Islam & THE SATANIC VERSES
Svend White
Having mixed feelings about the Rushdie case, I read Brother Lomax's
posting with great interest.
I, too, am a native speaker of English and am knowledgable about literature
(in fact it's my area of study). I agree that Rushdie has an amazing grasp
of the English language (even if I find much of his prose contrived, purple).
He is an significant writer.
mar...@gate.ioa.com (AbdulraHman Lomax) wrote:
>the book is not about
>Islam, but about schizophrenia and the insanity of modern >society.
With all due respect, though, it is ridiculous to claim that his book doesn't
concern Islam! If I wrote a novel and gave every character in it a name from
the Bible (Abraham, Pilate, Sarah, Nebuchanezzar, Nimrod, Elijah, Samson, etc.)
and filled it with parallels with Biblical history (e.g., if I had a character
part a river, change water into wine, get nailed to a cross), it would be
absurd for me to claim that my novel had "nothing to do with the Bible"!
While I don't exclude the possibility of these other themes being present, as
well, the fact is that Rushdie went out of his way to not only saturate the
story with figures and events from the Islamic tradition, but to craft an
inverted image of early Islam, an "anti-Islam", if you will, by strategically
altering parts of the narrative. He consciously chose to associate his work
with Islam.
The fact that he revived the old crusader slander for the Holy Prophet,
"Mahound" (the name for the Prince of Demons in medieval Christian literature),
says a lot. Also, note the title itself, which implies that the Quran is of
demonic origin! His book is a carefully planned insult and/or challenge to
Muslims.
>Since Rushdie is first and foremost a social and political
>satirist, the satirical reference is fairly obvious. There is no
>aspersion in the book, even in the dream, against the real
>wives of Muhammad, nor against the dream wives of
>Mahound.
Exactly! Don't you see how you're contradicting yourself?? Have you ever
seen the British TV series "Spitting Image"? His whole book is like a biting
political cartoon on Islam where everything is distorted to support his
negative image of Islam.
Now, I don't imagine that he was trying to imply a historical claim concerning
the Holy Prophets' wives' virtue, but that doesn't make the imagery any less
insulting. It's yet another case of him taking an image from the Islamic
tradition and distorting it grotesquely, willfully.
Individually, his artistic choices (the choice of "Mahound", the title of
"The Satanic Verses", the decision to give the names of the Prophet's wives to
prostitutes could be overlooked, ad infinitum) could be overlooked, explained
away as unintentionally irreverant, but, together, they prove beyond a shadow
of a doubt that Rushdie wanted to be insulting towards Islam.
Given these above mentioned factors, who can one NOT be insulted as a Muslim
when Rushdie writes that Gabriel found the Prophet "spouting rules, rules,
rules, until the faithful could scarely bare the prospect of any more
revelation" (pp. 363). If this isn't meant as a sarcastic portrait of Islam,
then what is?!?
For a balanced examination of the book from an Islamic/postcolonial standpoint,
I highly recommend Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies' DISTORTED IMAGINATION
LESSONS FROM THE RUSDIE AFFAIR (Grey Seal Books, 1990). It also deals with
Rushdie's separated-at-birth twin brother, V.S. Naipaul.
As a Muslim, I don't feel threatened by the book, as I know that a novel isn't
going to destroy Islam. But I feel insulted by its willful distortion of my
religion.
I agree that a lot of nonsense is said about him in Muslim circles, but
perhaps this helps to balance things out! He's been canonized by the Western
literary establishment. Anything he writes is given wide circulation (unlike
his critics in the Muslim community) and buried by rave reviews. "Saint
Salman" can now do no wrong. His friends in the Media are hardly less
partisan than your average Muslim on the subject.
So, I agree that he should be left alone and that Muslims' reactions to his
book have been extreme, but Muslims have the right to call a spade a spade. His
book, however well-written it may be, is an insult to Muslims.
And it was *intended* that way. While he obviously didn't intend to put a
price on his own head, he knew what he was doing in writing the book. He's
never seen Muslims or Indo-Pakistanis as his peers. He writes for Western
intellectuals, not his own community.
To be totally honest, I see him as a colonial mutant, a Westernized Third World
elite who spits on his own culture.
