tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-50221884387913542482024-03-13T06:20:20.551-07:00With Arab Atheists and AgnosticsSome Articles and Posts (mostly on Islam) translated from Arabicأثير العانيhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03278032331810402620noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5022188438791354248.post-50249950183135999022023-05-25T11:02:00.001-07:002023-05-25T11:02:08.305-07:00Argue<p> </p><h1 class="chap_title">Introduction: Prelude to an Argument</h1><div class="blocks" style="line-height: 1.2em;"><p class="center">“When I think of all the harm the Bible has done, I despair of ever writing anything equal to it.”</p><p class="center1s">— Oscar Wilde<a id="itr_nts3a"><sup>3</sup></a></p></div><p class="nonindent1" style="line-height: 1.2em;">God bequeathed the Ten Commandments to Moses, or so the story goes. It’s a tale believed by millions of pious churchgoing Americans, including former judge James Taylor of Hawkins County, Tennessee. Taylor also believes that America was founded on those commandments and that America’s “founders were religious people whose faith influenced the creation of this nation, its laws, and its institutions of government.”<a id="itr_nts4a"><sup>4</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Elected to higher office in 2011, Judge Taylor ached to use his new power to proclaim these great truths. He insisted that the Ten Commandments be displayed in his courthouse. The holy exhibit would edify citizens and show that Judeo-Christian principles shaped the development of American law and government. It would demonstrate that his religion birthed America. Taylor commissioned a Ten Commandments plaque, elegantly lettered and struck in bronze; it read as shown in this replica:</p><div class="dis_img" style="line-height: 1.2em;"><img alt="" id="img1-1" src="file:///D:/SABArabic/arabic%20anotated%20bible/images/1-1.jpg" style="break-inside: avoid;" /></div><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;"><a id="page2"></a>Not shy about using a public office to promote his personal religion, Taylor promised to showcase other items of civic piety, including the national motto, “In God We Trust”; the Pledge of Allegiance (“one nation, under God”); and a picture of Washington praying in the snow at Valley Forge. But the commandments were to be the centerpiece. The complete message was unmistakable: Judeo-Christian principles influenced America’s creation, its laws, and its government.<a id="itr_nts5a"><sup>5</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">This widespread belief is unexamined and, like Judge Taylor’s plaque, unable to withstand scrutiny. Look closely at the wording on that plaque. Taylor lists nine commandments, not ten, omitting the adultery stricture. He also mislabeled his ninth commandment as the eleventh—XI. Hypocritically, Taylor pocketed donations meant to finance the commandments display and had stolen money from his clients. One former staffer filed a $3 million sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against the married Taylor.<a id="itr_nts6a"><sup>6</sup></a> All told, Taylor pled guilty to multiple felony theft charges, was sentenced to four years in prison, had to pay $71,783 in restitution and serve six hundred hours of community service, and was disbarred.<a id="itr_nts7a"><sup>7</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Taylor struggled to obey his beloved commandments, but that does not necessarily mean that he was wrong about their influence. Was he right? Do the Ten Commandments, “In God We Trust,” Washington’s prayer, and the other evidence show that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles?</p><h2 class="head" style="line-height: 1.2em;"><strong>What Are Judeo-Christian Principles?</strong></h2><p class="nonindent1" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Taylor’s claim that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles is common—so much so that people accept it as true without asking simple questions: What is a Judeo-Christian principle? Where do Judeo-Christian principles come from? Are they handed down from on high, like the Ten Commandments? The few attempts to answer these questions are unsatisfying because they are often as vague as the term “Judeo-Christian principles” itself. One reason the “nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles” claim has not been fully examined is that the vagueness of the term insulates that claim from scrutiny.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">The term “Judeo-Christian” is difficult to pin down because it is something of a fabrication.<a id="itr_nts8a"><sup>8</sup></a> From a scholarly standpoint, as noted in <a id="page3"></a>a 1992 <em>Newsweek</em> article, “the idea of a single ‘Judeo-Christian tradition’ is a made-in-America myth.”<a id="itr_nts9a"><sup>9</sup></a> One Jewish theologian stated the problem plainly: “Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism.”<a id="itr_nts10a"><sup>10</sup></a> “Judeo-Christian” is slippery because it is more a political invention than a scholarly description. It originated at the close of World War II when Christian exclusivity was too threatening. After “the Nazi death camps, a phrase like ‘our Christian civilization’ seemed ominously exclusive,” explained Prof. Mark Silk.<a id="itr_nts11a"><sup>11</sup></a> But the term didn’t gain prominence until the fight against communism, during which some religion, <em>any religion</em>, was better than atheistic communism. Eisenhower was probably the first president to use the term, explaining to a Soviet general in 1952 that the American “form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept.”<a id="itr_nts12a"><sup>12</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">These indistinct principles can be sharpened somewhat by looking to the books that embody Judeo-Christianity: the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, and the Christian Bible, or New Testament. Taylor, the “nine commandments judge,” and others who claim that America is “founded on Judeo-Christian principles” confirm this approach. For instance, when running for president, Woodrow Wilson said, “America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the tenets of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.”<a id="itr_nts13a"><sup>13</sup></a> President Harry Truman stated, on more than one occasion, that “the fundamental basis of all government is in this Bible right here, and it started with Moses on the Mount,” and “the fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul.”<a id="itr_nts14a"><sup>14</sup></a> The ill-defined term becomes clearer in light of these statements; Judeo-Christian principles can be derived from Mosaic Law, such as the Ten Commandments, and the rest of the bible.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">The term has the benefit of sounding inclusive to a broad audience while actually speaking directly to conservative Christians who hear only the second part of the term, “Christian.” Robert Davi, the actor, Bond villain, and frequent contributor to the conservative website <a href="http://breitbart.com/">Breitbart.com</a>, gave this game away. Writing about the imaginary <a id="page4"></a>“War on Christmas,” Davi argued that removing a nativity scene from government property is part of “a systematic attack on Judeo-Christian values that our country was founded on.”<a id="itr_nts15a"><sup>15</sup></a> Davi surely knows that the nativity scene features the birth of Jesus as savior, something Judaism rejects. The nativity is Christian, not Judeo-Christian.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">It’s not just celebrities who inadvertently admit the singular, not dual, nature of the term. The Judeo-Christian Voter Guide website<a id="itr_nts16a"><sup>16</sup></a> provides local guides and resources, but, prior to the 2016 election, they were nearly all Christian. In the state with the highest number and percentage of Jewish citizens, New York,<a id="itr_nts17a"><sup>17</sup></a> the state voter guide linked to groups such as the Christian Coalition and the American Family Association, whose goal is “to be a champion of Christian activism.”<a id="itr_nts18a"><sup>18</sup></a> It did not link to a single Jewish group. The site even had an identical twin, the “Christian Voter Guide” website, which was the same in every respect except that it lacked that crumb of inclusion: “Judeo-.”<a id="itr_nts19a"><sup>19</sup></a> The Family Research Council (FRC), whose “mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview,” was once featured heavily on these two sites.<a id="itr_nts20a"><sup>20</sup></a> Tony Perkins, the head of the FRC, inadvertently showed the irrelevance of the “Judeo-” in “Judeo-Christian” when chastising the Daughters of the American Revolution for telling its members not to pray in Jesus’s name (a claim the group denied): “This signals a dramatic change in the strong Judeo-Christian roots of the DAR. After all, this is a service group meant to perpetuate the memory of the American Revolution and the values for which we fought. Like it or not, those values and our nation’s identity were rooted in the Christian tradition.”<a id="itr_nts21a"><sup>21</sup></a> One sentence later, Perkins’s inclusive affectation had evaporated.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">John McCain was a bit more honest when he claimed that “this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles,”<a id="itr_nts22a"><sup>22</sup></a> but McCain’s more honest phrasing is less inviting. “Judeo-” is a sop, a fig leaf, tossed about to avoid controversy and complaint. It is simply a morsel of inclusion offered to soften the edge of an exclusionary, Christian movement.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">That exclusionary movement is Christian nationalism. As a modern American movement, it is fully described by Michelle Goldberg in her 2006 book, <em>Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism</em>.<a id="itr_nts23a"><sup>23</sup></a> Christian nationalists are historical revisionists bent on <a id="page5"></a>“restoring” America to the Judeo-Christian principles on which they wish it were founded. They believe that secular America is a myth, and under the guise of restoration they seek to press religion into every crevice of the government. They not only think it appropriate for the government to favor one religion over others, but also believe America was designed to favor Christianity. To them, America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and promoting that belief is a religious duty.<a id="itr_nts24a"><sup>24</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">History had proven to the framers of the US Constitution that religion is divisive. They separated religion from government to avoid the mistakes of past regimes. “The Framers and the citizens of their time intended…to guard against the civic divisiveness that follows when the government weighs in on one side of religious debate; nothing does a better job of roiling society,” wrote the Supreme Court in 2005 when examining the origins of the religion clauses of the First Amendment.<a id="itr_nts25a"><sup>25</sup></a> Christian nationalism’s fabricated history conceals an important historical truth: that religion and government are best kept on either side of an impregnable wall, as the founders intended. This book seeks to expose that fabricated history and tell the greater truths.</p><h2 class="head" style="line-height: 1.2em;"><strong>Is Christian Nationalism Really a Problem? Is It Influential?</strong></h2><p class="nonindent1" style="line-height: 1.2em;">It is because of Christian nationalism that “President Donald Trump” is a phrase that reflects reality and not reality television. Before Trump, Christian nationalism tended toward the corrupt and inept. It was an odd, impotent curiosity. But the 2016 election changed that. Trump won because of Christian nationalism. The movement is still based on lies and myths, but a Christian nationalist was elected president of the United States, and he was elected <em>because of</em>, not in spite of, his Christian nationalism.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">The single most accurate predictor of whether a person voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election was not religion, wealth, education, or even political party; it was believing the United States is and should be a Christian nation.<a id="itr_nts26a"><sup>26</sup></a> Researchers studied this connection and were able to control for other characteristics to ensure that Christian nationalism was not simply a proxy for other forms of intolerance <a id="page6"></a>or other variables related to vote choice.<a id="itr_nts27a"><sup>27</sup></a> They concluded, “The more someone believed the United States is—and should be—a Christian nation, the more likely they were to vote for Trump.”<a id="itr_nts28a"><sup>28</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Trump rode a wave of Christian nationalism, fostered by fables and myths about America’s founding, to the most powerful office in the world. “Once Christian nationalism was taken into account,” the researchers explained, “other religious measures had no direct effect on how likely someone was to vote for Trump. These measures of religion mattered only if they made someone more likely to see the United States as a Christian nation.”<a id="itr_nts29a"><sup>29</sup></a> Put another way, “Christian nationalism provides a metanarrative for a religiously distinct national identity.” <a id="itr_nts30a"><sup>30</sup></a> That identity depends on the historical myths exposed in this book. Those myths are the glue that unites the Christian part of this identity with the American part of the identity. Without the bond provided by these myths, the identity and political power begin to crumble.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Christian nationalism is, at least in this sense, more important than religion, political party, or any other factor in American life.