Muslims and "Circular Reasoning"

[Isa_Almisry]

There is absolutely nothing complicated about this challenge at all.

Just produce a Sura like that is found in the Qur’an – what is so difficult to understand about this challenge?

The pagan Arabs at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) understood exactly what this challenge meant and it is because that they were unable to meet this challenge that many of them eventually became Muslims themselves… and NO, they were not coerced by any means into accepting Islam against their will.

002.256
**Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. **

Again, can you produce pagan Arabian sources where they so state? And I don’t mean muslim sources that put words in their mouths.

According to the rules of Arabic verse, you can tell whether it doesn’t rhyme, it repetive, out of meter, etc. on which to evaluate the poem. Prose has a similar list of criteria. Since you state that the Quran/sura is neither poetry or prose, then we need the definition and criteria of that genre on which to evaluate whether there is one like it. Since you claim that it is not complicated or difficult, then the providing such definition and criteria should be easy.
You can point to the obvious differences between the suras in your corpus, so what’s the common core between them?
There were a number of web sites that took up the challenge (and were shut down) what was defective in them?

As for coercion, the Sirah focuses on the prophet’s campaign. According to your own sources, the immunity with the pagans was not renewed after the CONQUEST of Mecca, and expired.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

There is absolutely nothing complicated about this challenge at all.

Just produce a Sura like that is found in the Qur’an – what is so difficult to understand about this challenge?

The pagan Arabs at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) understood exactly what this challenge meant and it is because that they were unable to meet this challenge that many of them eventually became Muslims themselves… and NO, they were not coerced by any means into accepting Islam against their will.

002.256
**Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. **

I stand corrected, another site is up:

suralikeit.com/

Take a look and tell us how they don’t match up.
Otherwise we can take your silence as an admission, and can ignore any further reiteration of the same assertion above in the future.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the pagan Arabs didn’t think much of the poetry of the Quran? They had a tradition of poetry and apparently Muhammad may have copied many of their poetry.

islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/WhoAuthoredQuran/who_authored_the_quran.htm

Commenting on verse 54.1 W. St. Clair-Tisdall writes: [10]

‘It was the custom of the time for and orators to hang up their compositions upon the Ka’aba; and we know the seven Mu’allaqat were exposed. We are told that Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter, was one day repeating as she went along the above verse. Just then she met the daughter of Imrul Qays, who cried out, “O that’s what your father has taken from one of my father’s poems, and calls it something that has come down to him out of heaven;” and the story is commonly told amongst the Arabs until now.’

Of course I’m sure the resident Muslim apologist here will jump up and down claiming St Clair-Tisdall isn’t an Islamic scholar and therefore shouldn’t be believed.

There is of course the unnamed Christian who wrote verses for Muhammad:

1. It is related that Anas said, “There was a Christian man who became Muslim and recited al-Baqara and Ali 'Imran. He used to act as a scribe for the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Then he reverted to being a Christian and he used to say, ‘Muhammad only knows what I wrote for him.’ Allah made him die and they buried him. In the morning, the earth had thrown him up. They said, ‘This is the work of Muhammad and his Companions since he fled from them. They dug our companion up and threw him out.’ So they dug a very deep grave and in the morning the earth had thrown him up. They said, ‘This is the work of Muhammad and his Companions since he fled from them. They threw him out.’ So they dug a grave for him as deep as they could and in the morning the earth had thrown him up. So they knew that it was not done by people so they left him [there].” Bukhari Volume 4, number 814.

Thus, this sahih (authentic) hadith says that Muhammad only knew what this Christian wrote for him - implying that al-Baqarah and al-Imran were the works not of Allah but of a Christian scribe.

If Muslims can’t tell the difference between the words of a Christian and that purported to be Allah’s then the challenge fails to even get off the ground.

 

[Verisimilitude]

If you will tell me what you think I’m not being honest about, I will be happy to clarify.

You have been neither honest or forthcoming in all of your posts so far- take your pick at anything non-substansive you have said.

I have not relied on any of my own expertise-… That is not controversial.

