Quran says Allah has not made for any man two hearts in his body.

[Moayidd]

Part (2)

I am glad that you used 4:3 as your proof text for 30:2-3. That would make the Dead Sea region ‘a more suitable land’ not ‘the lowest land’. Your exegetical methods are ferverishly infantile.

Whenever I see slander to my person or other I see frustration and Anger.
I see, so The romans will return and be victorious in a ‘a more suitable part’ of Earth ?
This actaully makes sense to you ?
Also, just to set things straight - concerning 4.3 Adna here doesn’t mean ‘more suitable’. It means this would be LOWER probability than you not being fair. This is Arabic not English. Yusuf Ali translates meanings not words so do other translators. But if you want a real analysis you have to go to the actual raw meanings of the words in Arabic.
In 4.3 Adna means** Lower** not more suitable. Take this to an Arabic professor.
Doon (not Dooni by the way) means low or below (even excepting, other than), Adna means lower/lowest from the same Stem word.

If you don’t beleive that Translators translate meanings not words take a look at this verse;

032.021 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
032.021 And indeed We will make them taste of the Penalty of this (life) prior to the supreme Penalty, in order that they may (repent and) return.
032.021 Walanu[th]eeqannahum mina alAAa[tha]bi al-adn[a] doona alAAa[tha]bi al-akbari laAAallahum yarjiAAoon(a)

The words Adna and Doon both exist in this verse but nerither is translated by Yusuf Ali. There isn’t one mention of them. Do you see what I mean now.
The verse literally says:
32.1 And verily we will make them taste of the Lowest torment before making them taste the big (biggest) torment per chance they revert (to the correct ways).
(the correct ways) is an example of missing Identity which i explained in the grammatical section above.
So here we have Adna (meaning Lowest) and Doon (meaning lower than or before) and BOTH are not referenced once in the English translation.
Is my point clearer to you now ? You cannot go by translation if you are looking for Errors OR if you are looking for deeper knowledge.

Yes, it can mean ‘closer than’. The defeat was believed to be closer to Mecca or Medinah than the later victory, but the compilers of the Quran don’t appear to be certain as to the location. Yusef Ali tanslates it ‘more suitable’ but it means ‘lowest’? Sorry that you find Ali so unreliable, but he isn’t the only one who agree with me. Also, which is it? Does the word mean ‘less/lower than’ or ‘lowest’? There is a big difference. Please make up your mind! I agree that the altitude of Jerusalem is lower than Mecca, but it wouldn’t take a miracle to see that.

You are missing the point here. There would be an infinite number of ‘points’ (not cities) that are closer. Try to think outside the box. We are not discussing villages or cities. The Verse is discussing a point on earth even if its in the middle of a barren desert. IT doesn’t say ‘the closest or lowest City’ it says In the lowest part of Earth.

In 5:108, adna means ‘better’; ‘more suitable’;’ easier; likelier’, but it does not mean ‘lowest’ at all.

I have answered the same issue above concerning 3:21. I hope it has finally sunk in. Translations are inherently error prone. I Could give you al ive example if you want from my own effort to translate the Qur’aan.

Nope, you got it wrong, again. This time, ‘dooni’ is distinguishing between those helpers people call on besides Allah and Allah himself. t has nothing to do with direction or altitude. You are just making stuff up. In 2:107, ‘dooni’ does mean ‘near’. The verse is saying that there are no protectors ‘near Allah’ and Allah alone is the helper!

002.107 Alam taAAlam anna All[a]ha lahu mulku a(l)ssam[a]w[a]ti wa(a)l-ar[d]i wam[a] lakum min dooni All[a]hi min waliyyin wal[a] naeer(in)
Doon (not Dooni). Dooni only if its in the sentence and demands the correct grammatical tashkeel. So it could be dooni, doona etc. On its own its only Doon.

Near Allah ? Are you serious here ? Did you seriously think Doon here referred to altitude concerning Allah ? Doon means Low (one of the meanings).
If I said The sea is Lower than the Alps - implying Altitude. Then I said your action was really Low. Would this mean that Your action was low in Altitude ??.
Low is Low and should be taken in context.
The verse says 'min dooni All[a]hi ’ ‘From Below Allah’ meaning ‘Lower than Allah’ because Naturally everything is Lower than Allah.
I hope this doesn’t need more explanation.

 

[Moayidd]

Part (3)

As I stated, ‘dooni’ in 2:107 speaks of nearness of position, not altitude.

Did I once say Doon implied Altitude. Low means Low. The context of the word in the sentence defines whether it means low as in altitude or as in Abstract rank or even as an act of lowliness.
Am I stating the obvious here or am I missing something about you ?

Another excellent example for me, thank you! Again the Quran is stating that there are no other gods besides Allah in position or power, and none of the ‘gods’ are **near **him in exaltation *.
*
Actually, I should be thanking you for that. This is one form of Qur’anic Accuracy by the way. You will never find a verse saying ‘ma3a Allah’ ‘With Allah’ when it comes to worship because nothing is at the same Level as Allah. You will only find ‘Min Dooni Allahi’ ‘From Below Allah’. This is the type of exceptional excellence in Accuracy that is not possible for humans to achieve consistently. If its not worship then you will find it. In this verse its about Worship.