</p><p class="nonindent2a" style="line-height: 1.2em;">O<span class="smallcaps">NLY AFTER THE SHOCK</span> of the 2016 presidential election subsided could we begin to fully understand the power of Christian nationalism. During the election and before, Christian nationalists themselves underestimated their power. Few expected Trump to win, let alone win because of his Christian nationalism. Christian nationalists had caught the presidential tiger by the tail and were unprepared. Playing catch-up, in February 2016 a loose coalition of conservative religious groups and Christian nationalists launched “Project Blitz,” a curious sobriquet given its historical connotations. The goal was to elevate “traditional Judeo-Christian religious values” and “to reclaim and properly define the narrative which supports such beliefs.”<a id="itr_nts31a"><sup>31</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Project Blitz encapsulates the problem Christian nationalism poses. First, it seeks to alter our history, values, and national identity. Then it codifies Christian privilege in the law, favoring Christians above others. Finally, it legally disfavors the nonreligious, non-Christians, and minorities such as the LGBTQ community, by, for instance, permitting discrimination against them in places of public accommodation or in employment.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;"><a id="page7"></a>This legislative push, ongoing as this book goes to press, includes three categories of bills that reflect these steps, all of which promote Christian nationalist myths and lies. The first category centers on “Our Country’s Religious Heritage.” These bills “recognize the place of Christian principles in our nation’s history and heritage [and] deal broadly with our national motto, history, and civics, including their Judeo-Christian dimensions.”<a id="itr_nts32a"><sup>32</sup></a> They attempt to prove what Judge Taylor’s nine commandments display was meant to prove, that “religion, and particularly our Judeo-Christian heritage, have played a large part in the founding and history of this country.”<a id="itr_nts33a"><sup>33</sup></a> The second category, which includes measures such as a proclamation recognizing Christian Heritage Week, “focus[es] more on our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage,” though more on the Christian and less on the Judeo.<a id="itr_nts34a"><sup>34</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Christian nationalist myths are central to the Blitz because they are meant to provide a legislative rationale, historical precedent, and legitimacy. Category 1 bills are supposedly less controversial but promote many of those myths, including a bill that mandates displaying “In God We Trust” in all public schools, libraries, and buildings and on license plates,<a id="itr_nts35a"><sup>35</sup></a> and a “Religion in Legal History Acts” bill that requires “public displays of religious history affecting the law,” including the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and George Washington’s Farewell Address.<a id="itr_nts36a"><sup>36</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Category 2 bills include proclamations recognizing “Christian Heritage Week,” “the Importance of the Bible in History,” and “the Year of the Bible.” There is even one for “Recognizing Christmas Day,” because we would all forget otherwise.<a id="itr_nts37a"><sup>37</sup></a> These proclamations list historical evidence to support their claims, including a claim that “the first act of America’s first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer” and another that “Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.”<a id="itr_nts38a"><sup>38</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">These seemingly mundane bills are the tip of Christian nationalism’s sword. More dangerous bills will follow. Category 3 bills grant a license to discriminate against LGBTQ Americans, atheists, unmarried couples, and others in the name of Jesus. These bills will allow religious adoption agencies to refuse to put children in loving homes <a id="page8"></a>because the bible says that gay couples are an abomination. They seek to give businesses and places of public accommodation the right to discriminate against customers of a different religion or even skin color (though Christian nationalists would be unlikely to admit the latter). This discriminatory agenda cannot be furthered without the seemingly innocuous bills that first warp our sense of who we are as a nation.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">The goal is to redefine America according to the Christian nationalist identity and then reshape the law accordingly. As of the end of April 2018, Project Blitz has resulted in more than seventy proposed bills nationwide.<a id="itr_nts39a"><sup>39</sup></a> Christian nationalism’s identity is built on the foundational myths underlying these bills; this inescapable point is reflected in their legislative strategy. If these myths can be exposed and eviscerated, the aim of this book, so can Christian nationalism’s legal and legislative agenda.</p><h2 class="head" style="line-height: 1.2em;"><strong>Who Are the Christian Nationalists?</strong></h2><p class="nonindent1" style="line-height: 1.2em;">The most vocal Christian nationalists are, as you’d expect, religious leaders. James Dobson founded Focus on the Family and thinks “that we have been, from the beginning, a people of faith whose government is built wholly on a Judeo-Christian foundation.”<a id="itr_nts40a"><sup>40</sup></a> Moral Majority co-founder Jerry Falwell wrote that “our Founding Fathers established America’s laws and precepts on the principles recorded in the laws of God, including the Ten Commandments…[and any] diligent student of American history finds that our great nation was founded by godly men upon godly principles to be a Christian nation.”<a id="itr_nts41a"><sup>41</sup></a> Jimmy Swaggart preached that America has “the greatest freedoms of expression the world has ever known…. Those freedom are based squarely on the Judeo-Christian principle, which is the Word of God.”<a id="itr_nts42a"><sup>42</sup></a> The late Billy Graham and his son Franklin Graham have preached that America “was built on Christian principles.”<a id="itr_nts43a"><sup>43</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Christian nationalism is not solely about religion. It’s an unholy alliance, an incestuous marriage of conservative politics and conservative Christianity. According to <em>ABC News</em>, the Council for National Policy is one of the most powerful political organizations you’ve never heard of,<a id="itr_nts44a"><sup>44</sup></a> and it exemplifies this alliance. The <em>New York Times</em> described it as “a little-known club of a few hundred of the most <a id="page9"></a>powerful conservatives in the country.”<a id="itr_nts45a"><sup>45</sup></a> It was founded by prominent Christian nationalist Tim LaHaye, and its secretive membership roll is filled with Christian nationalists from the religious and government sectors, including many repeatedly cited in this book.<a id="itr_nts46a"><sup>46</sup></a> The group’s vision statement declares its Christian nationalist mission: to “restore…Judeo-Christian values under the Constitution.”<a id="itr_nts47a"><sup>47</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Politicians are some of the most vocal Christian nationalists. Presidential candidates seem particularly fond of repeating Christian nationalism claims. In the run-up to the 2016 election, Donald Trump was asked, point blank, “Do you believe that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles?” He replied in his prolix, disjointed fashion: “Yeah, I think it was…. I see so many things happening that are so different from what our country used to be. So religion’s a very important part of me and it’s also, I think it’s a very important part of our country.”<a id="itr_nts48a"><sup>48</sup></a> After winning office with 81 percent of the white evangelical vote, Trump became slightly more adept when deploying Christian nationalist rhetoric. As president, he has often claimed that “in America we don’t worship government, we worship God.”<a id="itr_nts49a"><sup>49</sup></a> He supports this line, so popular with his base, by trotting out some of the favorite Christian nationalist talking points, including:</p><ul style="line-height: 1.2em;"><li>That “the American Founders invoked our Creator four times in the Declaration of Independence.”</li><li>That the pilgrims at Plymouth were religious and prayed.</li><li>That “our currency proudly declares, ‘In God we trust.’”</li><li>That “Benjamin Franklin reminded his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention to begin by bowing their heads in prayer.”</li><li>That presidents take the oath of office and “say, ‘So help me God.’”</li><li>That “we proudly proclaim that we are ‘one nation under God’ every time we say the Pledge of Allegiance.”<a id="itr_nts50a"><sup>50</sup></a></li></ul><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">This book will address all of these anemic talking points.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">While campaigning in 2016, Trump’s primary opponents joined him in promoting these myths. Without bothering to support his <a id="page10"></a>position, Senator Marco Rubio argued, “If you don’t believe that Judeo-Christian values influenced America, you don’t know history.”<a id="itr_nts51a"><sup>51</sup></a> After winning the Iowa primary, Senator Ted Cruz told CNN, “This is a country built on Judeo-Christian values.”<a id="itr_nts52a"><sup>52</sup></a> He also vowed, ironically given the election’s outcome, to defend—against Trump—the GOP platform, which was the manifestation of “Judeo-Christian principles, the values that built this country.”<a id="itr_nts53a"><sup>53</sup></a> Ohio governor John Kasich promised to create a new federal agency “that has a clear mandate to promote the core Judeo-Christian Western values.”<a id="itr_nts54a"><sup>54</sup></a> Kasich asserted that “it’s essential…to embrace again our Jewish-Christian tradition rather than running from it, hiding from it.”<a id="itr_nts55a"><sup>55</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Most of the Republican presidential primary candidates in 2012 also bent toward Christian nationalism. Rick Perry—former Texas governor, <em>Dancing with the Stars</em> contestant, and now secretary of energy—rambled on about “our values—values and virtues that this country was based upon in Judeo-Christian founding fathers”<a id="itr_nts56a"><sup>56</sup></a> and said that “our founding fathers, they created this country, our Constitution, the foundation of America upon Judeo-Christian values, biblical values…. They didn’t shy away from referencing Him, using the values he brought and the message of his son Jesus Christ to build the system that we as a society have enjoyed for more than two hundred years.”<a id="itr_nts57a"><sup>57</sup></a> Senator Rick Santorum was infamously introduced at a campaign rally in Baton Rouge by a pastor who howled “Get out!” at all the non-Christians in America because America “was founded as a Christian nation.”<a id="itr_nts58a"><sup>58</sup></a> Santorum was forced to distance himself from those remarks.<a id="itr_nts59a"><sup>59</sup></a> Representative Michele Bachmann argued that “American exceptionalism is grounded on the Judeo-Christian ethic, which is really based upon the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were the foundation for our law.”<a id="itr_nts60a"><sup>60</sup></a> During the Florida debate, Mitt Romney was asked how his Mormon religion might influence his presidency. He dodged, saying “ours is a nation which is based upon Judeo-Christian values and ethics. Our law is based upon those values and ethics.”<a id="itr_nts61a"><sup>61</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Christian nationalism surfaces in the US Congress. Representatives Louie Gohmert, Doug Lamborn, and Steve King are some of its most strident proponents.<a id="itr_nts62a"><sup>62</sup></a> Representative King of Iowa, known for <a id="page11"></a>his racism and xenophobia, proclaimed that our nation “was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, which means we need less law enforcement than anybody else in the world”<a id="itr_nts63a"><sup>63</sup></a>—a fallacy we’ll explore later on. Texas representative Louie Gohmert declared in a December 2017 floor speech, “The Supreme Court looked at all of the evidence and declared in an opinion that the United States was founded as, and is, a Christian nation.” He added to this gross misstatement by insisting that “the only way any people can truly have freedom of religion is if they have a constitution that is founded on Judeo-Christian principles.”<a id="itr_nts64a"><sup>64</sup></a> The opposite is true.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Former Virginia representative Randy Forbes, who founded the Congressional Prayer Caucus, gave a 2015 sermon claiming: “President George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan all indicated how the Bible and Judeo-Christian principles were so important in this nation. So if in fact we were a nation based on those principles, what was that moment in time when we ceased to so be?”<a id="itr_nts65a"><sup>65</sup></a> In 2010, Michele Bachmann invited one of the most deceitful historical revisionists, David Barton—a man who used erroneous historical quotations,<a id="itr_nts66a"><sup>66</sup></a> misrepresented Jefferson and his views on the separation of state and church,<a id="itr_nts67a"><sup>67</sup></a> and wrote a biography of Jefferson so full of bad history that the publisher pulled it off the shelves<a id="itr_nts68a"><sup>68</sup></a>—to teach a class to Congress on the Christian history of the Constitution.<a id="itr_nts69a"><sup>69</sup></a> Two-time presidential hopeful and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee expressed the belief that “all Americans should be forced—forced at gunpoint no less—to listen to every David Barton message.”<a id="itr_nts70a"><sup>70</sup></a> Forbes’s Congressional Prayer Caucus once introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to recognize “the first weekend of May as Ten Commandments Weekend to recognize the significant contributions the Ten Commandments have made in shaping the principles, institutions, and national character of the United States.”<a id="itr_nts71a"><sup>71</sup></a> The resolution also claimed that the Ten Commandments are “an elemental source for United States law.”<a id="itr_nts72a"><sup>72</sup></a> Not quite. Forbes and Barton founded and run the groups (the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation and <a id="page12"></a>Wallbuilders, respectively) leading the Christian nationalist push discussed earlier, Project Blitz.