Even Man duplicated the eloquence of the Koran

Quote:

---

Muhammad described himself in a speech:

I am the master of mankind, without vanity.

And I am the most eloquent amongst all Arabs.

And I am the first one (will be the first one)
to knock at the door of paradise.

And I am the first from above for whom the earth will crack
(to be raised from the grave).

Abraham vouched for me and Jesus announced my coming.

And when my mother delivered me, she saw a light enlightening
(the darkness) between the east and the west.

God created mankind
and He made me amongst the best of his creatures;
and He made them (His creatures) groups,
and He placed me in the best of the groups.
He made them tribes,
and He placed me in the best tribe.
He made them families
and He placed me in the best family;

So I am better than all of you,
familywise and ancestorwise.

(Al-Ukdul-Fareed)



Al-Ukdul-Fareed (The Unique Necklace) is a collection of literature, poems, sayings, for wise men, scientists, religious people, leaders, and little stories and events from the history of Arabs before and after Islam. It consists of 25 (bab) chapters, each called "Jaw-hara" pearl. The book was written by Ibn Abd Rabbi'hil Andulusi born 246 died 327 A.H.

The above speech is found in volume 4, chapter Al-asjada al-thaniya.

---

informed LDS believe this translation was dictated by God

Quote:

---

How did he really translate this reformed Egyptian into the English language? David Wittmer one of the three witnesses of the book of Mormon writes in his book addressed to all believers In Christ telling us how Joseph Smith placed the 'seer stone' into a hat to translate the Book of Mormon:"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat. Drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine a piece of something resembling parchment would appear and on that appeared the writing one character a time would and under was an interpretation in English." Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man." (An Address To All Believers In Christ, by David Whitmer, Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p. 12)

The writing would appear one character at a time Joseph would read it off to Oliver Crowley his principle scribe (Emma his wife and Martin Harris were also scribes. When Oliver wrote it down, he would then repeat it back to Joseph to see if it was correct. If correct it would then disappear then another character with the interpretation would appear in the seer stone. Interestingly the plates that he was supposedly were translating from were not nearby. They were well off to the side covered up.

Others bear witness to this as the means of translation. "'Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, "Written," and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.'" (Myth of the Manuscript Found, Juvenile Instructor Office, 1883 edition, page 91)

According to Joseph Smith's own father-in-law, Isaac Hale, the young Joseph translated the Book of Mormon with the same stone that he used to search for buried treasures: "I first became acquainted with Joseph Smith, Jr. in November, 1825. He was at that time in the employ of a set of men who were called 'money -diggers;' and his occupation was that of seeing, or pretending to see by means of a stone placed in his hat, and his hat closed over his face.... The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!" (The Susquehanna Register, May 1, 1834)

In short, well informed Mormons believe that God was dictating the translation to the gold plates word for word through the seer stone in JS hat.

---

Re: If the Quran is a miracle (Quran 4:82, 2:23)...

Quote:

---

Is The Qur'an Miraculous?
The Qur'an claims, in Sura 11:16, that it is a book that is unmatchable in its content, and is hence miraculous. When Muslims are challenged regarding their faith, they turn to this claim as an irrefutable proof. Their defence is based almost wholly on this, since the Qur'an itself does not offer any evidence for it's claim to be of divine origin. And Muslims see this as powerful enough, to stand on its own. Just as the resurection of Jesus Christ is the one point on which the Christian faith rests, so the entire Islamic faith rests on this. The book is so sure of its uniqueness, that it challenges any man or spirit to produce one like it, or a passage like any one in it.
In what way then, one would ask, is the Qur'an miraculous? I have heard many responses to this, the most common being:

1) In its literary eloquence.
2) In its subject matter.
3) In its preservation over the centuries.


In the following article, I want to consider only response number one. Later articles will discuss the other two, and since this article itself is lengthy, I will split number one into two sections - one regarding the meeting of the challenge (this article), and the other being a rebuttal for the Qur'an's supposed perfect eloquence. Most of the ideas in this, and the following articles are borrowed, and I have tried to give due credit wherever possible. I would like to say that it is not my intention to insult Muslim readers, so I have tried to be careful in my choice of words, in order to avoid offence and encourage serious discussion of the real issues. If I have overlooked anything it is due to my own ignorance, and readers are invited to write to the maintainer of the homepage about any corrections, they would like to see. With this out of the way, let us now discuss three cases where I believe passages have been composed that are comparable, if not superior, literarily, to the Qur'an.

CASE-1

If a person wants an opinion on something, he or she goes to an expert in the field to get it. If you want to know whether you should try a new sort of medical treatement, you go to a doctor; if you want to know what you should take up for a profession, you go to a counsellor; if you want to find out more about the Universe, you read a book by an astronomer. So what if you want to find out about language - of course, you go to a language expert. What do some Qur'anic and linguistic scholars have to say about the Qur'an's eloquence?