002.165 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
002.165 Yet there are men who take (for worship) others besides Allah, as equal (with Allah): They love them as they should love Allah. But those of Faith are overflowing in their love for Allah. If only the unrighteous could see, behold, they would see the penalty: that to Allah belongs all power, and Allah will strongly enforce the penalty.
002.165** Wamina a(l)nn[a]si man yattakhi[th]u min dooni All[a]hi and[a]dan **yu[h]ibboonahum ka[h]ubbi All[a]hi wa(a)lla[th]eena [a]manoo ashaddu [h]ubban lill[a]hi walaw yar[a] alla[th]eena {th}alamoo i[th] yarawna alAAa[tha]ba anna alquwwata lill[a]hi jameeAAan waanna All[a]ha shadeedu alAAa[tha]b(i)

Raw Translation:
** Wamina a(l)nn[a]si man yattakhi[th]u min dooni All[a]hi and[a]dan **
And of people who takes from BELOW (doon) Allah equals.
There is no one at the same level as Allah even if WE take them to be as such, hence the verse says 'BELOW - DOON Allah. Are you begining to see now ?

I’ll use Lane’s Lexicon.

Fine, if Truth and accuracy are not of any consequence to you then use what you like but know that he does make mistakes.

You don’t read Arabic. I am sure of that now.

No ? Why would an intelligent person make a statement that would undermine his own credibility in one shot ? I am Egyptian, I live in Egypt and speak Arabic and I spent the past 3-4 years translating the Qur’aan. What proof would you like that I speak Arabic ?
That was really very stupid of you Lothair because with one silly statement you discredited yourself completely. Are you so quick to reach conclusions (incorrect ones too) ?

They did. He killed them, but some of their words can be found in the pages of the Quran.

Oh i see He killed them all ? You are back to making claims/allegations - unqualified ones too.

One region was taken by the Persians. You are making your assessment of their demise conform to your Quran, rather then letting history speak for itself. Heraclius’ fleet carried the Roman armies to face the Persians, and the Emperor certainly didn’t think his empire was dead.

Excuse me but this is just history now. Just look it up on wiki or something instead of that site you all get your incorrect facts from. Incidentally, have you ever paused to check thos facts from that site to see if they were correct or not ?

I am not sure if you noticed, but I have eaten you alive here.

I am sure you would like to think so but its not what you see thats important really - Its what all the other ‘normal’ Christians on this site see.
Its difficult for someone like you to admit they are wrong, specially when they are wrong about every single point and I don’t expect you to admit to anything. As I said, its the other members that I’m interested in.

Now, back to the original point. Show me ONE blunder in the Qur’aan. Have someone who speaks Arabic help you because you won’t be able to come up with anythihng other than translation errors and liberties by translators.

 

[Sam_777]

Moayidd you are certainly using Taqiyya with us here at CAF!

Firstly, post# 53 shows how you manipulating what I’ve written.

Secondly, your post# 68 dated “Oct 14” shows your reply to my post# 61, but on “Oct 16” in your post# 75 you say “I hadn’t seen this part before” to the same post# 61 !.

Thirdly, you keep saying to me and to Lothair show me the errors show me the errors!, and in post# 53, I have shown you links to English links regarding the scientific errors in Quran plus an Arabic link to grammatical errors!

Fourthly, in your post# 65 you are accusing me of dishonesty when quoting “Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 623”, I hope any member here clicks on the links I’ve provided in my post# 60 and see if there is any discrepancy between the hadith in the links and what I quoted, I quoted hadith# 623 NOT any other hadith, if you think hadith# 623 is missing something or not complete THEN tell your Muslim clerics to remove it from Sahih Bukhari.

On “Oct 13” I told you “This could be my last reply to you”, however, based on the above four points now I tell you “this is my last reply to you”, because I’m not here on CAF to deal with your Islamic Taqiyya http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon13.gif .

PS., Regarding Lothair non-Arabic words in the Quran, here is the link in Arabic & English.

 

[Jay53]

I am sure you would like to think so but its not what you see thats important really - Its what all the other ‘normal’ Christians on this site see.
Its difficult for someone like you to admit they are wrong, specially when they are wrong about every single point and I don’t expect you to admit to anything. As I said, its the other members that I’m interested in.

Now, back to the original point. Show me ONE blunder in the Qur’aan. Have someone who speaks Arabic help you because you won’t be able to come up with anythihng other than translation errors and liberties by translators.

I suppose I would like to consider myself a “normal” Christian so I’ll throw my 2 cents in. What I “see” is an extremely arrogant person vigorously trying to defend the Quran.

The biggest blunder in the Quran - whether in Arabic, English or any other language is the denial of the Crucifixion and Divinity of Christ. Simple as that. Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. He has appeared to saints (i.e. St. Faustina Kowalska and St. Padre Pio) and His mother has appeared (i.e. Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe) in effect confirming His Divinity. You obviously don’t have to believe it, but that’s your prerogative.

P.S. Since the Crucifixion is not the topic of this thread, you may feel free to add your comments to this one: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=369553

Also, to everyone, sorry about the wide screen issue - I don’t know how to shrink mine down. I know it’s very irritating when the posts are so wide.

 

[Lothair]

Lane** isn’t** an Arab and made mistakes. He mistunderst the meaning of the word ‘MafaatiH’ for example and thought it meant ‘MafateeH’ (keys). You can check for yourself.