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Politicians and political parties have elections to win, so their words can be discounted; but some scholars have also made these claims. Michael Novak, a former United States Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and a professor at Stanford, Syracuse, and Notre Dame, agreed with eighteenth-century jurist Sir William Blackstone that the Law of Moses is the “font and spring of constitutional government.”<a id="itr_nts73a"><sup>73</sup></a> (Thomas Jefferson thought the idea that the Ten Commandments or Christianity was the foundation of English Common Law an “awkward monkish fabrication” and a “fraud.”<a id="itr_nts74a"><sup>74</sup></a>) Anson Phelps Stokes—a priest and former secretary of Yale—wrote in his three-volume work on church and state in America that the “ideal of the Declaration [of Independence] is of course a definitely Christian one” that is clearly based on “fundamental Christian teachings.”<a id="itr_nts75a"><sup>75</sup></a> Less scholarly examples include judge-turned-television-personality Andrew Napolitano, who thinks that “we have a Constitution and a Declaration of Independence that embodies Judeo-Christian moral values.”<a id="itr_nts76a"><sup>76</sup></a>Author and disgraced Fox News host Bill O’Reilly advocates teaching Christian nationalism in public schools: “Kids need to know what Judeo-Christian tradition is, because that’s what all of our laws are based on. That’s what the country’s philosophy is based on…because that’s what forged the Constitution.”<a id="itr_nts77a"><sup>77</sup></a> Even the Museum of the Bible, which claims to be fair-minded, “is preoccupied with the question of whether America is a biblically rooted nation,” according to <em>The Atlantic</em>, which added, “While the exhibits portray some conflicting views, the message is clear: The country was forged through Christianity.”<a id="itr_nts78a"><sup>78</sup></a></p><p class="nonindent2a" style="line-height: 1.2em;">P<span class="smallcaps">ATRIOTISM HAS NO RELIGION</span>. The Christian nationalist’s argument seeks to change that and is, at its core, a fight about what it means to be an American. A disturbing number of Americans already believe that Christian and American identities are one and the same. The Pew Research Center found that about 32 percent of “people in the U.S. believe it is very important to be Christian to be considered truly American.”<a id="itr_nts79a"><sup>79</sup></a> Some are vocal about it. When Mike Pence accepted the Republican vice-presidential nomination, after a few formalities, he <a id="page13"></a>repeated one of his favorite lines: “I’m a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican — in that order.”<a id="itr_nts80a"><sup>80</sup></a> The Christian nationalism ideal fuses two identities, Christian and American, so that to be one, you must also be the other. And if you’re not both, you can, as Santorum’s preacher screamed, “Get out!” President Trump’s infamous travel bans embodied this idea.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump promised to impose “extreme vetting” on immigrants. Vague in the particulars, he promised to admit only those people who “loved our country.”<a id="itr_nts81a"><sup>81</sup></a> In his second week in office, Trump signed a controversial and unconstitutional executive order that banned travel from seven Muslim-majority countries. The order also favored immigration for Christians. Anyone who is oppressed for their beliefs should be welcome in this country—it shouldn’t depend on what those beliefs are (a point Trump essentially conceded in the wording of the first revised immigration order, issued on March 6, 2017, even if its implementation did not concede the point). But for Trump, there is no difference between favoring Christians and testing to see if potential immigrants love America, something he reiterated during the signing ceremony.<a id="itr_nts82a"><sup>82</sup></a> Trump used Christianity as a proxy for loving America. He explained this with his typical circumlocution while campaigning at an evangelical stronghold, Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Virginia. Almost precisely one year before he signed the order, Trump declared, “We’re going to protect Christianity. And I can say that. I don’t have to be politically correct. We’re going to protect it.”<a id="itr_nts83a"><sup>83</sup></a> He then made his infamous “Two Corinthians” gaffe, saying “Two Corinthians” instead of “Second Corinthians.” The verse to which Trump was referring, 2 Corinthians 3:17, says that “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” and confirms the point. After that telling slip, Trump continued, “If you look at what is going on throughout the world, if you look at Syria, if you are a Christian, they are chopping off heads…. Christianity is under siege. I’m a Protestant, Presbyterian to be exact…. Very, very proud of it. We have to protect [Christianity] because very bad things are happening.”<a id="itr_nts84a"><sup>84</sup></a> Incidentally, Syria was one of the seven countries whose citizens Trump banned from the United States in his first order. Syrians were also banned in the two subsequent immigration orders.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;"><a id="page14"></a>For Trump and Christian nationalists, to be an American is to be a Christian. The two have fused. Conservative columnists, such as Diana West, opined on <a href="http://breitbart.com/">Breitbart.com</a> in 2015 that “the Trump [immigration] plan is absoutely [<em>sic</em>] essential to any possible return…to America’s constitutional foundations and Judeo-Christian principles. I actually think of it as our last shot.”<a id="itr_nts85a"><sup>85</sup></a> West penned this before the Iowa Caucus, when Trump was still a candidate proposing a “complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the country.”<a id="itr_nts86a"><sup>86</sup></a></p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Christian nationalists use the language of revival and return, but that itself is misleading. They are not seeking to return, but to redefine. They want to redefine our Constitution—they want to redefine what it is to be an American—in terms of their religion.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Christian nationalism has already had a massive impact on our government and its policies, including foreign policy. When Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, Christian nationalist mouthpieces on Fox News declared that he had “fulfilled…biblical prophecy” and related the move back to “the foundation of our own Judeo-Christian nation.”<a id="itr_nts87a"><sup>87</sup></a> Christian nationalism affects immigration policy, as we’ve just seen. Its effects on education policy could be felt for decades, and not just because Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos was a dream appointment for the Christian nationalist goal of dismantling public schools through vouchers and school choice. It has denigrated our concept of equality, including by meddling with the legal definition of discrimination and attempting to redefine religious freedom as a license to discriminate, and it has sought to restrict women’s rights and even the social safety net. And, of course, Christian nationalism features heavily in the culture wars.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Correcting the record is important. The political theology of Christian nationalism, the very identity of the Christian nationalist, depends on the myths exposed in this book. Christian nationalism’s hold on political power in America rests on the claim that America was founded as a Christian nation. Without historical support, many of their policy justifications crumble. Without their common well of myths, the Christian nationalist identity will wither and fade. Their entire political and ideological reality is incredibly weak and vulnerable because it is based on historical distortions and lies. In this right-<a id="page15"></a>wing religious culture, the lies are so commonplace, so uncritically accepted, that these vulnerabilities are not recognized. The purpose of this book is simple, if lofty: to utterly destroy the myths that underlie this un-American political ideology.</p><h2 class="head" style="line-height: 1.2em;"><strong>What I’m Arguing and Who I Am</strong></h2><p class="nonindent1" style="line-height: 1.2em;">This objective is particularly important because history is powerful. George Santayana’s warning that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” rings true because the past influences the present.<a id="itr_nts88a"><sup>88</sup></a> Unfortunately, history’s power does not depend on its accuracy. A widely believed historical lie can have as much impact as a historical truth. President John F. Kennedy explained to Yale’s graduating class of 1962 that “the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears…. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”<a id="itr_nts89a"><sup>89</sup></a> Powerful historical falsehoods are particularly harmful in constitutional republics such as the United States. Courts may uphold practices that would otherwise be illegal by relying on comfortable myths instead of legitimate history. Legislators might promulgate laws based on historical clichés instead of reality. Each law or court decision based on revisionist history provides a new foundation from which the myth can be expanded. The myth feeds off itself, lodging more firmly in our collective consciousness.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">When James Madison protested Patrick Henry’s proposed three-penny tax to fund Christian ministers, he wrote a landmark in American history and law: the “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” (1785). Madison’s arguments overwhelmed Henry and convinced Virginians to strike down the proposed tax. Madison argued that even small, seemingly insignificant battles to uphold our rights must be fought on principle; otherwise the infringements become authority for future violations of our rights:</p><div class="block1" style="line-height: 1.2em;"><p class="left">It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free <a id="page16"></a>men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.<a id="itr_nts90a"><sup>90</sup></a></p></div><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Because of history’s power, myths can endanger our liberty. It is our duty as citizens to guard the truth and prevent these myths from becoming tangled in legal and legislative precedents. When Christian nationalists are permitted to use the machinery of the state to impose their religion on us all, even if they do so during times when dissent is punished, these constitutional violations are remarkably tenacious. Christian nationalism operates like a ratchet or a noose, with each violation tightening its hold and making it more difficult to undo. Worse, the violations are used to justify other violations, so the tightening proceeds apace.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Unfortunately, there are two Christian nationalist myths we failed to guard against. These two myths encompass all the lesser myths that Trump and Project Blitz feed into. The first is that America was founded as a Christian nation. The claim is demonstrably false as revealed by any number of documents from the time, including America’s godless Constitution, Madison’s Memorial, or the Treaty of Tripoli, which was negotiated under President George Washington and signed by President John Adams with the unanimous consent of the US Senate in 1797, and which says that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”<a id="itr_nts91a"><sup>91</sup></a> Most people with even a modest grasp of US history, law, government, or politics can debunk this divisive fabrication.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">This book does not depend on the specific language of a single treaty, however applicable it may be—“not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” is admirably clear. Nor will it focus on the first myth, that America is a Christian nation. According to Bertrand Russell, religious apologists “try to make the public forget their earlier obscurantism, in order that their present obscurantism may not be recognized for what it is.”<a id="itr_nts92a"><sup>92</sup></a> So do Christian nationalists.<a id="itr_nts93a"><sup>93</sup></a> They abandon their earlier obscurantism, the first myth, in favor of a new one: the subtler argument that our nation is founded on Judeo-Christian <a id="page17"></a>principles. Christian nationalism hinges on this second myth and, unlike the first, it is broadly accepted.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">This second myth is the focus of this book because it pervades all other Christian nationalist arguments. If America is not founded on Judeo-Christian principles, it is not a Christian nation. If America is not founded on Judeo-Christian principles, Christian nationalists are wrong. And although other authors have refuted the first fiction, the second remains untouched. This book seeks to change that by comparing the principles of Judeo-Christianity and the principles upon which the United States of America was founded. By focusing on the central tenets, the core ideas, of America and Judeo-Christianity, the first myth—America as a “Christian nation”—will necessarily be tested, as will the relevance of the founding fathers’ personal religious choices. But those issues are subsumed in the second, greater question, the question the “nine commandments” judge never had to answer: did Judeo-Christian principles positively influence the founding of the United States?</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">No, they did not. America was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. In fact, Judeo-Christian principles, especially those central to the Christian nationalist identity, are thoroughly opposed to the principles on which the United States was built. The two systems differ and conflict to such a degree that, to put it bluntly, Christianity is un-American.