:yawn:

All jokes aside, the point I’m making now is fairly obvious: You cited sources of information which are in fact, not good sources at all. That’s no secret.

What is obvious is your obfuscation. You exhibit the characteristic of the OP. Bravo.

If you’re interested in good, scholarly work on the period, there is plenty. Here’s a good start from a Catholic university’s website: fordham.edu/halsall/islam/islamsbook.html

What of it? As I said before, I can use any history you want to make my point, and I have. The site lists nothing in dispute as far as I can see except what you conclude from it.

MUHAMMAD’S LAST SERMON- I imagine Jim Jones would have said somethig similar if he had lived.

Anotherhilip K. Hitti

Taking advantage of the periods of “holy truce” and anxious to offer sustenance to the Emigrants, the Medinese Moslems (called Supporters) under the leadership of the new chief intercepted a summer caravan on its return from Syria to Mecca, thus striking at the most vital point in the life of that commercial metropolis. The caravan leader had learned of the scheme and sent to Mecca for aid. The encounter between the reinforced Meccan caravan and the Moslems, thanks to the inspiring leadership of the Prophet, resulted in the complete victory of three hundred Moslems over a thousand Meccans. However unimportant in itself as a military engagement, this skirmish laid the foundation of Muhammad’s temporal power. Islam had won its first and decisive military victory: the victory itself was interpreted as a divine 'Sanction of the new faith.

Theft approved by God?

Maybe Watt reflects your view better?

He seems to have been specially fond of children and to have got on well with them…(I think most know of his fondness for children.) Much of his paternal affection went to his adopted son Zayd. (until he married his wife)…These are supported be reference to events like the violation of the sacred month on the expedition of Nakhlah (624) and his marriage to Zaynab bint-Jahsh, the divorced wife of his adopted son. About the bare facts there is no dispute, but it is not so clear that the facts justify the allegations. Was the violation of the sacred month an act of treachery or a justified breach with a piece of pagan religion ? (I think the facts do justify allegations.)…Muslims, however, claim that he is a model of conduct and character for all mankind. eek: )…It does not follow, however, that all the Qur’anic ideas are true and sound. In particular there is at least one point at which they seem to be unsound…

Are these your scholars? Since there is no commentary on the link- something you are familair with- on the Pact of Umar- give us yours.

Shoo, little dog.

 

[Verisimilitude]

There is absolutely nothing complicated about this challenge at all.

Just produce a Sura like that is found in the Qur’an – what is so difficult to understand about this challenge?

No, but who is the judge?

The pagan Arabs at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) understood exactly what this challenge meant and it is because that they were unable to meet this challenge that many of them eventually became Muslims themselves… and NO, they were not coerced by any means into accepting Islam against their will.

Are you sure?
On Mohammed’s death in June 632, the future of the state was uncertain, but the oratory of Omar (later the second caliph) persuaded the men of Medina to accept Abu Bakr as caliph. Much of his reign was occupied with quelling revolts. One had already broken out in Yemen, and soon there were about five others in different parts of Arabia. The leaders mostly claimed to be prophets, and the revolts are known as “the wars of the apostasy,” though the underlying reasons were mainly political. The chief battle was that of Yamama in May 633, when Musaylima, the strongest insurgent leader, was defeated and killed by a Moslem army under Khalid ibn al-Walid.

I’ll start a new thread to your challenge.

 

[inJESUS]

If Muslims can’t tell the difference between the words of a Christian and that purported to be Allah’s then the challenge fails to even get off the ground.

LOL

 

[hamba2han]

…but who is the judge?

The one who is sincerely seeking the Truth about whether or not the Qur’an is truly the Word of the Creator.

No one else would be qualified to judge.

 

[Verisimilitude]

The one who is sincerely seeking the Truth about whether or not the Qur’an is truly the Word of the Creator.

No one else would be qualified to judge.

I am and have always been sincere in my study of God to include my reading of the Quran. The first time I read it I was of the firm opinion it (Torah, Gospels, Quran) was all from the same God. I have since learned the god of the Quran needs to be severely qualified to be God.

Since I am sincere; I meet your qualification to judge. I have concluded it is not the Word of God.