You have to be an Arab now? What comedy! Ok, no more Arabs are allowed to teach English or any other language. Be serious, Moyadid. Could Lane have made mistakes? Sure, but if he didn’t we might have to consider whether his writings were miraculous revelation from God. Every lexiconical aid has the potential for errors. I refuse to use Islamic lexicons, because the theology is so corrupt. Your sites just can’t be trusted.

Also Lisaan al 3arab is THE Arabic lexicon to use. Even amongst other Arabic Lexicons.There is no disputing that. Would you consult Websters dictionary when looking up the meaning of a word in English or a dictionary written by an Arab ?

I wouldn’t stop to even consider the nationality of the scholars, only their credentials. You are a racist.

Let me quote you: ‘it means ‘lower’ [2:61];’ Can we pause here for a moment.
Lower doesn’t mean lowest ! Ok,
(1) this is the lower of these two points
(2) This is the Lower point of the earth,
(1) is a relative statement which is what you assume to be the only meaning.

The lower **between **two points, not the ‘lowest point of all’. The writer was at point ‘A’ and he was refering to point ‘B’ **or **he is refering to the places of the early defeat and the later victory. The ‘adjective of **comparison’ **is being used here, not superlative. The compilers of the Quran are comparing two regions or locations, but even **they **don’t even know which or where they are. The defeat of the Romans was near Jerusalem [614AD], yet the Quran doesn’t identify the city, nor the names of the kings who fought [Heraclius and Rhahzadh]. The later Roman victory was at the Battle of Nineveh [627AD]. Your prophet/compilers fail to name the kings or the names of these ancient cities. Hardly convincing.

But what does **(2)**mean to you ? When something is at the Lower point of the earth ? There is no point on Earth that is Lower IE it is the Lowest point on the Earth. And this is Just English. If you understood Arabic you wouldn’t need such an explanation because you would be familiar with Arabic words and how they are to be understood.

Nope, you are wrong again. Fee adna al-ardi is ‘a nearby land’. Wishful thinking won’t change that.

The verse says ‘Fi Adna Al Ard’ - ‘In the lowest part of Earth’ - It cannot be read and understood in any other way in Arabic unless you take Adna to mean closest which is fine but not accurate. If you go with LOW then the verse can only be saying ‘the lowest part of the earth’. As I showed you before, ‘closest’ doesn’t make sense in the verse.

I have beaten this to death. You are trying very hard to force science into your poet’s writings. I respect that, but ‘Fee adna al-ardi’ means ‘in a land close by’ or maybe a ‘land at a lower place’, but 'Fee adna al-ardi does not mean ‘the lowest point on the earth’ in Arabic anywhere except in an over active imagination polluted by men like Ahmed Deedat and Nakir Zaik.

How can a point on continuous land be considered the closest point to another ? There are an infinite number of points between them and the very next point will always be closer. Did you consider that ?

The writers of the Quran are not talking about a continuous tract of land. They are talking about two specific locations. Try to be serious.

Also, You argue that there are two meanings, ‘lowest’ and ‘closest’ and we have that point actually BEING the lowest point on earth but you insist ‘closest’ is intended ?

No, I need to correct you again. I **never **said that one means ‘lowest’. That is your arguement, not mine. Quit trying to confuse our readers. I am allowing a reading of ‘lower’ for the sake of argument, not as a lexiconical admission.

You mean out of the infinite number of points on earth, the Qur’aan refers to the actual Lowest physical point (1 in 1 trillion probability) but what was intended was ‘closest’ ?

No, the writers/compilers of the Quran are speaking of two distinct points, not every point in between. One of those points in ‘nearer land’ but nearer to what it doesn’t say. They don’t tell us what the points or places are. As I said, these points can be relative to the position of the compilers at the time the Quran was compiled and edited or the regions where the battles were fought.

The dead sea isn’t mentioned? This is quite funny really. It was referred to by a much more accurate description - The Lowest point on earth. The dead Sea might dry up (And actually is doing so now) and then the Qur’aanic verse would be inaccurate wouldn’t it ?

As I have demonstrated a few times, neither the Dead Sea or its environs was known to the compilers of the Quran. Even if I allow a reading ‘fee adna al-ardi to’ be ‘a lower land’ you are sill far away from ‘the lowest point on the earth’.

Let me remind you of the facts again.
The verses named the (1) exact location, (2) the timing of the battle (3) the parties and (4) the outcome of the battle.

Let **me **remind **you **of the facts again: [1] neither the location of the defeat or the victory was known to the editors of the Quran, [2] no date for the battle is mentioned, [3] the parties were the two biggest empires of the time, [3] the Quran had a 50/50 chance. Those are good odds.

 

[Moayidd]

Moayidd you are certainly using Taqiyya with us here at CAF!

There is no such thing as Taqqiya in Islam. This is allegedly a Shia thing and I am Sunni.
Lets keep this professional and lets make our information and arguments the criteria here not the persons behind them.

Firstly, post# 53 shows how you manipulating what I’ve written.