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Not only is it fair to say that Judeo-Christian principles are un-American, we must. The word “un-American” might make some squeamish because of the value judgment inherent in it. But America is in a fight for its values—its soul, if you prefer—and Christian nationalism is warping and torturing those values, dragging this country down a dark hole. To hesitate to describe this identity with apt phrases because they may be unpleasant is to cede the American identity to an imposter. To refuse to label that which is antithetical to America is to watch Christian nationalists hijack our nation.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Previous books offered gentle corrections to the Christian nationalist: Here’s what history tells us, here’s what the founders actually meant, here’s what the founders actually said. And they’ve left it at that. But correction is not enough—otherwise we wouldn’t have a President <a id="page18"></a>Trump. No, pointing out errors is insufficient. This book does so, but then it takes the next step. It goes on the offensive. This book is an assault on the Christian nationalist identity. Not only are Christian nationalists wrong, but their beliefs and identity run counter to the ideals on which this nation was founded.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">This book is an assault, but it’s also a defense, a defense of that quintessentially American invention, the “wall of separation between church and state.” I am a watcher on that wall. As a constitutional attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, I defend the First Amendment to the US Constitution by ensuring that government officials do not use the power of a public office to promote their personal religion. It is my duty to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We handle thousands of state/church complaints every year. Without fail, recalcitrant violators and their vocal supporters argue that they can impose prayer on kindergartners or pass out bibles in public schools or display the Ten Commandments on public property because this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. In short, I rebut this claim for a living, and I’ve dedicated my career to this fight because it is so important.</p><h2 class="head" style="line-height: 1.2em;"><strong>What I’m <em>Not</em> Arguing</strong></h2><p class="nonindent1" style="line-height: 1.2em;">It is important to understand the arguments this book is not making. Our country’s government and laws are distinct from its society and culture. It is the difference between our constitutional (or legal) identity and our popular (or social, or cultural) identity. This book does not argue that religion is absent from our culture. Indeed, some of the founders thought religion was necessary for an ordered society (as we shall see, this belief was both elitist and mistaken). However, this book will argue that religion is absent from our constitutional identity and that much of the Christian religion conflicts with that identity.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">That constitutional identity is not fully realized, and this book does not argue otherwise. Many of America’s founding principles are aspirational, or were for a long time. Since the American founding, successive generations have failed to fully implement the values, leaving it to their children to conquer human tragedies like slavery, segregation, and the subjugation of half the American population. We’ve made progress <a id="page19"></a>toward including all people in “We the People” and have made strides toward genuine equality, but there is still work to be done. Those as-yet-unmet goals do not alter America’s founding principles; rather, they speak to our ability and appetite to realize those principles.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">This book will also not revisit that well-trod territory of Judeo-Christianity’s role in important campaigns like the abolitionist and civil rights movements. Many books have been written about religion’s role in those movements while seeming to ignore religion’s contribution to the need for those movements in the first place. It’s a bit like praising a child for cleaning up his messy room. Religion helped perpetuate slavery in the first place, as we’ll see in <a>chapters 17</a> and <a>24</a>. Religion did not create slavery—war, economics, racism, poverty, and many more explanations for slavery have been advanced. But religion did provide a moral justification for American slavery. Plenty of historians and authors have focused on the cleanup while ignoring who made the mess. It may seem that this book blames all of society’s ills on religion, but that is simply because I am focusing on the side of the ledger that is typically ignored. Religion has much to answer for.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">In short, this book considers the accepted narrative of America’s founding from a new angle, one that does not assume religion is a positive influence on the world. I am an atheist with reasoned, thoughtful objections to religion. I do not think religious beliefs should be immune from criticism, even when analyzed from a historical perspective. Religious beliefs are ideas like any other, though they are defended more fervently and can often seem immune to reasoned argument. This book will treat religion like any other idea: not with contempt, but not with undue respect either. Christian nationalism has succeeded in part because of Americans’ ingrained unwillingness to offend religious sensibilities. But catering to these sensibilities limits our search for the truth, as does religion itself. There is strength in throwing off those self-imposed restraints.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Of course, irreverence is not enough. This book presents the facts. The endnotes are extensive, though the important substance is in the text, not the citations. Wherever possible for the founding era, citations are to original sources. If no original source could be found, the point cannot be found in this book.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;"><a id="page20"></a>One of the paradoxes of writing a book like this is that simply stating facts and relating history from original sources will be seen as an attack on Judeo-Christianity. The destruction of a beloved myth is no more persecution than the erosion of an unwarranted privilege. Many conservative American Christians fail to grasp these distinctions and, as a result, they are gripped by a morbid persecution complex. Every new instance of equality—every time a Christian government employee is told to obey the Constitution, every unconstitutional religious display removed from government property—becomes another talking point of the persecuted majority: the same majority that is overrepresented at every level of American government. When Trump told the Values Voter Summit in 2017, “We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” he was referring as much to books like this as he was to store clerks not saying Merry Christmas.<a id="itr_nts94a"><sup>94</sup></a> <em>The Founding Myth</em> is not a work of academic history but an argument, an attack. Specifically, it is an attack on Christian nationalism.</p><h2 class="head" style="line-height: 1.2em;"><strong>The Argument in Brief</strong></h2><p class="nonindent1" style="line-height: 1.2em;">This book takes seriously JFK’s warning about holding fast to the clichés of our forebears. It is time to subject the second myth—that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles—to the discomfort of scrutiny.<a id="itr_nts95a"><sup>95</sup></a> This book will analyze Judeo-Christian principles and compare them to American principles to see if there is agreement or positive influence.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">First, we examine America’s pre-constitutional era, beginning with the founders. We will not attempt to provide an in-depth examination of the founding fathers and their religion, which would be a book itself, but some discussion is inevitable. In looking at the founders’ personal views on religion, which are largely irrelevant, and their views on religion’s role in society, which were largely misguided, we find that the Christian nationalist’s argument is both wrong and disrespectful to those founders. The founders’ beliefs about the separation of state and church and political science, not their personal religious beliefs, are most important.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">The Declaration of Independence and even its quasi-religious language, examined next, are opposed to biblical law. Then we’ll step back <a id="page21"></a>and survey colonial history, where we find true Christian nations—the colonies—founded on Christian principles. Those Christian governments were so tyrannical that they became examples for the founders of how <em>not</em> to build a nation.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Next, we turn to the bastion of Judeo-Christian principles, the bible, and compare some of its fundamental principles—the Golden Rule, obedience to god, crime and punishment, original sin, redemption through Jesus’s sacrifice, faith, and biblical governments—to America’s founding principles. The comparison is disastrous for Christian nationalists.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">Then we scrutinize each of the Ten Commandments to see how they stack up against America’s founding principles. The few principles that appear both in the decalogue and in America’s judicial and legislative system—the prohibitions on murder, theft, lying—are not uniquely or originally Judeo-Christian. The exclusively Judeo-Christian principles are actually opposed to American principles.</p><p class="indent" style="line-height: 1.2em;">The book concludes with a look at some unavoidable American verbiage: “in God we trust,” “one nation under God,” and “God bless America.” These are not founding principles, but simply relics of Christian nationalists’ using government offices to promote their religion during times of fear, strife, and diminished civil rights.</p>Areohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04275255158056301310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5022188438791354248.post-1545518517389054772011-01-19T19:13:00.001-08:002011-01-19T19:15:39.648-08:00Atheists & Agnostics speak out in Arabic (English Sub.)<div style="text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="youtube-player" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/B1a3J3LQhUs?rel=0" title="YouTube video player" type="text/html" width="480"></iframe></div>أثير العانيhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03278032331810402620noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5022188438791354248.post-35003972732261719282007-10-27T09:27:00.000-07:002011-10-07T09:41:34.191-07:00Is the Quran a rhetorical miracle (a linguistic miracle)Is the Quran a rhetorical miracle (a linguistic miracle)<br />
<br />
<br />
The original Arabic text could be found at <a href="http://m-hosni.blogspot.com/2006/08/blog-post_115669767499094772.html" target="_blank">Schizophrenia's blog</a><br />
<br />
The Author of the original text is: Schizophrenia<br />
<br />
Quranic verse translation is adopted from the translators understanding of Arabic language as a mother tongue, guide for certain verses is from Yousuf Ali's Quran meanings.<br />
<br />
Translated By: Areo<br />
<br />
From Muslims point of view we find two groups, one that consider the Quran non-miraculous, and that Arabs did provide us with more complex and eloquent text compared to the Quran, and in light of this they interpret the challenge mentioned in Surat Al Israa Ayah # 88 as miraculous, based on the fact that in spite of their ability they were distracted to pursue the challenge, this is namely called (Alsirfah) the distraction, one such group to embrace this idea was Al-Motazilah (an Islamic Cult which means the disassociated or separated form) headed by Al-Nizam and his prodigy disciple Al-Gahez, who was considered the spokesman of Al-Motazilah for quite a long time, it is said that Al-Gahez has authored 360 books of which only few has made it to us.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The second group adopted the idea that the Quran is a linguistic wonder, a miracle in every meaning of the word, they consider it the ceiling of expression and eloquence in the Arabic language, no one have or will ever be able to achieve such linguistics perfection no matter what, this school of thought is the main stream of Ahl Al-Sunah Wa Al-Gamaaah (The major sect in the Islamic world which means the followers of the prophet and companions sayings and deeds), whom unlike AL-Motaziallh, in general favor narration rather than comprehension and logic, This idea was not based upon logic and proof, until the time of Abd EL-Kahir Al-Jerjani one of the greatest Arabic Scholars ever, and who coined the axiomatic phrase "The wording has done to the meanings (the text has achieved much for the context)", in spite of our opinion that he has tailored his book (The signs(proof) of miraculousness), to suit his opinion in a biased manner, regardless his theory is not to be belittled, and is considered as one of the most important theories in the analysis of the Arabic Language.<br />
<br />
What I am aiming at is to analyze both ideas and try to answer the main question, Is the Quran a rhetorical miracle? We have to first seek to understand what is RHETORIC<br />
<br />
Balagah the Arabic word for RHETORIC is a sub word derived from the word Balagha (which means declare , communicate, announce..) i.e. to transfer and convey a meaning, , it is a science subcategorized into three major science:<br />
<br />
Firstly the science of Baian (Demonstration or manifestation), which engages in visionary portrays and emotions, it was called the science of Bian as it is concerned with emphasizing manifestation of meanings and thoughts by the use of comparison, metaphor, and allegory<br />
<br />
Secondly we have the science of Maanii (meanings), which engages in meanings and ideas, and harmonizes between the linguistic structure, and the meaning required to be conveyed to the reader or the recipient, by the use of epitomes and verbose, conjunctions and dissociation.<br />
<br />
Finally the science of Al-Badeei (art of speech) which engages in the proper formulation and fashion, and selection of words.<br />
<br />
Before the time of Al-Jerjani men of literature such as Ibn Katibah would say of the dual nature of eloquence/meaning, they would even give precedence to words and composition over meanings (i.e. go for an eloquent text regardless of the context and clarity)<br />