Which makes his image among Western intellectuals of being on the cutting edge
of postcolonial literature all the more annoying. I'd argue that he's to
postcolonial literature what Camille Paglia is to feminism. And they're both
media darlings.
Wasalaam.
a k r a m
--
"Hated by Fools, and Fools to Hate./Be that ever my Motto and my
Fate." ---Swift
AbdulraHman Lomax
As-salamu 'alaykum.
Svend White <10205...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
[an assertion that The Satanic Verses was intended as an insult to
Islam, on the grounds that it is full of Islamic names and incidents.]
My brother has confused insulting Muslims with insulting Islam, and,
from some of his comments, it is clear that he did not read the book
carefully, if indeed he read it.
There is no doubt that Rushdie intended to satirize (thus insult)
certain groups among the Muslims. Since his targets are generally
people many of us love to hate anyway, this, by itself, is not
particularly unusual; I have seen all these groups insulted, and
frequently, in this newsgroup. Mostly, and most significantly, he
satirized Muslims who do not really live Islam, but also those who put
on an outer show of Islam but inwardly are cruel and despotic.
Since his subject is a lunatic nominal Muslim, and one who had,
because of his occupation, contact with Muslim tradition, it is not
surpising that the dreams of this lunatic would be filled with Islamic
history. We would not be surprised to find the dreams of a lunatic
Christian filled with images of the crucifixion, for example.
Yes, Rushdie did not write the book as a believer. But neither is the
book presented as anything objective at all. Rather, the narrator of
the book is Satan himself, and we are warned about this by the title,
though there is also the well-known incident of the so-called Satanic
Verses as a red herring.
Nevertheless, from certain self-referential passages, it is clear that
the narrator is Satan himself, though, of course, unless we want to
believe that Rushdie is possessed (in which case he is not legally
responsible, by the way), what we have is Rushdie's imagination of
what Satan would say. Now, if I were to say that Satan said so-and-so
is a stuffy, rule-obsessed, blind cleric, would this be the same as
making the statement directly?
Not at all, unless it was manifestly clear to my audience that
so-and-so really was as described.
Unfortunately for Rushdie, his targets, because they were so well
described, saw through his cleverness and counterattacked. Muslims do
not take well to criticism, and it was Muslims who were being
criticised (along with others, such as the British; at least one M.P.
objected strenuously to such an obviously anti-British author being
protected at government cost).
My point stands. Rushdie did not criticise Islam, but rather certain
Muslims and their understanding of Islam.
AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@gate.ioa.com
P.O. Box 25133
Asheville, NC 28813
Ahmed Kamel
Assalamu Alaikum
Thanks very much for what you wrote. Only one thing I'd like to
add. I did not find his book in any way entertaining. Did this guy ever
learn english grammar? I don't like his style, if you can call it that.
Any way that's my opinion on Salman Rushdies style. As for islam
being threatened by a book, that is a joke. Salman Rushdies book is not
the first (try Dante's Inferno) to insult our messenger, and it perhaps
won't be the last.
Try reading a more serious book like "Islamic Invasion" (can't
remember the authors name) That book is so full of inacuracies, that it
insults the writer. My brother(in islam) received that book from a
Christian friend. They went through it quote by quote, and needless to
say, his Chrisitian friend was apologizing at the end.
There have been more than 20,000 anti-islamic books written since
the birth of Islam. The fear is not from these external sources. The fear
for our Ummah is from within us. Shall we bear the "amanah" which has
placed upon our shoulders or not? Do people think it a coincidence that
so many claimants to being the mahdi or maseeh appeared during the
colonialism occuppying muslim countries?
A warning brothers and sisters on this news group. There are many
who post to this group truly trying to understand and explain matters
concerning islam. BUT there are others who deliberately try to cause
fitnah among us. As far as I can tell, there is only one way to defeat
the manafiqeen (hypocrites) and dajjaleen (falsifiers). LEARN ISLAM WELL.
We should also remember that wisdom is to be sought wherever it
is found. If our non-muslim brethren (or some who are not so brotherly)
write something that is in agreement with our beleifs, let us be educated
by it.
When we learn islam well, then we can explain better to those who
oppose it. Then the once opponents of islam may become the champions of
it. But in the mean time our obligation on this group is dawa in the best
and kindest manners, the manners taught to us by Allah and the example of
His messenger.