I’m not not here to manipulate anything nor anyone, without checking the URL you supplied, if I appeared to have done so then accept my apology in advance. No person here is my objective, not even myself. This is about God and truth and hopefully about some of you seeing this truth. Because it is possible for you to remain Christian sand still be on the right side of Allah.
Since I am here and will probably post here for a while we might as well get things straight - your idea and the ideas propagated by some, including Muslims, about Islam are not correct. Taqqeyya being one of them incidentally EVEN if it really is a Shia thing (I don’t know if it is or isn’t). You will not get anything from me except the Truth with which I will stand before God on Judgement day.

Secondly, your post# 68 dated “Oct 14” shows your reply to my post# 61, but on “Oct 16” in your post# 75 you say “I hadn’t seen this part before” to the same post# 61 !.

Yes I replied to your post but I skimmed through it without reading it all. I do that and you will notice that I do that in the future.

Thirdly, you keep saying to me and to Lothair show me the errors show me the errors!, and in post# 53, I have shown you links to English links regarding the scientific errors in Quran plus an Arabic link to grammatical errors!

If you mean the Grammatical errors in the Coptic Site I have answered those if you check. I answered one which accounts for most of them as they all fall into 2 categories. If you want me to answer them all I will. I even stated that.

I didn’t see the Scientific errors in Arabic part, i just saw the main page with the grammatical (albeit incorrect) allegations.
In all cases, I’m not here to respond to sites but to members on this board. So find an error and post it here so I respond to it otherwise It would look like I’m talking to myself.
Don’t look upon this as a personal challenge and you wont find difficulty in doing this.

Fourthly, in your post# 65 you are accusing me of dishonesty when quoting “Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 623”, I hope any member here clicks on the links I’ve provided in my post# 60 and see if there is any discrepancy between the hadith in the links and what I quoted, I quoted hadith# 623 NOT any other hadith, if you think hadith# 623 is missing something or not complete THEN tell your Muslim clerics to remove it from Sahih Bukhari.

No that is not why I accused you of dishonesty, I accused you of dishonesty because of the starting post of this thread. You quoted a sentence and used it as proof for you when it was clearly proof against you. The point being Heart was used to support ‘comprehension’.
You then quoted Bukhari to show how he used ‘heart’ despite me saying it can be taken to mean the organ but the primary meaning is not organ.

On “Oct 13” I told you “This could be my last reply to you”, however, based on the above four points now I tell you “this is my last reply to you”, because I’m not here on CAF to deal with your Islamic Taqiyya http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon13.gif .

There you go again. An attack on me and Islam at the same time. I could simply call you a liar couldn’t I but what would that do ? I am no Liar and there is no such thing as Taqqiyya in Islam, at least not in Sunnism so you might as well just forget this.

PS., Regarding Lothair non-Arabic words in the Quran, here is the link in Arabic & English.

Father Zakaria is someone I have seen personally incidentally and he Lies like he breathes. I watched him state that Muslims killed his brother when it is known in Egypt that his brother was killed by 3 Christians in the South of Egypt because he was having an Affair with a Shammas (choir boy) wife. The Shammas and 2 other Christians killed his brother for that. It is legally documented and the 3 were in prison. He was also in a Church called Cleopatra (which I’m sure you know) pretending to exorcise Jinn from Christians every Sunday using a loudspeaker. I saw him on more than one occasion do that in the early 70’s.
He was kicked out of Church for matters of ‘morals and ethics’ as the Church **itself **announced.
Quoting HIM is not to your advantage.

Now back to the issue at hand. Don’t send me to any sites just give me one Error in the Qur’aan which you see in Arabic (not in translation). Don’t take this as a challenge and you will find this easier to do.
Lets make this a constructive thing rather than the challenge you and Lothair seem to think it is.

 

[jakasaki]

What blew this post screen size from here to China??

 

[Moayidd]

Moayidd you are certainly using Taqiyya with us here at CAF!

Firstly, post# 53 shows how you manipulating what I’ve written.

Secondly, your post# 68 dated “Oct 14” shows your reply to my post# 61, but on “Oct 16” in your post# 75 you say “I hadn’t seen this part before” to the same post# 61 !.

Thirdly, you keep saying to me and to Lothair show me the errors show me the errors!, and in post# 53, I have shown you links to English links regarding the scientific errors in Quran plus an Arabic link to grammatical errors!

Fourthly, in your post# 65 you are accusing me of dishonesty when quoting “Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 623”, I hope any member here clicks on the links I’ve provided in my post# 60 and see if there is any discrepancy between the hadith in the links and what I quoted, I quoted hadith# 623 NOT any other hadith, if you think hadith# 623 is missing something or not complete THEN tell your Muslim clerics to remove it from Sahih Bukhari.

On “Oct 13” I told you “This could be my last reply to you”, however, based on the above four points now I tell you “this is my last reply to you”, because I’m not here on CAF to deal with your Islamic Taqiyya http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon13.gif .

PS., Regarding Lothair non-Arabic words in the Quran, here is the link in Arabic & English.

PS., Regarding Lothair non-Arabic words in the Quran, here is the link in Arabic & English.

You see I missed that part in your last post.
Anyway, what is the point ? Of course there are some non-arabic words - Injeel (Gospel) and Iblees (Lucifer) being 2 of them. So is Ibreeq.
What is the point exactly ?