Ali Dashti, the famous Iranian-Arab scholar, has the following to say:

"Neither the Qur'an's eloquence, nor it's moral precepts are miraculous." (emphasis mine) (Ali Dashti, Twenty Three Years, pg 57)


Earlier on in the book, he discusses cases of other scholars who shared his point of view, such as the blind Syrian poet Abu 'l-Ala al Ma'arri, who Dashti describes differently as: "...a great and penetrating Arab thinker" (pg 53) and "...a great and universally admired poet-philosopher" (pg 94). This man considered some of his own works, to be on par with the Qur'an. If his evaluation of the facts is faulty, who then, if not a man of his learning, can be the judge of such a thing? Indeed even Muslim scholars in that age, did not believe that the Qur'an was untouchable in literary excellence. Here is a quote from Dashti concerning this:


"Among the muslim scholars of the early period, before bigotry and hyperbole prevailed, were some such as Ebrahim on-Nazzim who openly acknowleged that the arrangment and syntax of the Qur'an are not miraculous and that work of equal or greater value could be produced by other God-fearing persons", (emphasis mine, pg 4

This case is only one of many like it. Others who shared this view include "... Ebn Hazm and ol-Khayyat ......and several other leadering exponents of the Mo' tazzilite school." (pg 4 . In more recent years there is the case of some linguistic scholars, who worked in Jerusalem for sixteen years, trying to produce Biblical passages in a Qur'anic style. To deny that they have been succesful in their attempts, is to deny their scholarship, and the science of Linguistics.

Of course, Muslims could accuse these people of being biased in their opinions. In the case of the Syrian poet, he may have done this to glorify his own work. The scholars in the Jerusalem, project were "obviously" biased, being Christians. I would ask if these men would be foolish enough to make such daring claims, and risk their reputations, if there were not some truth to them. Also, they have put their works out in the open, for anyone to refute them - if you honestly have a reason not to trust their claims, go ahead and refute them. If not then it would be best to accept them. In the cases of the two quotes, I do not believe there is any room for doubt. Ali Dashti, throughout his book, retains an atmosphere of neutrality, and intellectualism, without any hint of pro, or anti-Islamic bias. I invite any reader to get his book, read it, and then tell me that he is biased. Dashti's very goal in writing the book, was to give an unbiased account of Muhammad's life, and religion. In the last case I believe, if anything, there should be a bias towards Islam, as these men are Muslims - but we do not find this. In this case thus, there is no chance for an anti-Islamic bias. So in the opinions of experts, even Muslim ones, the challenge is not untouchable, and may have already been met.

CASE-2

There is evidence to the effect that Suras 1, 113, and 114 are not originally part of the Qur'an, but later additions. It is a well known fact that Abdulla ibn Masud, a man described by Muhammed as one of the, if not THE, highest authority on the Qur'an (Bukhari), did not consider these to be part of the it (Bukhari), but rather liturgical in nature, the latter point being evident from his writings. Critics in the 1930s, approaching the problem from a different perspective, also arrived at the same conclusions. There is a third reason why I believe Muslims cannot consider Sura 1 a part of their book.

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is God's DIRECT revelation - it is exactly His words; it is Him speaking .Hence, according to their concept of inspiration, God speakes directly in the first person, and passages that do not convey this cannot be His words. An example of this belief is reflected in the arguments of Muslim apologists, who state that such passages in the Bible as the Psalms cannot be God's words, as the author is directly worshipping Him. They ask: "Does God worship God?". I would ask then, how Muslims can ascribe Sura 1 to God, even if it is a direct prayer for guidance, and of worship by the author (the word "say" is not present at the beginning of the sura, so it cannot be considered instuctional)? To follow the Islamic idea of inspiration, and line of reasoning, is God praying to himself? The only logical answer, in my opinion, for a Muslim is no. There is no doubt that this Sura, is one of the more eloquent ones in the Qur'an, as it stands today. If it was composed not by God, but by a man, or men, and is considered as eloquent as any sura in the Qur'an, has the challenge not been met?


CONCLUSIONS
What are the conclusions one can draw from such discussion? So what if the challenge has been met? If indeed the Qur'an's challenge has been met, then it is no longer miraculous in nature. If so then the only evidence Islam has for the divine origin of it's book shatters, and Muslims are left with no justifiable reason as to why they believe, what they believe. We have already seen many objective, reasonable reasons to believe that this is the case. What then is your verdict?