<br />
Jerjani saw this as a murder of thought, and took side with those who gave precedence to clarity and meaning, his view that rhetoric is not in the choice of eloquence and musical sounding, but in the composition and compilation, meaning by this how to link words in thought resulting context in order to achieve a certain meaning that is obvious and distinguishable, accordingly meanings not words were the build of his view of writing, for there is no composition in words and no compilation until links are established between words, and words become subsequent to meaning as much as required from it and meant by its use, in other word Jirjani's view is that eloquence and rhetoric is achieved and measured by conformity of what you say with what you need to say, and an alteration of any word in your speech in this case would breach and violate the meaning, eloquence and rhetoric.<br />
<span class="fullpost"><br />
The problem with Jirjani is that he neglected the changes that occur on words and their meanings and the rise of new meanings to the same wordings, which makes his view on Miraculous rhetoric a failure, because if rhetoric is the compliance of words to meanings and words are evolving while meanings, visionary portrays, comparisons, expire, so how do we judge a text as absolutely and unconditionally rhetoric? Not to mention miraculously rhetoric! Also followers of Jirjanis school of though, are criticized for neglecting the vague and obscure in the Quranic text, for some of the Quran's words are unknown and quite vague while others have given rise to much controversy, such as the Arabic alphabets used at the beginning of some chapters not to mention words like (Aba)- Surat Abas verse 31 which Omar Ibn ELkhatab refrained from interpreting as he did not know its meaning, Or ( Aladiat Dabha) – Surat Aladiat verse where much has been said on the meaning of Adiat, so in light of this how do we judge a text as per the theory of compliance of words to meanings that we don't even know for a certainty? As for me I think that the first school of thought is more logical, for Al-Motazilah when they mingled with Persians and Romans and studied poetry and literature, in light of newer knowledge concluded the idea of Al-Sirfah (the distraction), and courageously admitted that the Quran is not the ultimatum of linguistics, but due to the custom that the major Sunah and Gamaah sect attained of battling against any new thought, not much of their ideas and writings reached us, and all we heard is written by opposing parties.<br />
<br />
Another quite important point is the fact that, rhetoric carries along the feelings and emotions of the nation it speaks to, for a lot of texts fail to preserve its eloquence during translation, the Quran itself is no exception, to make emphasis on this tryout changing the Quran to your colloquial language(if you are an Arabic speaking person the better) , you shall find yourself faced with a feeble collapsed text, far from literature or rhetoric science, when compared to your native literature, derived form philosophers and wise men over the years.<br />
<br />
My opinion is that the challenge mentioned in the Quran has no meaning, for who can claim to have produced something similar to what Imrio Al Kais (a renowned Arab poet before the time of Mohammed)? No one, as no one can replicate ingenuity, for ingenuity is a special case, a unique experience owned by only one, such allegations are quite ambiguous, we here set a new challenge that someone can come up with poem as Al-Homa (fever) By Al-Motanabi, or Al-Yatimah (The orphan) by Dawkalah or Al-Talasim (The Mysteries) by Gobran, impossible?! Repeating an ingenious work means repetition of the genetic code, and the environmental aspects including the persons attributes and whereabouts, which is an impossibility.<br />
<br />
And with regards to the saying of Al-Walid Ibn Almoghirah**, that the Muslims never seem to tire from repeating, this points to futility, when they are cornered and have nothing to say they start ( are you more capable of understanding the language than the old days Arabs) and repeat to you the well known story of Al-Walid Ibn Almoghirah that really is a very ridiculous story to narrate, for why if this is true didn't Al-Walid turn Muslim? Religion is no such matter to take lightly as he did, this is a crucial thing in our lives, also who transferred the story to us aren't the Muslims responsible for this , so are all whom were present during Al-Walids speech all stubborn or conspirators against the truth, to neglect his speech? Why didn' one of the presence turn Muslim?<br />
Gentlemen you are raising your opponents to a pedestal and at the same time mocking them.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
* The story of Al-Walid often quoted by Muslims goes as follows:<br />
Al-Walid one of the wealthy masters and respected leaders in Mecca commented on the Quran that it is sweet and delightful to hear graceful and elegant, its start is fruitful and its ending is generous, it precedes and is never preceded, it beats all else and this cannot be the saying of a Human.<br />
This of course is a very powerful statement and makes one wonder about the truth of it, but Muslims accept it unquestionably, this gives you a glimpse on the way the Muslims minds strives on the conspiracy theory (people other than Muslims really know that Islam is the truth but they refuse to follow it intentionally) </span><br />
<br />
<br />
Now let us turn our attention to some examples of the poorness of the Quranic expression according to certain measures:<br />
<br />
1. The first five verses of the Quran (as per the order Muslims claim Mohammed to have received it) are from Surat Al-Alaq, we notice the beautiful start (Read in the name of the creator- Iqraa Bism Rabika Alazi Khalak), it is an agile and spacious start, but for an unknown reason the author delved into specification of the creator, for I find no other reason other than chasing musical poetic structure when he said ( He created the human from a clot –Khalak Alinsan min Alaq), here the expanse of the word creator (which undefined would give a much more agreeing structure to the nature of a creator) was sacrificed by such particularization, again this scenario is repeated instantly in the following verse when he adds (He taught the human what he dosen't know –Wa Alam Al-Insan ma lam yaalam). Very interesting so he the creator taught us what we did not know so who taught us what we did know any way?<br />
<br />
2. The majority of Suras (Chapters) know as Moufasal (detailed) resemble priests rhyming (sorcerers mumbo jumbo), which if used by today's standards by a poet would entitle him to be jailed in a five star prison, for instance Surat AL-Nas and Surat Al-Falaq , I really don't know what is linguistically miraculous in these verses? Do any of you know, please fell free to tell me. Also Surat Al-Homazah and Al-Feel, and Koraish …… the list is endless.<br />
<br />
3. And they ask you about menstruation, say it is harmful (Arabic wording could mean evil, filth or pollution) so dissociate yourselves from women during their periods, what is rhetoric in this statement? Similarly, statements mentioned as a reference for rulings and verdicts, are introduced with no concern of good structure. <br />
<br />
<br />
There has to be certain rules in a text such as the Quran to make it a miracle:<br />
<br />
a. All humans have to fail providing something like it, but how do we specify this similarity, believers will not agree to any type of comparison, they sequester any attempt even before they approach it, as rhetoric is subject mostly to human taste, it becomes quite impossible to state otherwise, they don't give us a clear definition or set of agreed upon standards, but regardless I shall provide to you a text authored by Kas Ibn Saadah Al-Aiadi, whom was before the time of Islam , and you be the judge, as for myself, I see it as a similar text to the Quran:<br />
<span style="color: green;">Hear and comprehend, he who lives dies, and he who dies lies, any to come shall come, a black night, a morning bright, and a sky in height,<br />
In earth are evictions and in skies predictions, I deservingly swear, in earth happiness follows what we bear, but God has a religion preferable than yours, he is the only God, not got or begot, Forever and ever , from him escape is never**</span><br />
We could of course go on for hours ranting about the text and its selection of words and its immaculacy, and yes its miracles, how about those whom for thousand of years have been studying a single text !!<br />
<span style="color: blue;">** Not accurately translated in an attempt to keep the rhyme in the text. </span><br />
<br />
b. A miraculous text should be very clear and in no way similar to any other saying and fear of confusion with another type of text should not be present, why should it? If the text is miraculous then it should stand clear. If two texts are received the text allegedly miraculous should need no pointing out, so what about this two Hadith (Mohammed's teachings and sayings) <br />
- Do not write after me but the Quran, and any who did otherwise should erase it.<br />
- Zaid Ibn Thabit was asked by caliphate Moawiah to recite a Hadith and ordered one of his men to write it down but Zaid answered : Prophet of Allah ordered us to refrain from writing his sayings and erase what we already have.<br />
The first is mentioned in Masnad Ahmed and corrected (approved as correct) by Muslim (a famous Hadith collector and verifier), while the other is also mentioned in Masnad Ahmed.<br />
Both are undeniably accepted by Sunah sect whom justify this objection (as they actually went against the prophet's advise) by the fear of the Quran being mixed with the Hadith, while today after the Quran has settled in place the ban is over and needless, but how could there be such fear that a miraculous text is indistinguishable from a regular text,<br />
<br />
c. A miraculous text should always be miraculous, by the same level throughout the text rhetoric should be on one level, so can Muslims honestly say that Surat Al-Nissa is as beautiful and elegant as Surat Yousuf.<br />
<br />
d. A miraculous text should not be subject to change and evolution as we find when we study various human authors whom differ throughout their life in the quality of their works, if we list the Quran chronologically we will observe this evolvement, in matters such as the length of the verses, the use of musical structure and the integrity of the text……<br />
<br />
e. A miraculous text will not bend itself to keep rhyming in sacrifice of meaning as we stated previously in Surat Al-Alaq, also we find this in Surat Al-Masad where it mentions, Tabat Yada Abi Lahain Wa Tab then in the next verse Sayaslah nara zat lahab. He will endure a fire that has flames (zat lahab) so what does zat lahab add here except rhyming, when was the last we saw a fire without flames? Why the repetition of the B (Baa) alphabet four times and then the omission in the fifth verse by using the word Masaad which ends in a D and not in the usual B used throughout the chapter, is this a miraculous addition or is it a rhetorical flaw<br />
<br />
Is the Quran a linguistic miracle?<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span></span>Areohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04275255158056301310noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5022188438791354248.post-86275420825545299872007-10-24T03:09:00.000-07:002011-10-07T09:41:26.363-07:00Is this God?<div style="text-align: justify;">The original Arabic text could be found at <a href="http://ladeeni.net/pn/Article329.html" target="_blank">The Forum of Arab Areligionists</a> *<br />
<br />
The Author of the original text is: Walid Mukaled<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">Quranic verse translation is adopted from <a href="http://www.altafsir.com/ViewTranslations.asp?Display=yes&SoraNo=1&Ayah=0&Language=2&TranslationBook=4" target="_blank">Yousef Ali's Quran meanings</a> and from the translators understanding of Arabic language as a mother tongue.</div><br />
Translated By: Mandamus<br />
<span class="fullpost"><br />
<span style="color: blue;">* Areligionists is the translators attempt to translate the Arabic word ladeeni which describes those who don't believe in a religion, such broad classification is not found in the English literature as far as my knowledge, the classification expands to include Atheist, Agnostics, Deists, while it might seem that an Agnostic is a similar description, the fact is Agnostics (especially from the Arabs perspective) could have a neutral stance towards religion, while Areligionists are quite sure on their stance towards religion as being from a human source. Additionally such broader description allowed for inclusion of other walks of thought including atheism and deism, which in my opinion is needed at the start of an Arab movement against religion.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><u>Is this God?</u></span><br />
</span><br />
Why is there a preserved plate?<br />
Why are there writers from angels?<br />
Why there is a Squeak of pens Mohammed has heard when approached God in his Maraj trip?<br />
Does god need a plate to write what he wants in?<br />
Does god forget or does he need to review his thoughts?<br />
I can understand humans need for books and plates to keep there records but what is the need of god for plates or even writers to keep his words or his orders.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
A general look to Islamic God “Allah” reveals a picture of extraordinary king from that period of time.<br />
In this picture god has a throne with eight carriers of it, we can find this image here were he says:<br />
“And the angels will be on its sides, and eight will, that Day, bear the Throne of thy Lord above them.” [69:17] Al-Haqqah<br />
<br />
this throne comes as a proof or as an evidence of his great power and his great kingdom. As there is no king without a throne same as any king of that time, thus Islam gave a great attention to this throne and its size, place or what it represents.<br />
<span class="fullpost"><br />
As other kings, this great God-King “Allah“ has soldiers “the angels “ who are loyal to him. Those angels have especial class same as nobles or close collaterals and they are: Gabriel, Michael, Asra .<br />