Did you know that Arabic words fall into 1 of 19 awzan (ryhtms) for 3,4, 5 and 6 words roots. And that if a word does not confirm to those 19 rythms it is NOT Arabic ? Hence if you gave me a word which I had never heard of before I could tell you if it was Arabic or Arabized simply by checking its Wazn.
However, theres no reason for it anyway because there is no problem with non-Arabic words in the Qur’aan as some would like you to believe.

 

[Moayidd]

I suppose I would like to consider myself a “normal” Christian so I’ll throw my 2 cents in. What I “see” is an extremely arrogant person vigorously trying to defend the Quran.

The biggest blunder in the Quran - whether in Arabic, English or any other language is the denial of the Crucifixion and Divinity of Christ. Simple as that. Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. He has appeared to saints (i.e. St. Faustina Kowalska and St. Padre Pio) and His mother has appeared (i.e. Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe) in effect confirming His Divinity. You obviously don’t have to believe it, but that’s your prerogative.

P.S. Since the Crucifixion is not the topic of this thread, you may feel free to add your comments to this one: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=369553

Also, to everyone, sorry about the wide screen issue - I don’t know how to shrink mine down. I know it’s very irritating when the posts are so wide.

I am not arrogant even if I appear to be. I am just confident and thats not because of my skills its because the Qur’aan gives me the confidence - it being from God.

Now concerning the blunder being whether Jesus died on teh cross or not then thats a matter of faith and not an argument. However if you really must get into this then you have one ‘Gospel’ saying Jesus carried the Cross and the other saying Simon did so even your own literature isn’t too accurate on this issue. You also have one Gospel stating a different number of hours than the other for the duration of being crucified.

The Qur’aan says he was raised (alive) and that it wasn’t Jesus on the cross. This fact seems to be supported by the fact that Simon carried the Cross in one Gospel so maybe Simon was the person on the Cross not Jesus.
Anyway, I am not here to attack Christianity so I won’t get into this.

 

[Jay53]

I am not arrogant even if I appear to be. I am just confident and thats not because of my skills its because the Qur’aan gives me the confidence - it being from God.

OK. That’s the way you come across. I am equally confident that Jesus is God and that the Quran is definitely not from God.

Now concerning the blunder being whether Jesus died on teh cross or not then thats a matter of faith and not an argument. However if you really must get into this then you have one ‘Gospel’ saying Jesus carried the Cross and the other saying Simon did so even your own literature isn’t too accurate on this issue. You also have one Gospel stating a different number of hours than the other for the duration of being crucified.

To me it doesn’t matter if it’s a matter of faith or not. The Quran is flat out wrong and I would consider that a blunder - that’s what you asked for.

As for Simon and Jesus carrying the cross. They both did. Jesus was so weak that along the Way He couldn’t carry it by himself anymore and so Simon was recruited to help. I don’t see any issue with that. For more information, please see here: catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11051

The Qur’aan says he was raised (alive) and that it wasn’t Jesus on the cross. This fact seems to be supported by the fact that Simon carried the Cross in one Gospel so maybe Simon was the person on the Cross not Jesus.
Anyway, I am not here to attack Christianity so I won’t get into this.

Muhammad and/or Satan is the one who pushed the idea that Jesus was not crucified. Again, please see this thread for further discussion. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=369553

I’ve also heard Muslims speculate that it was Judas or it was some unknown person just made to look like Jesus. Either way, Muslims would then have to believe that God deliberately deceived Jesus’ apostles (including St. Peter who was the first Pope, St. John who was at the foot of the Cross and saw Jesus and Blessed Mother, Jesus’ own mother) into believing that He was crucified and rose from the dead so that they would then falsely teach Jesus’ Divinity to all the nations. Incidentally, when Jesus or Blessed Mother appeared/appear to anyone, there is no denial of Jesus’ Divinity nor any correction of the belief in His Death and Resurrection. Furthermore, St. Padre Pio (among other saints) had the stigmata, meaning he bore the wounds of Christ which further lends creedence to the fact that it was Jesus on the Cross. ewtn.com/padrepio/mystic/stigmata.htm

 

[Lothair]

You see I missed that part in your last post. Anyway, what is the point ? Of course there are some non-arabic words - Injeel (Gospel) and Iblees (Lucifer) being 2 of them. So is Ibreeq. What is the point exactly ?

Here’s the point. You have asked me to find ‘one error in the Arabic Quran’ when no such Quran exists. Secondly, and more importantly, Islamic apologists have been saying for centuries that the Quran was written by Allah, and in heaven long before Muhamamd ever recited it to the Meccans. If that is the case, then Allah needed some help with his vocabulary and borrowed from languages his ‘prophet’ had access to in the Hijaz! It looks a little convenient.

If anyone is interested in the foreign vocabulary in the Quran, here is a good source that is not appreciated by the Muslims.

 

[Moayidd]

Jay53:

As for Simon and Jesus carrying the cross. They both did. Jesus was so weak that along the Way He couldn’t carry it by himself anymore and so Simon was recruited to help. I don’t see any issue with that. For more information, please see here: catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11051

Well your only stating what you believe and thats not grounds for an argument.
As for Simon carrying the cross because Jesus was too weak I doubt that romans cared how weak a person they were going to execute was. If they had any compassion they wouldn’t crucify people in the first place. In fact if a person was wak and suffering from carrying the cross I believe that would have made them happier.
But as I said, stating what you believe does not make for an argument.