 

[inJESUS]

The one who is sincerely seeking the Truth about whether or not the Qur’an is truly the Word of the Creator.

No one else would be qualified to judge.

what if **sincerely **someone does not find it miraculous? after all, the million arabs who do not find it miraculous cannot be all not sincere, can they?

 

[inJESUS]

I am and have always been sincere in my study of God to include my reading of the Quran. The first time I read it I was of the firm opinion it (Torah, Gospels, Quran) was all from the same God. I have since learned the god of the Quran needs to be severely qualified to be God.

Since I am sincere; I meet your qualification to judge. I have concluded it is not the Word of God.

someone else gave the same challenge Muhammad gave, but about the Book of Mormons. It is a flawed human challenge, after all used by cult leaders when they got nothing better to offer

my.athenet.net/~jlindsay/BOMchallenge.shtml

 

[Verisimilitude]

someone else gave the same challenge Muhammad gave, but about the Book of Mormons. It is a flawed human challenge, after all used by cult leaders when they got nothing better to offer

my.athenet.net/~jlindsay/BOMchallenge.shtml

I agree it is a flawed challenge…at least it’s a little better than the kool-aid Jim Jones offered his flock.

 

[inJESUS]

Check these ayas:

What, shall I seek after any judge but God? For it is **He **who sent down to you the Book well-distinguished; and those whom **We **have given the Book know it is sent down from thy Lord with the truth; so be not thou of the doubters. S. 6:114

But Allah is the Guardian, and He gives life to the dead, and He has power over all things. And in whatever thing you disagree, the judgment thereof is (in) Allah’s (hand); that is Allah, MY Lord, on Him do I rely and to Him do I turn time after time. S. 42:6-10

who on earth is speaking here? Allah, Muhammad or a mixture of both?

What, is every man of them eager to be admitted to a Garden of Bliss? Not so; for We have created them of what they know. No! I** swear by the Lord of the Easts and Wests**, surely We are able to substitute a better than they; We shall not be outstripped. S. 70:38-41

Allah is swearing by the Lord of the East or who is speaking here ?

Say: ‘If the sea were ink for the Words of MY Lord, the sea would be spent before the Words of MY Lord are spent, though We brought replenishment the like of it.’ S. 18:109

Muhammad brought replenishment to the sea or is it Allah?

what eloquence is this when Allah’s words are mixed with Muhammad’s words that we end up confused of who exactly is speaking?

 

[pro_universal]

You have been neither honest or forthcoming in all of your posts so far- take your pick at anything non-substansive you have said. What of it? As I said before, I can use any history you want to make my point, and I have. The site lists nothing in dispute as far as I can see except what you conclude from it.

Well, let’s see what is actually in the pieces you quoted from, then.

Maybe Watt reflects your view better?

One paragraph down, you have:

From the standpoint of Muhammad’s time, then, the allegations of treachery and sensuality cannot be maintained. His contemporaries did not find him morally defective in any way. On the contrary, some of the acts criticized by the modern Westerner show that Muhammad’s standards werehigher than those of his time. In his day and generation he was a social reformer, even a reformer in the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before.** By taking what was best in the morality of the nomad and adapting it for settled communities, he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men. That is not the work of a traitor or ’ an old lecher’.**

Are these your scholars? Since there is no commentary on the link- something you are familair with- on the Pact of Umar- give us yours.

Shoo, little dog.

Again, what I posted was fairly decent historical information-not apologetics. You can read for yourself and take what you like. That was the point of posting the link.

I’m not sure what was the substance of the above rant and following insulting language from you. You don’t seem to be defending your claim that “Mark Gabriel” (not his real name) and Robert Spencer are good sources of knowledge any longer-so what exactly is your point now?

I hope that your next reply will be more laden with material advancing the discussion, and less laden with calling me a liar or a dog. Certainly, your position does not look stronger when you call names where you could have posted information.

 

[inJESUS]

Why don’t we just stick to the topic instead of making this thread harder to follow?

 

[Montalban]

Why don’t we just stick to the topic instead of making this thread harder to follow?

That’s an un-Islamic attitude!