Gabriel represents the personal representative of God as we can find in :<br />
“Endued with Power, with rank before the Lord of the Throne” [81:20] Al-Taqwir<br />
While Michael’s responsibility was water, plants and God’ grants. Many angels were writers of god’s deeds :<br />
“Kind and honorable,- Writing down (your deeds)” [82:11] Al-Infitar<br />
And according to Mohammed they were writing on papers and with an ink that can get dry:<br />
“The pens have been lifted and the ink has dried.” Al Jamae al sahih 7957<br />
<br />
This great God-King has a dignity and domination that makes all move rank upon rank in order just behind him if he moved or walked:<br />
“And thy Lord cometh, and His angels, rank upon rank” [89:22] Al-Fajr.<br />
No one dares to talk in his presence as he has a complete control on his soldiers by the great power and influence he has.<br />
“The Day that the Spirit and the angels will stand forth in ranks, none shall speak except any who is permitted by (God) Most Gracious, and He will say what is right.” [78:38] An-Naba<br />
He also has slaves (human race) breed in his kingdom and he blesses them with his grants.<br />
“If ye would count up the favours of God, never would ye be able to number them: for God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [16:18] Al-Nahl.<br />
And who disobey him shall be tortured severely and he who obeys him shall be blessed and honored.<br />
“Then shall anyone who has done an atom’s weight of good, see it!” [99:7] Al-Zalzala<br />
<br />
“And anyone who has done an atom’s weight of evil, shall see it.” [99:8] Al-Zalzala<br />
<br />
As any king of his time, Islamic God has an hour where you can ask from him what you want. Thus who asks him will be given without consideration (the Kadar evening, Friday’ hour),. And also has an hour where doesn’t response or accepts any prayer (before the sun set whereas the sun is between the devils horns ). This was the habits of AL Manathera' kings, the lucky days and the misfortune or unlucky days.<br />
<br />
And this God-King is also the justice, the goodness, wisdom, knowledge, mercy and all those adjectives that almost every verse in Al Quran ends with.<br />
To complete this picture of this God-King we must add the secessionist general. Thus Lucifer or Satan was this noble knight who arrogantly seceded when one of those slaves (Adam) has been promoted to higher class even than him and has been asked to prostrate to him.<br />
“So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them together: [38:73] Not so Iblis: he was haughty, and became one of those who reject Faith. [38:74] (God) said: "O Iblis! What prevents thee from prostrating thyself to one whom I have created with my hands? Art thou haughty? Or art thou one of the high (and mighty) ones?" [38:75] (Iblis) said: "I am better than he: thou createdst me from fire, and him thou createdst from clay." [38:76]” Sad.<br />
Lucifer or Iblis (the Islamic name) seceded in a very silly naïve attitude as the God-King didn’t punish him or kill him (though he is supposed to be the only capable one) for disobeying his orders, just as it looks like a trick or it has been prepared to please the God-King.<br />
“ (God) said: "Be thou among those who have respite." [7:15] Al-Araf<br />
<br />
He didn’t kill or punish him but instead he said: here you are my despicable slave (Adam) who you despise, show me what you are doing to him; All Fall from Eden and let’s see a fight to death between two slaves.<br />
The God-King is now pleased watching the fight and he doesn’t give an order to stop.<br />
<br />
Doesn’t it make more sense than the story of which of them are the best in conduct?<br />
“That which is on earth we have made but as a glittering show for the earth, in order that we may test them - as to which of them are best in conduct.” [18:7] Al-Kahf.<br />
<br />
At the end, the God-King kills the secessionist by the name of getting rid of evil:<br />
“ (God) said: "Get out from this, disgraced and expelled. If any of them follow thee,- Hell will I fill with you all.” [7:18] Al-Araf<br />
<br />
Is this the image of God that you want me to believe in???<br />
</span></div>Mandamushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341602155948742457noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5022188438791354248.post-19878704284058786212007-10-23T17:19:00.000-07:002011-10-07T09:41:15.723-07:00The quranic miracles allegers play with words - the development of embryo<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black; font-size: 100%;">The original Arabic text could be found at <a href="http://ladeeni.net/pn/Article72.html" target="_blank">The Network of Non-religious Arabs</a><br />
<br />
The Author of the original Arabic text is: Yusuf Saqr<br />
<br />
Quranic verse translation is adopted from Yousef Ali's Quran meanings with comments from the translators understanding of Arabic language as a mother tongue<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Translated By: Atheeriraqi</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><u>The quranic miracles allegers play with words, the development of embryo as a Sample</u></span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">The Language is a set of sounds, it is actually codes like any other codes, it expresses our ideas and feelings. The definition of the Language is “Sounds by which each group of people describe their intentions”, said Ibn Jinni. This definition doesn’t describe the whole meaning of the word “Language”, however, it is the closest definition to the context of our subject.</span></div><a name='more'></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">The language consists of indicators – phonetic and written- which refer to “things in our actual surrounding” so when I spell or write the word “Bab </span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="font-size: 100%;">باب</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">”(“Door” in Arabic language), the sounds which I make is an indicator or a code which refers to something already existing in the actual life, that is, “Bab”(Door), the pronounced or written word has no indication by its own.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">And in order that the language can achieve its goal, the communicating parties through the language should agree on the indication of each indicator and <span style="font-size: 0px;"></span>its meaning, because there is no relation between “Bab”(Door) as a word and the actual “Bab”(Door) except our agreement that these sounds refer to that actual entity, that is to say, if the Arabs have agreed, for instance, that “the thing that we pass thought it (i.e. the door)” may be called “Handabees(which is not a word in Arabic at all)”, then the proposed word “Handabees” would have remembered an Arab with the actual door instead of the Arabic word used today “Bab”.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">As an example, when you watch a movie in a language that you haven’t learnt, or when a group of people speak with each other in a different language of yours, then the sounds that they pronounce will not achieve its aim to you, and the same applies when you speak your own language which they haven’t learnt,<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">Starting from this introduction we say:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">The qur’anic words which some (Muslim) theologists consider to be a miracle, those words exist already among Arabs and are aware of their meanings, so, if the Arabs have not been familiar with the meaning of such words, the text could not be understood, exactly as if you listen to a foreign language which you have not learnt. So, when Muhammad has mentioned in the Qur’an<span style="font-size: 0px;"> </span>the word “Mudgha</span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="font-size: 100%;">مضغة</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">” as a stage of the development of the embryo, Quran said:<o:p></o:p></span><span class="fullpost"></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;">[</span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><st1:time hour="23" minute="13"><span lang="EN-GB">23:13</span></st1:time></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;">] Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;">[23:14] Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh…etc</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">there should be already a meaning for this word known to the Arabs at that time, it is of course true that the Quran included words which had no meaning in the actual life of Arabs like “Sakar </span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="font-size: 100%;">سقر</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">”, however, the meaning of those words have been explained by Quran itself or “Hadith”(speech of Muhammad), e.g. “Sakar” is “wadi in Jahannam” (a valley in the hill) and the Arabs already knew what the words “wadi” and “Jahannam” mean, so they could have an idea about the meaning of the word “Sakar”, but the case is different when we deal with the<span style="font-size: 0px;"> </span>word “Mudgha” as its meaning was already known to the Arabs at the time of Muhammad.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">But how could these words enter the Arabic language at that time? That is, how could the Arabs before Muhammad know those things (e.g. “Mudgha”) and coined words which describe them? This is easy to answer, it is simply known after the abortion, Yes, because abortion can happen at any stage of pregnancy, for instance, there are some pathological cases which the woman<span style="font-size: 0px;"> </span>may miscarry many times in different months, and the miscarried fetus take every time a different shape, so it was necessary to coin words to describe each stage of the abortion. So they coined the words “Mudgha </span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="font-size: 100%;">المضغة</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">” and “<a href="http://arabatheist1.blogspot.com/2007/10/quranic-miracles-allegers-play-with.html#alaqa2" name="alaqa1">Alaqa(1)</a></span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="font-size: 100%;"> العلقة </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">” ….etc<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">And because the Arabic language –and I think all Semitic- depends on deriving new words from a certain root of a word – for instance the arabic word “Mahmool</span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="font-size: 100%;">محمول </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">” that we use nowadays to describe the “Mobile phone”, it is derived from the root “Haml</span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="font-size: 100%;">حَمل </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-size: 0px;"></span>= to carry”, therefore, the word “Mahmool” refers to that we carry the mobile with us wherever we go - , it is easy to predict that Arabs have derived words for each stage that we mentioned, it is not difficult to understand that each word of those which Quran mentioned has been derived from a root which resembles the state of the embryo at the relevant stage. “Mudgha“ for instance, has been derived from the root „Madhaga </span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="font-size: 100%;">مَضَغَ</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"> = to chew“, i.e. the stage when the embryo resembles the chewed lump of flesh” and so on… all these likening are just a simile which helps to understand the meaning, but do not describe the reality of the object, in the relevant stage the embryo is not a chewed lump of flesh, but something alike, and there is no scientific miracle here but an expression which shows shortage and ignorance of the coiners of the word not from Muhammad who has merely used it as he has heard and known.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">There is a very important point, not only concerning the Quranic text of the development of embryo but relating to all the verses of Quran which the quranic miracles allegers use, this point is:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">Is it possible to broaden the meaning of the word more than it really refers to? Namely to say that this “word” refers to that “thing” without any prior agreement ? (of the Arabs at the time of Muhammad). In order that my speech will be clear, is it possible that somebody says to me “Iftah Al-Bab</span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="font-size: 100%;">افتح الباب</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"> = open the door” and I understand it „open your heart” because the heart is the door to our friendship. Actually this is possible but within limits and regulations, otherwise there would be no meaning of our speech. One of these regulations is those of figuration (simile, metonymy and metaphor ..etc) as when I say: “Tirtu min al-farah </span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="font-size: 100%;">طرت من الفرح</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"> = I flied because of happiness” I do not mean flying literally but just to describe my state of happiness, but “Al-Majaz </span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="font-size: 100%;">المجاز</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"> = the figuration" as the Arab rhetorical specialists say e.g. Abdul-Qahir Al-Jurjani is “passing from the actual meaning to another one because a relation between the actual meaning and the new meaning exists”, that is, the relation between flying and the happiness, this rule should not be ignored, however, the subject of the regulation of figuration is a big issue and I do not think that the miracles allegers mean it, there is no relation to it in our point of discussion, add to that the differences among Muslims as some of them refuse that Quran includes figuration.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">Therefore, there is no reason for broadening the meaning of Quranic verses but “Al-Ta’weel </span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="font-size: 100%;">التأويل</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">” which means that one (i.e. a miracles alleger) takes words and understand them in a way deviating it from the actual meaning, and this is our point of discussion in this article. As one says to his wife –when they are guests-<span style="font-size: 0px;"> </span>“what time is it?” and his wife understands that they have been late and they should leave but he is embarrassed to say that in front of the hosts.