 

[Moayidd]

Here’s the point. You have asked me to find ‘one error in the Arabic Quran’ when no such Quran exists. Secondly, and more importantly, Islamic apologists have been saying for centuries that the Quran was written by Allah, and in heaven long before Muhamamd ever recited it to the Meccans. If that is the case, then Allah needed some help with his vocabulary and borrowed from languages his ‘prophet’ had access to in the Hijaz! It looks a little convenient.

Is that really your argument ? So you cannot find Errors in the Arabic Qur’aan because an Arabic Qur’aan doesn’t exit. I don’t know what to say here that wouldn’t be insulting to you. This is far beyond any comment I can make really.
No offence Lothair but how old are you ?

Islamic ‘apologists’ haven’t been saying that the Qur’aan was ‘written’ by Allah. I think you mean it comes from Allah. Allah doesn’t write.I think I understand your point if we can call it that. You mean why did Allah author a book in a language which used words from another language. The very simple and extremely obvious answer is he knew Arabs would be using these non Arabic words when the Qur’aan was revealed.

I will have to simplify the above a bit I think. By the time the Qur’aan was about revealed, Arabs used a few non-Arabic words. Allah knew about that in advance hence these words words were used. You argument and Sams is of a level rather less than I was expecting.

Now let me ask you a question. Did you know that Aramaic and Hebrew probably have their origins in Arabic not the other way round. We aren’t speaking of a few words here we are speaking of an entire language being sourced by another. Now answer this issue in light what you yourself stated above. Although its really a meaningless issue anyway.
Also, your entire NT is in a language other than the one Jesus spoke. Jesus spoke Aramaic but the alleged Gospels are in Latin and Greek. Didn’t God (Acording to you) know that in advance too ?
Lothair - am i wasting my time here ?

If anyone is interested in the foreign vocabulary in the Quran, here is a good source that is not appreciated by the Muslims.

So what ? I stated a few off the top of my head. We know there are a few non-Arabic words in the Qur’aan who ever said there wasn’t. Most of Aramaic and Hebrew (of the OT) are Arabic words.
I have a lot to say here but its really irrelevant.

 

[Lothair]

Is that really your argument ? So you cannot find Errors in the Arabic Qur’aan because an Arabic Qur’aan doesn’t exit. I don’t know what to say here that wouldn’t be insulting to you. This is far beyond any comment I can make really.

Your subtelty is appciated, but unnessessary. The Arabic Quran doesn’t exist, but I am willing to discuss the one you have.

Islamic ‘apologists’ haven’t been saying that the Qur’aan was ‘written’ by Allah. I think you mean it comes from Allah. Allah doesn’t write.I think I understand your point if we can call it that. You mean why did Allah author a book in a language which used words from another language. The very simple and extremely obvious answer is he knew Arabs would be using these non Arabic words when the Qur’aan was revealed.

The Quran predates the creation even of people, so we must assume that it was Arabic. When the Quan finally gets into hte hands of Muhammad, the pure Arabic had been corrupted so badly that the ‘prophet’ needed more than a dozen languages to recite his god’s teachings? Like I said, this Quran seems to be the product of Hijazi poetry, not divine revelation.

I will have to simplify the above a bit I think. By the time the Qur’aan was about revealed, Arabs used a few non-Arabic words. Allah knew about that in advance hence these words words were used. You argument and Sams is of a level rather less than I was expecting.

My argument has been answered by a school boy with aging books. The Quran is said to have been created long before the life of Muhammad, so there is no good reason to have foreign words in the pages, unless it is a product of its environment.

Now let me ask you a question. Did you know that Aramaic and Hebrew probably have their origins in Arabic not the other way round

.

Arabic predates Aramaic? Stop it. You have embarrassed yourself a few times, but this looks bad.

Also, your entire NT is in a language other than the one Jesus spoke. Jesus spoke Aramaic but the alleged Gospels are in Latin and Greek. Didn’t God (Acording to you) know that in advance too ?

We aren’t the ones claiming direct revelation, you are. That sets your book in a whole differerent light of textual and literary criticism.

Lothair - am i wasting my time here ?

Only if you think you have a chance at even scoring a point against me.

So what ? I stated a few off the top of my head. We know there are a few non-Arabic words in the Qur’aan who ever said there wasn’t. Most of Aramaic and Hebrew (of the OT) are Arabic words. I have a lot to say here but its really irrelevant

.

Those words make it erroneous to call your book an ‘Arabic Quran’. It is not true that ‘Hebrew and Armaic words are Arabic’. You are hereby a fool if you think that Arabic was spoken in the 1st mellenium BC.

 

[Jay53]

Well your only stating what you believe and thats not grounds for an argument.
As for Simon carrying the cross because Jesus was too weak I doubt that romans cared how weak a person they were going to execute was. If they had any compassion they wouldn’t crucify people in the first place. In fact if a person was wak and suffering from carrying the cross I believe that would have made them happier.
But as I said, stating what you believe does not make for an argument.

No, I am stating what the apostles and others witnessed as recorded in the Gospels (and I’m sure other Early Church Father’s writings). You obviously didn’t read any of the link or you would have seen that Jesus fell 3 times while carrying the cross. The Romans weren’t being compassionate in having Simon help Jesus - they were being expedient because if they hadn’t had someone help Jesus carry the cross He would have stayed where he had fallen and wouldn’t have even made it to Calvary.