A WORD TO MUSLIM READERS
I am aware that many Muslim readers will still refuse to face the objective conclusions, reached in this article. I will ask them the following question - Is your conclusion based on the facts, or on your faith? Are you a person who says - The challenge will never be met. If such is the case, then your conclusion is based on faith, and not reasoning. The challenge becomes void, in that you have already decided the outcome. Be careful here though - you are treading on dangerous ground. If you have indeed made the challenge void then the only intellectual basis for your faith has been made void. The so called miracle of the Qur'an, is the ONLY supernatural thing by which Muslims break the circularity of Muhammad's claims. What do I mean by that? Ask a Muslim - How do you know that Muhammad is a prophet? Answer: Because the Qur'an says so, and the Qur'an is the word of God. Ask them then: How do you know that the Qur'an is God's word? Answer: Because Muhammad says so. The only thing that can break such circularity, as in the case of Christianity, is some evidence outside these two sources, to substantiate these claims (Ravi Zacharias - Islam Lectures). The Qur'an claims that it is its miraculousness that does this, and the challenge substantiates the miraculousness. So if the challenge is made void, there is no corroboration for this claim, and then there is no intellectual basis for your faith - it is a blind faith - it is a faith that even the Qur'an does not support, since it always appeals to man's intelligence to guide him to the truth. Are you still determined to stick to your guns, or will you be honest with your mind, and your heart?

Reference: Ali Dashti, "Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad", Routledge Chapman & Hall, Mazda Pubs, Bibliotheca Iranica: Reprints Ser., Vol. No. 2., 1985, 246p. $15.95, ISBN 1-56859-029-6.

---

even Satan appears as an angel of light :-)

Quote:

---

The Muslim scholar Cyril Glassé states:


As regards the "Gospel of Barnabas" itself, there is no question that it is a medieval forgery. A complete Italian manuscript exists which appears to be a translation from a Spanish original (which exists in part), written to curry favor with Muslims of the time. It contains anachronisms which can date only from the Middle Ages and not before, and shows a garbled comprehension of Islamic doctrines, calling the Prophet "the Messiah", which Islam does not claim for him. Besides its farcical notion of sacred history, stylistically it is a mediocre parody of the Gospels, as the writings of Baha'Allah are of the Koran.
The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, 1989, p. 64

---

Quote:

---

The book itself doesn't claim (unlike most Muslims I have met who
comment on it) to be the book Jesus was supposed to have received
-Barnabas 10

Contradictions between "Barnabas" and the Qur'an:

1) the Quran (2:29) says that the Heavens are seven in number,
while "Barnabas" gives the number as nine (17 .

2) according to "Barnabas", man is endowed with a free will.
(164). On the contrary, man only does what Allah wills him
to do (Quran - 76:30, 37:96, 17:13, 10:99-100).

3) Adam was not the first man circumcised (23). Abraham was.

4) according to "Barnabas" (3), Mary brought forth her son without
pain. This is contradicted by the Quran (19:23).

5) the Quran follows the Mosaic law of "an eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth", whereas "Barnabas" says "... ye shall not
overcome evil with evil, but rather with good" (81). "Woe unto
them that call for vengeance ..." (63). "... kiss the hand of
those who revile thee, and present gifts to those who persecute
thee and strike thee much" (64).

6) the Quran approves of poligamy. "Barnabas" does not tolerate
it (115).

7) the Quran approves of the teaching of abrogation. "Barnabas"
condemns it (3 .

the Quran condemns eating pork but "Barnabas" says "that which
entereth into the man defileth not the man, but that which
cometh out of the man defileth the man" (32).

9) "Barnabas" totally ignores the existence of the prophet John
the Baptist (Yahya ibn Zakariyya).

10) according to "Barnabas", Jesus expressly denies that he is the
Messiah. In the Quran, the only Messiah is Jesus.

Still, "Barnabas" further compounds his confusion. For while
he has Jesus denying that He is the Messiah, yet, amazingly,
the first words of "Barnabas" following his introductory title,
read:

Barnabas, apostle of Jesus the Nazarene, called Christ ...

According to "Barnabas", then, Jesus is called Christ, but he
is not called Messiah. Despite his obvious familiarity with
the Bible, "Barnabas" does not know that Messiah (Hebrew) and
Christ (Greek) are identical in meaning.


Internal evidence shows that "Barnabas" was not a contempory
of Jesus:
============================================================


a) In chapter 82, "Barnabas" makes the jubilee a centenary event.
The Jewish jubilee, it will be remembered, was celebrated every
50 years.


b) Quotations from Dante are another evidence proving a late
authorship of this "gospel". They cannot be accidental
coincidences, since they are of great number. Of these I
can mention a verse which is clearly a quotation of Dante:
"they go and serve false and lying gods", which has been
quoted by "Barnabas" in two places (78, 217). The expression,
"raging hunger" (60) is probably another specimen of such a
direct quote.