Assalamu Alaikum
shawki Hamdan
Bismillahirrahmaanirraheem
Salaamun Alaykum
In his article "So..They want to understand the Miracle" Azhar Khan has
given an excellent algorithm for understanding the Qur'an in general, and
the mathematical miracle in particular. Masha'a Allah Azhar. I have to
admit I have never seen a better algorithm. True guidance is in fact the
number one criterion for understanding Qur'anic messages and recognizing
God's signs in it. Those who disregard God's signs, and join hands with
disbelievers are termed by God as "Murtadd" or "Apostate".
While we are on the subject of the Quranic miracle, and I do believe that
all those who claim to be Muslims uphold that the Qur'an is a miracle in
itself. I have some questions for Br. Lomax and Dien Rice:
In verse 17:88 Allah proclaims that even if all humans and jinns baned
together they would not be able to produce a Qur'an like this.
My questions to the two "scholar consensus followers" of Islam are:
1. What do you believe the miracle of the Qur'an is ?
2. Has anyone ever attempted to meet God's challenge in 17:88 ?
If so, were they refuted and how ?
3. If you believe that you can come up with a Qur'an like this, how much
would br. Lomax charge for his hourly fees ? And will we still be able
to get the usual 50% off discount ?
Since you have joined the camp against the Qur'anic truth with the
disbelievers, maybe Jochen and others can assist you in this project. If
they do, I would expect a bigger discount from Br. Lomax :)
What do say tough guys ?
Wassalaam,
--
Shawki Hamdan <sha...@ix.netcom.com>
God alone, Qur'an alone, no idolatry.
mar...@gate.ioa.com
At 11:37 AM 5/5/96 -0700, shawki Hamdan wrote:
>While we are on the subject of the Quranic miracle, and I do believe >that
all those who claim to be Muslims uphold that the Qur'an is a >miracle in
itself. I have some questions for Br. Lomax and Dien Rice:
Yes, we believe that the Qur'an is a sign. "Miracle" is a word laden with
connotations not necessarily the meaning of "ayat," so there have been those
among the Muslims who might deny particular aspects of the alleged
miraculousness of the Qur'an. Personally, however, I do consider it a
"miracle," that is, "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention
in human affairs"(Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.)
On the other hand, among the "ayats" are such things as rain and the growth
of plants and animals, so, even these evens are ordinary, nevertheless they
are among the ayatullah, the signs of God.
>In verse 17:88 Allah proclaims that even if all humans and jinns baned
>together they would not be able to produce a Qur'an like this.
And Allah most High speaks the truth.
>My questions to the two "scholar consensus followers" of Islam are:
I am not necessarily as described; however, this is certainly a side issue.
I do respect the consensus, such as it exists and is known to me, even where
I do not necessarily follow it.
>1. What do you believe the miracle of the Qur'an is ?
It is best known to Allah and those firm in knowledge. In my own life, it is
that it brought life to one who was as dead, and it continues to guide and
inspire me. I would surely be an ungrateful servant if I demanded more of it
than this.
>2. Has anyone ever attempted to meet God's challenge in 17:88 ?
> If so, were they refuted and how ?
To my knowledge, no one has attempted it.
>3. If you believe that you can come up with a Qur'an like this, how >much
would br. Lomax charge for his hourly fees ? And will we still be >able to
get the usual 50% off discount ?
I do not believe that anyone can imitate the Qur'an. However, what is
described as the mathematical miracle is, in fact, imitable, at least as far
as the numerical components are concerned. If one insists that the book
produced also be as full of meaning as the Qur'an, then it could not be
done. But if meaning were set aside, then it is actually quite easy to
imitate the Khalifite foolishness. This does not mean, however, that work is
not required, and substantial work.
It is as if Pharaoh were to say, the proof of my godhood is the Pyramid I
constructed. If you wish to deny this, bring a Pyramid like it.
It is easy for me to say that if I had so many millions or billions of
dollars, then I could bring a Pyramid like it. But without those resources,
I could not. To bring the like of the thousand or so numerical facts
asserted by the Khalifites is an enormous piece of work, representing many
thousands of man-hours. Since I already know what is involved to bring just
one such fact, I can extrapolate from that to what is required to bring
fifty, or a hundred, or a thousand, if Allah permits. It is no small amount
of work.