According to you/Islam, where did Jesus go in this weakened state while Simon was crucified instead and how did He get there? Why did He let another be crucified in His stead when He had already predicted to His disciples that He would die and rise from the dead?
(Mark 8:31-32; Mark 9:30-31; Matthew 20:17-19; Mark 10:33-34; Luke 18:31-33)

 

[Lothair]

Whenever I see slander to my person or other I see frustration and Anger.

I was speaking of your ‘infantile methods’ not your person. Nice try playing the victim.

I see, so The romans will return and be victorious in a ‘a more suitable part’ of Earth ? This actaully makes sense to you ?

They came back and won didn’t they? I guess it was more suitable for Roman war tactics.

Also, just to set things straight - concerning 4.3 Adna here doesn’t mean ‘more suitable’. It means this would be LOWER probability than you not being fair. This is Arabic not English.

Here we go again. Unless I am an Arab Muslim I can’t possibly understand intermediate Arabic. Then the same thing goes for english, Greek, etc. Yawn.

Yusuf Ali translates meanings not words so do other translators. But if you want a real analysis you have to go to the actual raw meanings of the words in Arabic.

I have ten different translations, and they are agree with me. I do not rely only on Ali. The word ‘adna’ came to mean the english word ‘lowest’ so that you Muslims can claim that there is scientific revelation in your book.

In 4.3 Adna means** Lower** not more suitable. Take this to an Arabic professor. Doon (not Dooni by the way) means low or below (even excepting, other than), Adna means lower/lowest from the same Stem word.

In 4:3, the writers of the Quran are discussing the best way to stay on the right path. Particular marraiges are 'more suitable than others so that justice towards women and orphans will be ‘more likely’. Even if I were to grant you ‘lower’, it wouldn’t mean ‘lowest’ except in the mind on an Islamic apologist

The words Adna and Doon both exist in this verse but nerither is translated by Yusuf Ali. There isn’t one mention of them. Do you see what I mean now.
The verse literally says:
32.1 And verily we will make them taste of the Lowest torment before making them taste the big (biggest) torment per chance they revert (to the correct ways).
(the correct ways) is an example of missing Identity which i explained in the grammatical section above.
So here we have Adna (meaning Lowest) and Doon (meaning lower than or before) and BOTH are not referenced once in the English translation.
Is my point clearer to you now ? You cannot go by translation if you are looking for Errors OR if you are looking for deeper knowledge.

Adna and Doon are both translated in the editions I have. Adna describes the ‘lower’ punishment and ‘Doon’ describies, in time/sequence, the greater punishment. Here I have you dead to rights. If Adna means ‘lowest’ then Hell isn’t lower than that. Regardless of your twisted exegesis you can’t have the punishments of this life as the ‘lowest’ while demanding that hell is ‘lower still’. Yet another setback for the Muslims.

You are missing the point here. There would be an infinite number of ‘points’ (not cities) that are closer. Try to think outside the box. We are not discussing villages or cities. The Verse is discussing a point on earth even if its in the middle of a barren desert. IT doesn’t say ‘the closest or lowest City’ it says In the lowest part of Earth.

As I stated in another post, the writers of the Quran were talking about two particular points. One, where a defeat occured, two, where a later victory would take place, in a ‘land nearby’. I do not need to ‘think outside the box’, thank you. I’ll stick to rules of syntax and gramamr. Next, the verse isn’t alluding to some point in a ‘barren dessert’. It is refering to Jerusalem and Cstiphion. It does not say, ‘the lowest part of the earth’, it says, ‘in a nearby land’. And the compilers of the Quran had no idea where the battles took place.

I have answered the same issue above concerning 3:21. I hope it has finally sunk in

.

It sunk in alright.

Translations are inherently error prone. I Could give you al ive example if you want from my own effort to translate the Qur’aan

.

Quranic Arabic is inherently error prone, but so is Old Latin, Greek, etc. Keep your translational examples, please. As bad as your exegesis is, your translation would be horrible!

Near Allah ? Are you serious here ? Did you seriously think Doon here referred to altitude concerning Allah ? Doon means Low (one of the meanings). If I said The sea is Lower than the Alps - implying Altitude. Then I said your action was really Low. Would this mean that Your action was low in Altitude ??.
Low is Low and should be taken in context.

Context does matter, which you seem to have forgotten in our exchanges. Low is relative to a fixed point above it. If you said my ‘actions are low’ you would be refering to some failure to live ‘up to’ some ethical norm. Either way, height is implied. Getting back to Q 30:2-5, it looks like I have established that your translation of ‘adna’ and ‘doon’ have mortal errors. In an earlier post I gave my evidence.

The verse says 'min dooni All[a]hi ’ ‘From Below Allah’ meaning ‘Lower than Allah’ because Naturally everything is Lower than Allah. I hope this doesn’t need more explanation.

Agreed, everything is below God, But the verse doesn’t allow for a reading that the point below is the ‘lowest point’, now does it? So, when we exegete ‘adna’ and even ‘doon’ and apply basic principles of grammar to Q. 30:2-5, we see that the verse can in no way be taken to mean ‘the lowest point on the earth’.