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">That is exactly what the miracle allegers do, they read in Quran the word “Mudhga </span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="font-size: 100%;">مضغة</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"> = a chewed lump of flesh" and say : “This what we call nowadays ……….(they put a modern scientific term in the blank)” this is exactly what they do.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">A good example of that, when the people thought that the planets around the earth are seven planets, the quranic miracles allegers have interpreted the seven firmaments mentioned in Quran as those seven planets, so they have given the word firmament a different meaning “i.e. planet”, but when the scientists of astronomy have discovered that there are nine planets (moving round the sun at the time of the writer and since 2006 they are considered to be eight according to IAU: the translator), After that discovery, they have changed their mind about the interpretation of “the seven firmaments”, And I have heard that there are some researches which expect that two other planets are going to be discovered, so they will be eleven and the miracle allegers have said that the Quran has mentioned the eleven planets in a verse in “Sura = Chapter of Quran” called “Yusuf = Joseph“, here it is: “</span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><b><span lang="EN-GB">[12:4] </span></b></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;">Behold! Joseph said to his father: "O my father! I did see eleven stars and the sun and the moon: I saw them prostrate themselves to me!".<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;">I have read this – news with its interpretation in an Islamic magazine. “the miracles allegers added other two planets (Pseudo Science), so the planets have been eleven at the time when they were considered to be nine and continued with this allegation till the IAU stated at their conference in 2006 that the planets are eight after expelling Pluto: the translator”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;">The question is : Can’t I give any word you say any other meaning I want then I say “oh, what you said is a miracle?, of course I can, here is an example:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;">There is a verse of Al-Mutanabby “An Arab poet expected to claim being a prophet at his time, lived <span style="color: black;">915-965 AD</span>: the translator”, he described fever “Humma in Arabic” as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;">“My visitor seems as if it were shy<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-size: 0px;"></span>it does not visit me but in the darkness”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;">Can’t I search in the scientific researches to find something to allege that the fever would be more acute at the darkness of the night and the microbe never reaches the highest activity but at a “specified hour” at the night. And this is what is meant by the poet “Al-Mutanabby”.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;">He has also another verse which means that the disk(of the sun) has never appeared one day,<span style="font-size: 0px;"> </span>and the people (the people who believed him) thought that the sun will never shine again.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;">Isn’t it possible that one alleges that this poet has meant that the sun never shines because he has known that the rotation of the earth around the sun and around itself is the reason of seeing the sun not the sun itself is moving and ………(and allege what you want)!!<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;">(the last paragraph has been edited slightly by the translator)<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;">The examples are so many.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;">We can only speak about “miracles” when Quran refers to “scientific facts” very clearly and obviously, then and only then we shall start speaking about it.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />
</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span><br />
</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">(1)</span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;"> A<a href="" name="alaqa2">laqa <span style="font-size: 85%;"></span></a><span style="font-size: 85%;"><a href="http://arabatheist1.blogspot.com/2007/10/quranic-miracles-allegers-play-with.html#alaqa1"><span style="font-style: italic;">back to article</span></a></span> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">the word “Alaqa” can have different meanings, the one that has been considered almost always till the twentieth century in the “Tafseer” (interpretations of the Quran) was “</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">congealed blood” as Yusuf Ali translated it, which is actually a scientific mistake because blood can grow into nothing, However, another meaning is possible which Quran miracles allegers use nowadays, that is “the thing which clings” as Maurice Bucaille alleged to be a scientific fact”.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">The truth is that Arabs already used the verb “Alaqa” (to cling) to describe a woman to become pregnant, so when Muhammad has said it, he added nothing from his side, the miracle should accordingly belong to paganism as Arabs were pagan at that time.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">Here are some quotations from Arabic lexicons:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">Lisan Alarab </span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">لسان العرب</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-size: 0px;"></span>under the word “Alaq” <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-SA" style="font-size: 100%;">وعلِقت المرأَة بالولد وكل أنثى عُلُوقًا حبلت</span><span style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">A woman „alaqa“ t with the child, and any female is „Ulooq“ = to become pregnant<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">Taj Al-Uroos </span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-IQ" style="font-size: 100%;">تاج العروس</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">: <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-SA" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">وعلِقَت المرْأةُ علَقاً، أي: حبِلَتْ</span><span style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">The woman „alaqa“ t alaqan = to become pregnant<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">t : is used in Arabic for the verb whose subject is feminine<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">alaqan: is an assertion to the verb “alaqa” <o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 100%;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399;"><span style="color: #cc0000; font-style: italic;"><u>the sources in the lexicons (in Arabic)</u></span></span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 100%;"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399;"><o:p><span style="text-decoration: none;"></span></o:p></span></u></b></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><a href="http://lexicons.ajeeb.com/openme.asp?fileurl=/html/7075255.html">http://lexicons.ajeeb.com/openme.asp?fileurl=/html/7075255.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><a href="http://islamport.com/d/3/lqh/1/70/886.html">http://islamport.com/d/3/lqh/1/70/886.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;">So my opinion is that Muhammad has formed the noun "Alaqa علقة" to describe the first stage of pregnancy as the verb "alaqat" means “(for a female) to become pregnant”, the stage before the "Alaqa" is the “Nutfa” which is a drop of sperm (it exists without causing pregnancy necessarily).<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #333399; font-size: 100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #cc0000; font-size: 100%;"><span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">The translator</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>أثير العانيhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03278032331810402620noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5022188438791354248.post-71178589025355279852007-10-21T02:33:00.000-07:002011-10-07T09:41:04.429-07:00The rotation of the earth between science and religion- by Hairan<div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span style="color: #6633ff;">The rotation of the earth between science and religion</span><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The original Arabic text could be found at <a href="http://www.ladeeni.net/pn/Article74.html">The Forum of Arab Areligionists*</a><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span><span lang="AR-EG"><span dir="ltr"></span><span dir="ltr"></span> </span> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The Author of the original text is: Hayran <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Quranic verse translation is adopted from Yousef Ali's Quran meanings and from the translators understanding of Arabic language as a mother tongue.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Translated By: Areo<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="color: #6633ff; font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span>* </span></b><b><span style="color: #6633ff; font-size: 13.5pt;">Areligionists is the translators attempt to translate the<span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span>Arabic word Ladeeni which describes those who don't believe in a religion, such<span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span>broad classification is not found in the English literature as far as my<span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span>knowledge, the classification expands to<span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span>include Atheist, Agnostics, Deists, while it might seem that an Agnostic is a<span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span>similar description, the fact is Agnostics (especially from the Arabs perspective) could have a<span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span>neutral stance towards religion, while Areligionists are quite sure on their<span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span>stance towards religion as being from a human source. Additionally such broader<span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span>description allowed for inclusion of other walks of thought including atheism<span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span>and deism, which in my opinion is needed at the start of an Arab movement<span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span>against religion<span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span>.</span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #6633ff; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br />
<o:p></o:p></span></b> <span class="fullpost"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">To start with and before I delve into translating the article I shall feed you back on some of the ideas and different meanings of the Arabic Verse (Ayah) under consideration<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">In An-Naml (The Ant) Surah (which is somewhat similar to the bibles chapter) we find the ayah (verse) number 82<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">The literal pronunciation goes as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Wa Tara AlGibal Tahsaboha Gamedah Wa hiya Tamor Mar Alsahab<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Hereby is the Arabic meaning as per my understanding:<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Wa : and<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><st1:place><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Tara</span></b></st1:place><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;"> : you see ( the verb see in present (sometimes the Arabic language could use present verbs to indicate future tense)<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Algibal : Al = The & Gibal = Mountains ie: the mountains<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Tahsaboha : the verb tahsab could have various meanings as per context, while the literal translation I found in the dictionary is to investigate, the meaning here is more of the verb Tazonaha which actually revolves around the meaning "to think of it, to belive about it, to take as, to regard etc.."<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">While the addition ha means the feminine gender (earth)<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">So I shall translate tahsaboha as think of it as <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Gamedah : Solid, hard, stiff, inflexible, rigid are literal translations, but the meaning is more like "still", from the context<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Wa : again means and<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Heay : it in the female gender<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Tamor : passes by<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Mar : the passage of<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Alsahab : al = The & Sahab = Clouds<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Accordingly my understanding which is quite acceptable from an Arabic speaker's point of view is: <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">And you see the mountains and think it still while it passes by as the passage of clouds.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">While the following translation is what Yousuf Ali presented in his "The meanings of Quran"<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">88. Thou seest the mountains and thinkest them firmly fixed: but they shall pass away as the clouds pass away:<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Note the "shall" here, which indicates his understanding of the verse to be figuratively speaking of the future. While this is not the case of the actual text, but he does have a valid point that we shall see in the original article, which made him transfer the act of movement to the future.