>Since you have joined the camp against the Qur'anic truth with the
>disbelievers, maybe Jochen and others can assist you in this project.
Note that Shawki considers all those who do not accept the "numerical
miracle" kafir.
>What do say tough guys ?
I would say, let the Khalifites put up a prize for imitation of their
so-called miracle, which is not from Allah but which has been constructed,
piece-by-piece, by Khalifa and others following him. Such a prize could
simply be a contract stating clearly what would satisfy the challenge, and
offering to pay a stated sum upon the provision of evidence satisfying the
challenge. If it were clear enough, it could simply be enforced in the
courts even if no other referee could be found. I would want to know that
the contract was guaranteed by someone with sufficient property, of course.
I knew someone who was about to put up several hundred thousand dollars for
just such a purpose. I persuaded him not to do it, since he is a friend and
I would hate to see him lose it. I suggested, instead, that he take steps to
state exactly what the miracle to be imitated was; so far, he has not done that.
And this is the basic problem with the challenge posted by Shawki and
others: there is no clear definition of the "miracle" to be imitated; in
spite of Shawki's attempt, sufficient wiggle factor remained. Just what does
it mean that a reference is "meaningful?" Without a clear definition,
nothing would be accomplished but the multiplication of argument.
Akram53103
Salamun Alikum everyone;
Subject: Re: Algorithm & Questions to Lomax and Dien
From: mar...@gate.ioa.com
Br. Lomax writes;
>>, I do consider it a "miracle," that is, "an extraordinary event
manifesting divine intervention in human affairs"(Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary.) <<
Now the Webster's Dictionary will be used to define the Miracle of the
Quran
>>I do not believe that anyone can imitate the Qur'an. However, what is
described as the mathematical miracle is, in fact, imitable, at least as
far
as the numerical components are concerned. If one insists that the book
produced also be as full of meaning as the Qur'an, then it could not be
done. <<
And who told Br. Lomax that the mathematics by itself is the miralce. Is
he still confused what is the miralce and what is Quran.
Br. Shawki, more than once reminded Br. Lomax and others that it is the
Quran and the mathematics together are the miracle. The mathematics by
itself means nothing more than mathematics. It is the meaningful book with
these mathematics included and built into it that makes the miralce.
The significance of the miracle has been posted for those who possess
intelligence few times, see 74:31
>>But if meaning were set aside, then it is actually quite easy to
imitate the Khalifite foolishness. This does not mean, however, that work
is
not required, and substantial work.<<
The true foolishness is the inability to understand that the mathematical
miracle is a miracle---- only----- because it is in, and from the
meaningful book of God, the best hadith.
One great character of a miralce is that it looks easy to do but
impossible to imitate. Even for the simple magic tricks of our daily
life, we see magic shows when the magician bring a dove out of the air or
out of his hat, and makes it look as easy as if everyone can do it. The
easier it looks and impossble to imitate the greater it becomes.
The magicians who supported Pharoah during Moses time faced their greatest
challenge, a staff that turns into a serpent and swallows their own magic,
simple, but it was a great miracle from God.
For our generation when everyone, almost everyone, sitting infront of a
computre or a calculator, God sent a simple looking miracle (simple in the
minds of the naive) thta matches the era we live in, a Mathematical
Miracle of the Quran that God calls, "one of the great miracles." 74:35
While brother Lomax is admitting that making a numerical structure like
the one presented as the mathematical miracle of the Quran is possible
(without trying to do so), he admits to the miraculous aspect of it, it is
not just numbers, but these numbers come form the middle of a meaningful
book, a book full of wisdom, laws and decrees.
In other words, he admits the presence of the miralce but his ego is too
much hurt by the fact that he was not blessed by it or chosen to present
it or his submission to the scholars and consensus put him amongst the
others who do not submit to God alone. Those who submit to the consensus
instead of God will see nothing of God's blessing but they will keep
running in circles until their days are over.
For Br. Shawki, I congratulate you on finding the right name for Br.
Lomax, since he insists on calling those who submit to God alone,
khalifites I think he should be continuously called Scholar-consensus
follower until he learns to debate in the best possible manner as God
teaches in the Quran.
