So, I will prepare appropriately.
>
>But if I sign up and am prepared for a marathon and I arrive at
>the competition and then they tell, today the challenge is to
>play chess, then this is cheating.
Excuses, excuses!
If you *delude yourself* into thinking chess is a marathon, well
then, I'd say you need some help with your connection to reality. But
then, that is what it seems like-- that you reject Reality.
You are reading a 1400 year old text that has inspired billions of
people, through time, across culture. A book upon which entire
civilizations of risen. Are you on some medication that you thought
the book was something other than what it is??
>If the challenge is to jump over the 3 meter bar, then you have
>to have a fixed meter. The Qur'an is fixed. The challenge has
>to be fixed. It is not clear what exactly "like" means, but it
>has to be a fixed standard.
Keep telling that to yourself. Over, and over, and over, and over
again. Eventually, you will even believe it.
The challenge is not jump over the 3 meter bar. The challenge is to
break the record for jumping......
>This is my opinion and you are allowed to look down on me
>for this primitive understanding.
No. Actually, I'm starting to just feel really sorry for you. Because
your understanding is becoming more delusional than primitive.
> I find your attempt
>quite pseudo-intellectual.
Ah yes! I guess that's why I have so many clear academic references
to back up my statements-- references YOU have NEVER even
acknowledged, much less brought up problems with......
Really Jochen, you are sinkin' down, down, down..... wake up before
its too late.
Face it. You are in over your head. When it comes to actual academic
level religious studies you can't cut the mustard..... I feel sorry
for you Jochen. You are kind of King Lear-like--- ranting.........