The description of the joys of paradise and the horrors of
hell, and the pains which the unbelievers suffer in the
latter, recall us to Dante's descriptions of the same.
(Compare "Barnabas" 59 and 60 with lines 22 and 103, Canto
III of Dante's Inferno).

Stranger still is the coincidence between Dante's 'circles'
of hell and those of "Barnabas". "Barnabas" has Jesus saying
to Peter:

Know ye therefore, that hell is one, yet hath seven
centres one below another. Hence, even as sin is of
seven kinds, for as seven gates of hell hath satan
generated it; so are there seven punishments therein.
(135)

This is exactly what Dante says in Canto V, VI, etc. of his
Inferno.

Again, "Barnabas" says that God, having created the human senses,
condemned them "to hell and to intolerable snow and ice" (106).
See Dante's Inferno, Canto XXVIII and III, line 22.

But still stronger evidence that "Barnabas" quotes directly or
indirectly from Dante is his description of the "geography of
Heaven". Here "Barnabas" agrees with Dante and contradicts
the Quran.


c) Traces of Medieval Society

Among the clearest of all these traces are those of the system
of feudalism, which was in full vogue in medieval times.
According to this system land was divided among the different
feudal lords, who in turn subdivided their property into
minor divisions and rented them to vassals who owed them a
perpetual allegiance, above all, in times of war. The writer
of the "Gospel of Barnabas" represents to us Mary, Martha, and
Lazarus as feudal lords, in whose hands was the proprietorship
of whole villages (194).

This is a further description of the vassal who owes to his
liege or padrone a portion of his crop (122). This is quite
in accordance with the laws of feudalism.

The reference to wine-casks is more suggestive of Italy than
of Oriental lands (152).

Another trace is that referring to medieval court procedure
where the arrested prisoner is questioned by a magistrate,
while a notary jots down memoranda of the evidence (121).

The reference to the duel between two rival lovers reminds one
of the age of chivalry (99). It will be remembered that
chivalry was a creation of medieval society and played its
role for a considerable period.


d) Barnabas' ignorance of Palestinian geography and history

"Barnabas" imagines Nazareth, and most probably Jerusalem also,
to be on a sea or lake. "Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee,
and having embarked on a ship sailed to his city of Nazareth"
(20).

"Having arrived at the city of Nazareth the seamen spread
through all the city all that Jesus had wrought" (20). Here
it is clearly meant that immediately on touching land
(Nazareth), the seamen landed and spread their news in that
(seaport) town!

"Barnabas" then says: "Jesus went up to Capernaum" (from
Nazareth) (21). Of course, it is just the reverse. He would
have landed at Capernaum, gone up to Nazareth, and then gone
down to Capernaum.

We are told that one Sabbath morning Jesus came to Nazareth
(143). After several chapters giving his conversation there
(144-151), we read: "Jesus embarked on a ship ... (151). This
is further evidence for Barnabas' wrong notion that Nazareth
was on the lake.

There is still more. The ship leaves the port of Nazareth
and sails away. Where do we find Jesus next? At Jerusalem.
In the very next section we read: "Jesus having come to
Jerusalem ..." (152). There can be little doubt that as the
ship weighed anchor at Nazareth, so it cast the same at
Jerusalem.

Next we come to some incidents recorded by "Barnabas" which
are historically untenable. There is the story of Daniel, who,
according to "Barnabas" (80), was taken captive by Nebuchadnezer
while he was yet 2 years old. Now if we suppose that Nebuchadnezer
captured Daniel in the first year of his reign, it would follow
that in the second year of his reign, Daniel was three years old.
In this very year, it will be remembered, he was promoted by
Nebuchadnezer to the rank of a ruler "over the whole province of
Babylon". According to "Barnabas" therefore, his age would be
three, at most four years!

"Barnabas" tells us that a great sedition broke out in all Judea
on account of Jesus (91). It is unnecessary to remark that this
incident finds no place in the pages of any historian, whether
Josephus, or any ancient or modern historian. Besides, it is
absurd to believe that 3 armies, numbering 600,000 soldiers, could
gather in the twinkle of an eye and disperse as quickly. And how
can we believe that Herod, an enemy of Christ, would attempt to
quiet a riot which arose on account of Christ?

Stranger is the statement of "Barnabas" that the high priest wished
"to bow himself down and worship Jesus ..." (93). The high priest,
it will be remembered, was the chief enemy of Jesus and one of his
accusers who condemned Jesus because Jesus used to convict the high
priests of hypocrisy.

He who is aware of its contents, yet continues to maintain its
integrity and to utilize it as a genuine gospel account of Jesus
at the expense of the Bible, must share in the guilt of the author.

To my mind, looking at the evidence (only a fraction here), It is as
George Sale put it a "bare-faced forgery".

Muslims only undermine their credibility when trying to bolster their
cause using it.

---