Re: [R_Catholic-L] The Holy Quran

To: r_catholic-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Fadi <uicraptor2002@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: r_catholic-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Fadi-. As I explained in our previous debates I have proven that
God sends each group of people he sends a prophet with a special
miracle. Recall I said the Egyptians were into magic so Moses PBUH
came with the ability to do magical miracles such as turning a staff
into a snake. Even then the Egyptians doubted that he was a Prophet
from God. The same way you said eloquence is not a sign of God they
said magic is not a sign of God.

Moses wasn't trying to convert the Egyptians; God sent him to the Hebrews. And
the central work of Moses was to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, have them make
a covenant with God at Sinai, and bring them to their new home in Israel. All
the miracles that Moses performed worked to that end. What the Egyptians
thought of it all was not of great importance.




The people of Jesus PBUH were into miracles such as healing.
People were healing people by praying to false idols and what
not. So God sent them a Prophet that could heal.

I may, possibly, have misled you by mentioning the miracles of healing in the
Gospels and no others. But as with Moses, you have the wrong idea about Christ
-- several wrong ideas, in fact.

1) Christ was not sent to any single nation, but to all the world, as is shown
by (for instance) the miracle of Pentecost, where the Spirit of God so inspired
the apostles that all who heard them speak, heard what they said in the
hearers' native languages. (That's a contrast, by the way, with the Muslim idea
that the message of Muhammad cannot be fully conveyed in languages other than
Arabic...)

2) The "people of Jesus" were not "into" miracles of healing. The nation Christ
belonged to, Judaea, despised idolatry and would never have considered praying
to idols for cures, or for any other reason. And the Roman Empire, at that
period, was deeply skeptical and rationalist; religion among Romans had been
reduced to mere traditional observances. Nobody in that age was eagerly
awaiting news of miraculous cures; and examples of such cures, outside the
Gospels, are hard to find.

3) The central work of Christ was Atonement for the sins of the world. He was
not primarily a prophet, although He did prophesy; it was the Apostles, not
their Master, who were sent as messengers to the nations.

What qualifies a divine inspiration as a divine inspiration is when
God says it is a divine inspiration which He does when He speaks
of the Quran. Remember not only does Muhammad PBUH say
that the Quran is a divine inspiration but God only said it is and
that is what makes it a divine inspiration.

Alas, not even _that_ works as evidence. Nothing is easier than to add "thus
says the Lord" to anything one chooses to write.



Fadi-Did I read you properly did you say that what the Egyptians thought of the
works of Moses PBUH was not important? So God doesnt care if His creatures
believe in Him or not? Anyways I never said Moses PBUH was sent to the
Egyptians. However, Moses was sent to free the slaves by any means neccessary.
God in his infinite wisdom chose to communicate with His creatures with
reason. He saw they were obviously impressed with magical miracles so to speak
be they the work of the devil or cheap parlor tricks. So He basically said if
you are impressed with these small miracles witness these Divine Miracles of
the one true God. We do not question how God communicates with his creatures.
For the slaves to be freed Moses had to prove that God existed did he not? So
it was essential what they thought of his miracles. Moses like any other
messanger was sent to a group of people but it doesnt mean his message was not
meant to be spread out for all mankind. So youre wrong Moses sent for
all of mankind. Did Jesus PBUH communicate himself by mouth to every single
region. In fact "I believe he said I have not come but for the lost sheep of
Israel." So he came to communicate with the Jews but his message in essence
was for everybody like all other Prophets. I did not need a history lesson on
the Catholic view of Christ. My argument is simple and is a direct parallel of
your argument which is that eloquence alone is no proof of divinity and you
cited Hitler as your example. I assume you view the healing ability of Jesus
PBUH as a miracle. In retrospect I tell you they healed at the time of Jesus
PBUH and they heal today and my example is Benny Hinn. Miraculous healing is
not evidence of divine inspiration. Turning a staff into a snake is not
evidence of divine inspiration. Splitting the red sea is not evidence of
divine inspiration. Any of the above could have been done by the work of the
devil or simple parlor tricks. What makes a miracle a divne
inspiration be it eloquence or a big fire ball from the sky is that God says
its from Him. And being a theist you shouldnt indulge yourself in making a
silly remark such as "Alas, not even _that_ works as evidence. Nothing is
easier than
to add "thus says the Lord" to anything one chooses to write." Heck catholics
are synonymous for saying we believe this because the church said so , so dont
preach to me. I repeat a divine inspiration can come in any form be it
eloquence of words or a big fireball from the sky.

Fadi-The challenge from the QUran isnt to produce a whole book like
it. People cannot even produce a line of it. Every word in the
Quran is the best word in the arabic language and it is properly
used in every instance. That cannot be said of any of the other
classical authors or modern authors.

