Who wrote the Koran

[Zooey]

Any one can write a book.

True…even Muhammad could write a book.:yup:

What does this mean? We should beleive every book a man or woman writes?

Nope! That’s why I:nope: don’t believe one word of the Quran. Not one**. It’shttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif just another book byhttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif just another man as far as I’m concerned.
Buthttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif hey! That’s just me.

 

[Montalban]

All translation is commentary. Especially here.

And we can look at different translations; especially helpful when given in parallel

051.049
YUSUFALI: And of every thing We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction.
PICKTHAL: And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect.
SHAKIR: And of everything We have created pairs that you may be mindful.

051.050
YUSUFALI: Hasten ye then (at once) to Allah: I am from Him a Warner to you, clear and open!
PICKTHAL: Therefore flee unto Allah; lo! I am a plain warner unto you from him.
SHAKIR: Therefore fly to Allah, surely I am a plain warner to you from Him.
usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/051.qmt.html

According to our Moslem apologists…
In the first verse the first person “We” refers to Allah. In the second verse the first person “I” refers to Muhammad.

Without pause the ‘person’ doesn’t change. But according to him the meaning does. And he’s still left with a singular being calling itself “we” by the first person plural.

Further his excuse is that Muhammad was, in 51.50 ordered “Say unto them this…” is rather silly given that they already have the notion that Muhammad is given this instruction for the whole Koran. To put it another way… Moslems believe that Muhammad was ordered to recite the Koran. It’s implied that there’s the instruction “Say unto them…”
The Koran would thus read
"(Say unto them…(implied for all the Koran))
"And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect. Therefore flee unto Allah; lo! (say unto them…) I am a plain warner unto you from him. “”

It makes for a redundancy. You don’t say “Say unto them… Say unto them…”.

 

[Valke2]

And we can look at different translations; especially helpful when given in parallel

051.049
YUSUFALI: And of every thing We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction.
PICKTHAL: And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect.
SHAKIR: And of everything We have created pairs that you may be mindful.

051.050
YUSUFALI: Hasten ye then (at once) to Allah: I am from Him a Warner to you, clear and open!
PICKTHAL: Therefore flee unto Allah; lo! I am a plain warner unto you from him.
SHAKIR: Therefore fly to Allah, surely I am a plain warner to you from Him.
usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/051.qmt.html

According to our Moslem apologists…
In the first verse the first person “We” refers to Allah. In the second verse the first person “I” refers to Muhammad.

Without pause the ‘person’ doesn’t change. But according to him the meaning does. And he’s still left with a singular being calling itself “we” by the first person plural.

Further his excuse is that Muhammad was, in 51.50 ordered “Say unto them this…” is rather silly given that they already have the notion that Muhammad is given this instruction for the whole Koran. To put it another way… Moslems believe that Muhammad was ordered to recite the Koran. It’s implied that there’s the instruction “Say unto them…”
The Koran would thus read
"(Say unto them…(implied for all the Koran))
"And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect. Therefore flee unto Allah; lo! (say unto them…) I am a plain warner unto you from him. “”

It makes for a redundancy. You don’t say “Say unto them… Say unto them…”.

Perhaps the redundancy is intentional, given the subject matter of pairs. I’m no expert in arabic. Every religious text has its issues.

 

[Montalban]

Perhaps the redundancy is intentional, given the subject matter of pairs. I’m no expert in Arabic. Every religious text has its issues.

Show me where I quoted the Arabic! It’s not in Arabic; what I just quoted! It is in English. Several experts have read the Arabic and have determined that the ‘best English’ is and rendered it into that. I am looking at the way that they have chosen to best represent in English what it means in Arabic. For you; they’ve failed to do this.

I can see a possibility of redundancy for poetic reasons but Al-lah would then be made to swear by things less than he, and to pray to himself* as in the very first verse I cited.

But true to form you’re giving non-argument by suggesting that there just must be an answer out there somewhere. And if I press you to show me what it is you’ll not do so. Instead you’ll say “Go ask a Moslem” as you’ve done the last two times.

*This being different from Jesus saying the “Our Father” because our notion of God is different from theirs

 

[inJESUS]

I think you are tired. Go to sleep bro.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Hello

The answer for your question is teh following

God Authored the Quran
Muhammed recited it to the people
scribes wrote the Quran

thanks

Meedo,

You have answered the question asked. Thank you. I may not agree with your first assertion though I can’t prove my point you have clearly told us who wrote the Qur’an. I don’t know why anyone would argue with that.

CDL

 

[inJESUS]

the English translation is correct. Allah was speaking then abruptly Muhammad completed what Allah was supposedly saying.

 

[Magicsilence]

It is worth noting that Arabic to English translation does not always convey the meaning exactly very well.

I think that to truly discredit the Quran on a linguistic basis, one would need a very solid command of Arabic.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[inJESUS]

am no Arabic scholar but it’s my mother tongue and the English translation is correct…the language is not a problem in this case.

 

[Montalban]

It is worth noting that Arabic to English translation does not always convey the meaning exactly very well.

I think that to truly discredit the Quran on a linguistic basis, one would need a very solid command of Arabic.

Making Arabic the only language that has this problem.