Wasalam Alikum
Jeremiah McAuliffe
akram...@aol.com (Akram53103) wrote:
> Br. Lomax writes;
>
>>>, I do consider it a "miracle," that is, "an extraordinary event
>manifesting divine intervention in human affairs"(Webster's New Collegiate
>Dictionary.) <<
>
>Now the Webster's Dictionary will be used to define the Miracle of the
>Quran
>
You display your poor, very poor, reading comprehension. Webster's
is used to define the English word "miracle". This way, we know what
we all mean when we use that word. Webster's is not used to define
the Miracle of the Qur'an. That is the realm of theology, not semantics.
Or don't you know that? Or are you purposely misleading here? Or
is your reading comprehension simply way below average?
If you couldn't understand this, why would anyone think for one
moment you understand the Qur'an?
James Lee
Akram53103 (akram...@aol.com) wrote:
: And who told Br. Lomax that the mathematics by itself is the miralce. Is
: he still confused what is the miralce and what is Quran.
: Br. Shawki, more than once reminded Br. Lomax and others that it is the
: Quran and the mathematics together are the miracle. The mathematics by
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: itself means nothing more than mathematics. It is the meaningful book with
: these mathematics included and built into it that makes the miralce.
: The significance of the miracle has been posted for those who possess
: intelligence few times, see 74:31
If only you had said all this earlier, Brendan would not have wasted
all the time. In your mind, the Bible and mathematics, as Brendan
used, or Shawki's article and mathematics, as Brendan challenged, will
never be miracles. So, why all these challenges? It's not going to be
accepted anyway.
Oh.... breath wasted. I'm thirsty.
James.
Dien Alfred Rice
In article <4miocs$d...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, shawki Hamdan <sha...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
[...]
> I have some questions for Br. Lomax and Dien Rice:
For me? Goody!
> In verse 17:88 Allah proclaims that even if all humans and jinns baned
> together they would not be able to produce a Qur'an like this.
>
> My questions to the two "scholar consensus followers" of Islam are:
>
> 1. What do you believe the miracle of the Qur'an is ?
The Qur'an has many miracles. I think one is its linguistic
beauty, though as I don't speak Arabic I can only know this
part imperfectly. That it does not contradict modern science
I also personally find remarkable. But its greatest miracle
to me is its inherent truth, and the deeper layers of truth
which reveal themselves to those on the path to Allah.
Alhamdulillah, Allah has helped me to see glimpses of the
deeper meaning in some parts of the Qur'an Kareem.
Jalaluddin Rumi said it well.... he said:
The Qur'an is like a bride. Although you pull the veil
away from her face, she does not show herself to you.
When you investigate the Qur'an, but receive no joy
or mystical unveiling, it is because your pulling at
the veil has caused you to be rejected. The Qur'an has
deceived you and shown itself as ugly. It says,
"I am not that beautiful bride." It is able to show
itself in any form it desires. But if you stop pulling
at its veil and seek its good pleasure; if you water
its field, serve it from afar and strive in that which
pleases it, then it will show you its face without
any need for you to draw aside its veil.
(From "The Sufi Path of Love," translated by W. C. Chittick,
p. 273.)
> 2. Has anyone ever attempted to meet God's challenge in 17:88 ?
> If so, were they refuted and how ?
(17:88 says basically that a book like the Qur'an cannot be made
by men or jinn.)
I have read of historical occasions where people have tried to
do this, but I don't know the details.
> 3. If you believe that you can come up with a Qur'an like this, how much
> would br. Lomax charge for his hourly fees ? And will we still be able
> to get the usual 50% off discount ?
Of course, I cannot, I believe it is the book of Allah.
However, coming up with a book with "19-counts" all the way
through it certainly is possible, particularly in this age
of fast computers. If you believe that this is the "miracle"
of the Qur'an, then it should be doable with a good computer,
and by someone with the time to try to come up with such a book.
There are some interesting 19-counts (eg. number of surahs).
However, these do not constitute a "miracle," and it is certainly
not the standard interpretaion of 74:30 ("Above it are nineteen.")