According to Ali Dashti it can't be said of the Koran either. From Sean Brooks'
post "The Koran and Other Topics":

"The Iranian Shiite scholar Ali Dashti contends however, that the Qur'an
contains numerous grammatical irregularities. He notes that "The Qur'an
contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the
aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used
with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without
observance of the concord of gender and number; illogical and ungrammatically
applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in
rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects" [Dashti, TWENTY THREE
YEARS: A STUDY OF THE PROPHETIC CAREER OF MUHAMMAD. London: George Allen &
Unwin, 1985]."

["Hardly any language seems capable of exercising over the minds of its users
such irresistible influence as Arabic."]


Fadi-First of all I already proven that Dashti wasnt an Iranian sheite scholar.
If you actually read the quote of Norman Geisler he says that not even all
muslim scholars are in agreeances ya da ya da. He cites one man and hes not
even a Muslim let alone a sheite scholar. Whats funnier is that Dashti doesnt
speak arabic nor read or write arabic. Why are you lowering yourself to citing
men that have no knowledge of the arabic language. Furthermore, EVERY text,
and indeed every thing the human experiences, needs interpretation. Its what
the human does..interpret meaning. With one sentence, Dashti throws himself to
the winds of irrelevance. Indeed,it is in interpretation that one discovers the
infinite intelligibility and sublime eloquence so strongly attested to by
libraries of Muslim literature--- literature that is just so easily ignored, it
would seem, by Dashti, in favor of a fascination with the non-Muslim literature
which he seems to simply swallow whole. What Dashti.. in a way indicative of a
banal lack of imagination..doesn't recognize is that the Qur'an is a *new* and
*unique* form of language use.


E. H. Palmer, as early as 1880, recognized the unique style of the Qur'ân. He
writes in the Introduction to his translation of the Qur'ân, that

....the best of Arab writers has never succeeded in producing anything equal in
merit to the Qur'ân itself is not surprising. In the first place, they have
agreed before-hand that it is unapproachable, and they have adopted its style
as the perfect standard; any deviation from it therefore must of necessity be a
defect. Again, with them this style is not spontaneous as with Muhammad and his
contemporaries, but is as artificial as though Englishmen should still continue
to follow Chaucer as their model, in spite of the changes which their language
has undergone. With the Prophet, the style was natural, and the words were
those in every-day ordinary life, while with the later Arabic authors the style
is imitative and the ancient words are introduced as a literary embellishment.
The natural consequence is that their attempts look laboured and unreal by the
side of his impromptu and forcible eloquence.[6] [6] E. H. Palmer (Tr.), The
Qur'ân, 1900, Part I, Oxford at Clarendon Press, pp. lv.


I can say only that you have given no evidence that this is true, and the
citations you _have_ given prove, if anything, the opposite.

Fadi-Once again I will prove to you that the arabs were a proud arrogant group
who were masters of the language. Qasim Iqbal, Jason Hannan & M S M Saifullah
note that "
"One such issue regards the question of pre-Islamic poetry in the Arabian
Peninsula. The pagan Arabs of the pre-Islamic period were a proud and boastful
people who were characterized by epic tales, heart-rending poetry, and eloquent
prose. Indeed, their literary excellence had intoxicated them with glaring
arrogance and self-worship. And then, with the revelation of Prophet
Muhammad(P) , the Arabs had found a contest for their genius - The Holy Qur'ân.
Suddenly, their pride had been undermined by something even greater than
anything they could have ever dreamed of, a book that had never been matched in
beauty, wisdom, and structure, and which has remained unchallenged right to the
present day. For the Arabs, the question must have found it's time; can a more
powerful book exist other than the one whose pen belongs to the Almighty
himself?"

Also another quote

The poetry of Arabs, in the ages which preceded the rise of Islamism, was
perpetuated by oral tradition; for in ancient times, when writing was not used
or scarcely used, memory was exercised and strengthened to a degree now almost
unknown. In those countries of Arabia where Arabian poetry may be justly
considered to have had its origin or to have attained its earliest growth,
there lived reciters, or Râwis, as the Arabs called them, who got by heart
numerous songs of their poets, and recited them, occasionally, in public
assemblies and private parties... This impression, in essence, has been shared
by a great majority of medieval and modern scholars who have dealt to any
degree with Arabic poetry.17

[17] Michael Zwettler, The Oral Tradition Of Classical Arabic Poetry: Its
Character & Implications, Ibid., p. 14.

Fadi-I shall oblige you with more quotes if neccessary but this is a mute point
scholars agree the arabs were cocky and knew their poetry.



Adios Muchacho



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Where Catholic Singles Go Online - StRaphael.net is the world's #1 website for
single Catholics. If you are looking for friendship, marriage or even a
religious vocation, StRaphael.cnet is the place to be. Join Today Free!
www.StRaphael.net
http://us.click.yahoo.com/r_NezC/1M1FAA/EDtLAA/28VolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Visit R_Catholic-L member homepages at: http://home.cox.rr.com/rraphael
http://rcatholic-l.freeservers.com
http://hometown.aol.com/philvaz
http://www.lisaslighthouse.org
http://members.aol.com/SisterNeri/


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4
* Origin: Email Gate (1:379/100)
.

Loading