And note, I can cite side-by-side three parallel translations of the same verses; thus even further negating the chance of error, of this strangest of language that no one can properly translate to or from.

 

[Montalban]

the English translation is correct. Allah was speaking then abruptly Muhammad completed what Allah was supposedly saying.

Exactly! Muhammad injects himself into the words.

 

[Valke2]

Show me where I quoted the Arabic! It’s not in Arabic; what I just quoted! It is in English. Several experts have read the Arabic and have determined that the ‘best English’ is and rendered it into that. I am looking at the way that they have chosen to best represent in English what it means in Arabic. For you; they’ve failed to do this.

I can see a possibility of redundancy for poetic reasons but Al-lah would then be made to swear by things less than he, and to pray to himself* as in the very first verse I cited.

But true to form you’re giving non-argument by suggesting that there just must be an answer out there somewhere. And if I press you to show me what it is you’ll not do so. Instead you’ll say “Go ask a Moslem” as you’ve done the last two times.

*This being different from Jesus saying the “Our Father” because our notion of God is different from theirs

I just made a suggestion. I didn’t mean to get you upset. And why didn’t you go ask a muslim? I didn’t say you quoted the arabic. You yourself admit you are relying on a translation.

 

[Montalban]

I just made a suggestion.

Which I responded to. I explained that your ‘you’re just relying on a translation’ is an attempt at falsely undermining my argument; the fact that I’ve relied on SEVERAL translations.

I didn’t mean to get you upset.

I’m not upset. If my post seems angry to you, then perhaps you’re overly sensitive

And why didn’t you go ask a muslim?

Muslims have responded. But that’s now the third time you’ve waded into a debate with me, made a ‘suggestion’ (read: assertion) and when I ask YOU to prove your assertion you say go ask someone else. If you can’t back up what you claim, do you keep making such claims?

I didn’t say you quoted the arabic.

But you were critical of the point of what it says in Arabic; and excusing yourself as no expert in Arabic. Which is pointless to discuss since neither of us are dealing with Arabic

You yourself admit you are relying on a translation.

Indeed, I’ve pointed out I’m relying on three.

Your point is to come in here muddy the issue about what it really means in Arabic - which neither of us are relying on.

You make claims and when I ask you to back them up you suggest I go ask someone else.

I indeed am relying on several translations, and as I’ve pointed out you must think that none of them can convey the original intent from Arabic into English.

Does this sound angry to you too? Apologies in advance if you’re that upset by someone responding to you.

 

[Valke2]

Muslims have responded. But that’s now the third time you’ve waded into a debate with me, made a ‘suggestion’ (read: assertion) and when I ask YOU to prove your assertion you say go ask someone else. If you can’t back up what you claim, do you keep making such claims?

You didn’t ask me to prove my assertion. You just stated why you believed I was wrong. I’m not trying to prove anything. I made a suggestion. If you read it as an assertion, then we must have a communication problem.

But you were critical of the point of what it says in Arabic; and excusing yourself as no expert in Arabic. Which is pointless to discuss since neither of us are dealing with Arabic

I was? I thought I was just giving a possible answer to your question.

Your point is to come in here muddy the issue about what it really means in Arabic - which neither of us are relying on.
You make claims and when I ask you to back them up you suggest I go ask someone else.

If you are referring to a different thread, you really need to let that go and move on with your life. I had said that someone had posted something ( i don’t recall what the issue was) but that I didn’t remember which thread it was on.

I indeed am relying on several translations, and as I’ve pointed out you must think that none of them can convey the original intent from Arabic into English.

That must be it.

 

[Valke2]

your issue was so “muddied” before I posted, I’m still not sure what you are trying to say.

 

[Valke2]

Further his excuse is that Muhammad was, in 51.50 ordered “Say unto them this…” is rather silly given that they already have the notion that Muhammad is given this instruction for the whole Koran. To put it another way… Moslems believe that Muhammad was ordered to recite the Koran. It’s implied that there’s the instruction “Say unto them…”

So what? The same goes for Torah. Moses is told to tell the people of Israel. But there are at least one instance (I"m sure more) where God tells Moses “say to the people.”

 

[inJESUS]

Valke2 and Montalban, relax

Valke2, Allah was speaking then suddenly out of nowhere Muhammad completes Allah’s sentence…that’s the whole point…i don’t know how Muslims can interpret this sudden shift, but if you read it by yourself, you’ll realize smth is wrong.

 

[Valke2]

Valke2 and Montalban, relax

Valke2, Allah was speaking then suddenly out of nowhere Muhammad completes Allah’s sentence…that’s the whole point…i don’t know how Muslims can interpret this sudden shift, but if you read it by yourself, you’ll realize smth is wrong.

Who is smith? And what is the significance of the shift in voice?

 

[inJESUS]

Who is smith?

LOL sorry smth is my abbreviation to “something”

And what is the significance of the shift in voice?

 

[inJESUS]

Here again:

PICKTHAL: And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect.

051.050
YUSUFALI: Hasten ye then (at once) to Allah: I am from Him a Warner to you, clear and open!

in Arabic, 49 and 50 are linked by “then”, which means Allah is supposed to be speaking yet it was Muhammad.