 

[planten]

The initial verses of Alquran Chapter 30, Al-Rum describe the love of the Muslims for the Roman Catholics in years 0618 A.D. against the pagans love for the Pagan persians.

 

[Lothair]

The initial verses of Alquran Chapter 30, Al-Rum describe the love of the Muslims for the Roman Catholics in years 0618 A.D. against the pagans love for the Pagan persians.

While we Catholics are thankful for these first verses of the chapter al-Rum, it seems that your prophet was unaware that we were Trinitarians when he expressed his desire to see the Romans win the war.

 

[dzheremi]

Now let me ask you a question. Did you know that Aramaic and Hebrew probably have their origins in Arabic not the other way round.

Hi. I’m a linguist, and you are full of bologna. This is flat out FALSE. No Semiticist or even general Theoretical Linguist (like me) would ever make such a claim, since it flies in the face of the evidence that we have regarding the linguistic history of the Near East. You don’t really even need to dig deeply into academic literature to find this. You can buy a copy of the “Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics” for ~$10 and read there the short descriptions of Arabic and Aramaic. Aramaic is many centuries older than Arabic.

We aren’t speaking of a few words here we are speaking of an entire language being sourced by another.

Yes, you are right, there are a great many words in Arabic that are derived from the Aramaic of the people the Arabs conquered as they Islamicized the lands to the east of them.

Now answer this issue in light what you yourself stated above. Although its really a meaningless issue anyway.

If it is so meaningless, why are you continuing on with your false arguments?

Also, your entire NT is in a language other than the one Jesus spoke. Jesus spoke Aramaic but the alleged Gospels are in Latin and Greek. Didn’t God (Acording to you) know that in advance too ?

What does this matter? The idea that the Bible must be written in Jesus’ language in order to be valid is an exclusively Islamic idea. For the life of me, I don’t understand what it is supposed to prove. Jesus was not given a book. Jesus is not some sort of proto-Muhammad. Islamic epistemology cannot be grafted onto Christian history or hermeneutics AT ALL. It is inherently flawed and completely unsuitable for the job.

Lothair - am i wasting my time here ?

Maybe you could try lying a little bit less…?

Most of Aramaic and Hebrew (of the OT) are Arabic words.

This really must be news not only to every linguist, but also to the Assyrians/Aramaeans/Syriacs who spoke their native language for centuries before there was ever any such thing that could be properly called “Arabic”.

Also, if what you write is true, then how can you explain the following: The distribution of Aramaic never extended as far north as the Arabian Peninsula. It was mainly concentrated in what is today still considered the Assyrian homeland: Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria (as well as Lebanon and what is now Israel, though Aramaic has not been spoken as a native language in those places for quite a while now, while it is still spoken in the other countries listed). So how can it be that these people are speaking Arabic? Arabic was NOT a language that would have been at all influential outside of the Arabian Peninsula prior to the Islamic conquests. I think you are confusing the concept of genetically-related languages (which Arabic, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, and Hebrew are) with some sort of weird Arab supremacist attitude that has no place in serious discussions about language. At least not when I’m here. And now that I’ve seen the kind of garbage you’re trying to pass off as fact or a solid basis for argumentation, you can bet that I will be watching this thread pretty closely.

I have a lot to say here but its really irrelevant.

Finally, some truth!

 

[Seeker]

**Exactly, PeterKeys, that is what I understood after reading the very first post. Who claimed it as a miracle of Quran? No one. These things are metaphorical, symbolic. Not to be taken literally. It only means that man cannot serve two masters.

If Sam wants to see the miracle of Quran then he/she should read the chapter 112 of Quran which goes as follows:

1. In the name of allah, the Beneficient, The Merciful.
2. Say, That is Allah (God), is One.
3. He is clear (free) of any need.
4. He did not not beget.
5. And He was not begotten.
6. And there is none in all things equal to Him**.

I hope the matter is understood.

Planten,
what’s the Miracle of Sura 112, I don’t get it??..see my comments on each aya of sura 112

1. Say, That is Allah (God), is One.
   Comment:
   Yeah we as Christians believe that too, we know God is ONE Infinite Being
2. He is clear (free) of any need
   Comment:
   Yes we beleive that too, God doesn’t need anything or is in-need of anything, but we beleive he is a loving and personal being, and does seek to have a relationship with us. If you say No, then why did he establish the Salah, and make it mandatory for every muslim to do. In other words, why does Allah need/require for muslims to pray 5 times a day, because technically “He is clear (free) of any need”, so really Allah doesn’t “need” for us to worship him, correct?

3.He did not not beget
Comment:
If Allah did not beget, how did he create this world, and everything around us and beyond us?. Please Keep in mind, I am in NO WAY implying or stating that I or any Christian for that matter beleives that Allah “begets” like a father “begets” a son by having a sexual relastionship, but He “begets” in the sense, because He “creates”, “produces”, “causes” things into existence through his Word, correct?

1. And He was not begotten
   Comment:
   Agreed!, The Infinite Being we call God, Allah does not have a begining or end, therefore the Infinite Being is not and cannot be begotten!
2. And there is none in all things equal to Him
   Comment:
   Agreed!

Again, where is the Miracle??. it’s more of a statement of belief!

Thanks

Seeker