When the "Khalifites" start manipulating and rejecting parts
of the Qur'an (to give the "miracle" some human help, to make the
19-counts come out right), this is when (to me) they have clearly
crossed the line that means they have left Islam.
We should look at 74:30 more closely. This verse is referring
to hell -- above hell are "nineteen." What does this mean?
Let's look at these verses more closely... insha-Allah,
I will try to do that in a subsequent post.
Farid ud-Dien Rice
AHMED OKLA
In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
The word that means number in Arabic ('Adad) comes from the root word
("Adda).
God told us in the Quran that He counted the numbers of all things. See
72:28 (yes it
just happened to be 7+2+2+8 = 19.) God used the word ('Adda) in all its
forms in the
whole Quran 57 times, and yes 57 is 19 X 3.
Many readers of this forum asked about 74:31 and the word mentioned in
this verse
(Eddatahum) = their numbers. The word (Eddatahum) is mentioned in the
whole Quran
only twice, in 74:31 and in 18:22. In both instances the word definitely
means their
numbers.
74:31, the verse says, we made (Eddatahum) their number, (Fitna) a test
to :(1)
disturb the disbelievers. (2) to convince the people of the book (that the
Quran is
divine).....etc. God specifically is talking about THEIR NUMBER (19). If
God wants to
talk about the Angels of Hell causing these tests, there wold have been no
need to
mention their number as the verse states. The verse could have stated (We
appointed
angels to be guardians of Hell, and we made THEM (Fitna)) But the true
verse says
we made their NUMBER (Eddatahum) Fitna (test). We have to believe that God
knows
what He is saying. We have to believe that God means what He is saying.
God comes
FIRST. There is no second to Him.
"We appointed angels to be guardians of Hell, and we assigned their number
(Eddatahum) (19) (1) to disturb the disbelievers. (2) to convince the
Christians and
Jews (that this is a divine scripture), (3) to strengthen the faith of the
faithful, (4) to
remove all the traces of doubt from the hearts of the Christians, Jews as
well as the
believers, and (5) to expose those who harbor doubt in their hearts, and
the
disbelievrs; they will say, "What did God mean by this allegory? God thus
sends astray
whomever He wills, and guides whomever He wills. NONE KNOWS the soldiers
of your
Lord except He. THIS IS A REMINDER FOR THE PEOPLE. ' 74:31
God clarifies this for His true believers by using the same word
(Eddatahum) again in
18:22 to tell us He means the number.
"Some would say "They were three; their dog being the fourth, "While
others would
say, "Five, the sixth being their dog," as they guessed. Others said,
"Seven," and the
eighth was their dog. SAY, "My Lord is the best Knower of (Eddatahum)
their
number"...."
So, for those who want to believe God Almighty, go ahead, and for those
who want to
believe thier scholars go ahead. "God thus explains His revelations for
you, that you
MAY understand." 2:242 God does not say (that you have to understand),
there
shall be no compulsion in religion.
SALAM
shawki Hamdan
Dien Alfred Rice wrote:
> > I have some questions for Br. Lomax and Dien Rice:
> For me? Goody!
Sorry I asked Dien. I forgot you dropped out of the race after I showed
you that you STILL do not get it when it came to the miracle of the
Qur'an.
My 1st question: 1. What do you believe the miracle of the Qur'an is ?
> The Qur'an has many miracles. I think one is its linguistic
> beauty, though as I don't speak Arabic I can only know this
> part imperfectly.
I couldn't have said it better Dien. You know almost nothing about Arabic
but you accuse people of being Kafir when they provide undisputable
evidence that "Bastatan" should be spelled with "seen".
Once more you "imprefectly" state a miracle as the linguistic beauty of
the Arabic Qur'an when you do not know Arabic. Since you disputed the
numeric miracle, have you ever tried to dispute this ? Have you tested
it, and verified your agreement or lack of it ? All you do is repeat what
others say without having any knowledge in it. But yet you dare declare
other people kafir on that basis. Please think before you say these
things next time.
> That it does not contradict modern science I also personally find
> remarkable.
I agree with this, but I wonder if you have in fact argued on behalf of
that wonderful property of the Qur'an when people attack it on that
basis. Have you ?
> But its greatest miracle to me is its inherent truth, and the deeper
> layers of truth which reveal themselves to those on the path to Allah.
God utters nothing but the truth. But that does not make the Qur'an a
miracle to those who do not believe it to be the word of God. Have you
ever asked Jochen if he agrees with you on that ?
Come on, Dien. God gave us brains to use, and it is such a shame to waste
them on innovations that were never authorized by God instead of
studying the only true book of guidance; the Qur'an.
> Alhamdulillah, Allah has helped me to see glimpses of the
> deeper meaning in some parts of the Qur'an Kareem.
Maybe you would like to share some of these deep meanings with your
brothers and sisters. And at that time, I may even join you if your
meanins are indeed deep. I love that topic, you know.
> Jalaluddin Rumi said it well.... he said:
Forget what Rumi said. Please listen to what God said. He tells you that
"19" has a great significance. He then tells you whay, and follows by "It
is one of the greatest signs".
How about digging some deep meaning out of that Dien ?
My next Question: 2. Has anyone ever attempted to meet God's challenge in
17:88 ? If so, were they refuted and how ?
> (17:88 says basically that a book like the Qur'an cannot be made
> by men or jinn.)
>
> I have read of historical occasions where people have tried to
> do this, but I don't know the details.
What kind of answer is that ? Could you please point to the sources of
these historical occasions that you may answer my questions without just
guessing ?
My questions were very clear and specific. Why can't anyone answer them
the same way, without running around in circles and talking guesses ?
If you have evidence for your answer then please state it, but do not
answer for the sake of answering without having any facts to support your
claims.
My last Question 3. If you believe that you can come up with a Qur'an
like this, how much would br. Lomax charge for his hourly fees ? And
will we still be able to get the usual 50% off discount ?
> Of course, I cannot, I believe it is the book of Allah.
OK, Dien. Jochen and Brendan DO NOT. Can you prove to them that it is the
word of Allah ?
This question was rhetorical in response to Br. Lomax's funny post. But
now you have changed it to a serious question. I am in the process of
proving that the Qur'an is from God, something which you can never
do. But the interference from my own brothers in Islam is making my job a
little slower. Nonetheless I will prove the Qur'an's divine authorship
insha'a Allah.
> However, coming up with a book with "19-counts" all the way
> through it certainly is possible, particularly in this age
> of fast computers. If you believe that this is the "miracle"
> of the Qur'an, then it should be doable with a good computer,
> and by someone with the time to try to come up with such a book.
Do it Dien ! Please do it. Can you maintain coherence and deep meaning as
the Qur'an does, or even close to it, or even close to coherent ? I can't
wait to read it bro !!!
> There are some interesting 19-counts (eg. number of surahs).
> However, these do not constitute a "miracle," and it is certainly
> not the standard interpretaion of 74:30 ("Above it are nineteen.")
> When the "Khalifites" start manipulating and rejecting parts
> of the Qur'an (to give the "miracle" some human help, to make the
> 19-counts come out right), this is when (to me) they have clearly
> crossed the line that means they have left Islam.
Well, since you are the expert on the line between Islam and non-Islam,
maybe you can prove to me that 9:128-129 should be part of the Qur'an.
Support that with logical, historical, as well as mathematical (if you
can) arguments. Let us see what you come up with.
> We should look at 74:30 more closely. This verse is referring
> to hell -- above hell are "nineteen." What does this mean?
It means "angels" or "Guardians of Hell"
> Let's look at these verses more closely... insha-Allah,
> I will try to do that in a subsequent post.
Oh, come on ! You wanna keep me in suspence until you next post ? It is
only a few verses Dien. You can do it. Let see your scholarly consensus.
Are you waiting for a fax to arrive from al-Azhar in Cairo ?
Peace,
Shawki
AHMED OKLA
Shawki writing to Dien Rice wrote;
D. Rice;
>> We should look at 74:30 more closely. This verse is referring
>> to hell -- above hell are "nineteen." What does this mean? <<
Shawki;
>It means "angels" or "Guardians of Hell"<
D. Rice;
>> Let's look at these verses more closely... insha-Allah,
>> I will try to do that in a subsequent post.<<
Common Shawki. You know better. 74:31 did not say that the angels of
Hell would do anything , but said "Eddatahum" their number that is number
19. that would have the five famous effects.
Look at this;
SALAM
AHMED