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Having said that let us return to Hairan's article<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The rotation of earth around the sun and around its axis is a modern scientific fact, that is undoubted by any scientist – as far as I know- I think that the idea has long left the territory of a theory and reached the pillar of an established fact, with advances in cosmology, astronomy and technological science, and the increase of humans capabilities, we have achieved shifting our frame of reference, by moving our equipment to outer space, and actually photographing the earth, now scientists build quite a lot on their futuristic knowledge of the exact location of the earth on a certain date, etc…</span></b></div><a name='more'></a><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">In the near and distant past, man thought-according to Ptolemy – that the earth was both stationary and the center of the universe, all celestial bodies in the sky rotated round it.. This was the common belief, but it wasn't the only belief, for Pythagoras said of the rotation of the earth around the sun, and Aristarchus (310-230 B.C) said of the rotation of the earth and the stillness of the starts, and that our observations of stars movement are but a reflection of the earth's movement.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Copernicus in turn proposed the rotation of the earth around the sun, and that the sun is the center of the universe.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">And then Galileo and Kepler between them, proved scientifically the case of earth rotation around the sun and around its axis, Galileo famous persecution by the Catholic Church is well known and needless to mention, for he was accused of blasphemy and heresy for claiming earth rotation.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Enter the age of information revolution in the 20th century; there is no doubt now that the rotation of the earth is a fact. The rise of the age of science was accompanied by an evolvement in the Muslims community, with such claims as : hey this was mentioned in our book since 1400 years, read the Quran Surat An Naml 88 " Wa Tara AlGibal Tahsabha Gamedah Wa hiya Tamor Mar Alsahab"<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">"And you see the mountains and think it still while it passes by as the passages of clouds."<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Translators note: Here I used my translation, as Yousuf Ali's translation, is by no means indicative of such claims.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Strangely enough is that this fact mentioned in the Muslims book since 1400 years, never gained the attention of the Muslims scientists or theologians throughout the centuries, until it became an established fact by the West and its scientists.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">But is this really what the Quran says?<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Personally I don't think so… on the contrary, I think that the Quran supports the theory of the stillness of the earth, and rejects its rotation.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">So let us study the verses together may Allah enlighten us both.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Mr. Zaghlool Elnajar says:<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">This Holy verse of Suart An Naml indicates the rotation of the earth around its axis while facing the sun, as the mountains are part of the earth so if it moves as the clouds this is an implied indication to the rotation of the earth around its axis, it is customary of the Quran to indicate cosmic facts implicitly, such that the generations of different eras shall understand a certain meaning according to their acquired knowledge, the meaning of the verses remains wide enough to embrace any variation in the human knowledge pool, in an integration that never sees a contradiction. And as such this is one of the most powerful signs of the scientific miracle of Allah's Book. In the past times translators and commentators understood the verse as an indication of what will happen to the mountains on the day of doom or time of the end (Youm Al Kiamah) , but we know from the Quran that on that time the mountains will be fully blasted, and this implication found in the verse number 88 of Surat An Namel precedes all human knowledge in indicating the rotation of the earth. (Thanks to Zaghlool Alnajar)<o:p></o:p></span></b> <span class="fullpost"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Here Mr. Elnajar and those who followed his steps have committed a dire error, for he jumps on the wordings at the expense of context, to achieve his goal regardless of the facts, I shall assume for the sake of debate ( which is a false assumption as we shall later on see) that the verses are not actually referring to dooms day scenes but are referring to an every day occasion , do mountains really pass as clouds do?<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">To answer such question let us first examine what really is the passage of clouds.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Earth with all that it encompasses on its surface, in the deepness of its seas, and in its atmosphere are all obeying the same moving effect, clouds are no exception, all yield to earth in its movement around the sun, accordingly the clouds movement observed by humans from earth is but a relative movement attributed to the wind's effect which pushes the clouds, That is to say that the movement of the clouds is of two components, the former being due to the movement of earth itself and the later the relative movement to earth which is what we observe, as we are also moving with earth around the sun <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">So is the Quranic expression an accurate one in light of this?<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">On the contrary.. I see it as a grave scientific mistake, for the movement-that the callers of scientific miracles (thereafter named miracleists) claim- of the mountains which resembles the clouds movement is impossible, as the mountains do not move relative to earth.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Had the verse declared , you see the earth still while it actually moves like the clouds that would have been a little on the side of rationality and accuracy, but to use the mountains to indicate earth, is unacceptable as mountains are part of earth and the part do not compensate for the whole.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Translators note: take the following example to see<span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span>what the author means<span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span>: </span><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">The clouds moves does not imply that the earth is moving <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Also my arm is moving does not imply that I am moving. While the other way round is true. <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">End of note<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Additionally the comparison between the earth movement (the whole) and the movement of the clouds (a part) is acceptable to indicate the difference in the types of movement , while to compare two parts (the mountains and the clouds) we have to refer them to the same frame of reference (the whole) which in our case is earth.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Some might object on the basis of the wording used "tahsaboha" (which means think or belief as previously explained), and argue that the word indicates relativity , but the verse states that the movement of the mountains is exactly similar to the movement of the clouds "Tamor mar alsahb" (moves as the clouds) and it is unacceptable to change the wording form "Tamor mar alsahb" (moves as the clouds) to "Tamor ka mar alsahb" (moves as if like the clouds) as it is well known that the meanings of the Quran is very sensitive to adding alphabets which changes the meaning <span style="color: #336600;">(The author is indicating that had this been the intention of the author of the Quran he could have simply added the Ka alphabet: The translator) </span><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Also the word "tahsaboha" (think that it) is clearly referring to the stillness of the mountains, as it is to the addressee (the human) which agrees with his frame of reference, that is to say that if we accept the wording "tahsaboha" to be referring to the relative movement then the movement should be relative to the addressee <span style="color: #336600;">(Translators note: who is of course in our days still standing on earth and even if we change his frame of reference then the analogy to cloud movement will be false, as now he is seeing the clouds compound movement and the tahsaboha loses its meaning, for he no longer see it as stationary) <o:p></o:p></span></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">So the movement referred to in the Quran must have another meaning, different to the rotation of the earth, for as far as I know the </span></b><st1:place><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Himalaya</span></b></st1:place><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> and other mountains have not been in the habit of moving recently. <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">But are the Holy verses really referring to a natural observation or are they referring to a metaphysical incident, which will occur on dooms day?<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I would like you to all note Zaglool Najars interpretation and his argument based upon the blasting idea that makes him deduce that this verse is not referring to dooms day.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">But let us recall the verses from </span></b><st1:city><st1:place><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Surat</span></b></st1:place></st1:city><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> An Naml <span style="color: #336600;">(as per Yousuf Ali's interpretation only verse 88 is followed by the translator as Ali's translation is evidently not in favor of Zaglool's interpretation):</span><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">87. And the Day that the Trumpet will be sounded - then will be smitten with terror those who are in the heavens, and those who are on earth, except such as Allah will please (to exempt): and all shall come to His (Presence) as beings conscious of their lowliness. <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">88. Thou seest the mountains and thinkest them firmly fixed: but they shall pass away as the clouds pass away: (such is) the artistry of Allah, who disposes of all things in perfect order: for he is well acquainted with all that ye do.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">88.And you see the mountains and think it still while it passes by as the passage of clouds…………………….<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">89. If any do good, good will (accrue) to them therefrom; and they will be secure from terror that Day. <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">90. And if any do evil, their faces will be thrown headlong into the Fire: "Do ye receive a reward other than that which ye have earned by your deeds?" <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">As I see the preceding and following verses to the verse under consideration are clearly referring to dooms day, the <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">day the trumpet is blown, the day of fright, the day faces are smothered in fire……. So are miracleists still insistent on removing the verse out of its normal context, in order to align it with their unfortunately fanciful thoughts?<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Some might see that the verse carries a double meaning, but could one verse have two contradicting meanings at the same time?<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I see this as strange, for either the verse is referring to regular every day observation or to dooms day scenery, and as per the context it is referring to dooms day, but as per miracleists it is referring to regular natural phenomenon claiming that the verse of blasting proves that this is not a dooms day occurrence.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Clearly this is a feeble argument to anyone who has somewhat read the Quran. To know why it is so we need but only search for the word Al-gibal (mountains) in the Quran, to know that the moving of the mountains, along with blasting, crumbling and alteration to fluffy wool, is part of dooms day scenery, likewise stillness, stabilization and anchoring are the every day regular life style, so are they passing or are they stationary? Two contradictory meanings that are not solved except after accepting that they are describing two separate incidents or scenes, one the every day and other the dooms day <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Such interpretation neither agrees nor contradicts science, as we are discussing supernatural metaphysical incident that has yet to occur, so there is no evidence that they are either true or false.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">(Translators note: in spite of this Muslims will not let it be, they have to have this anchor for their faith the scientifically miraculous claim is kind of proof for them that they are following the correct religion, and they seem to be in a desperate need for such proof)<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The deduction of earth stillness through examination of Quran<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I am aware that the coming part is subject to much controversy between disagreeing parties, as it is built on certain interpretations of various Quranic verses, for there is no such verse that openly states that the earth is still, or that it doesn’t move. Additionally even these verses that could be considered as bearing such meaning could be easily considered by theologians as motashabehat <span style="color: #336600;">(***unclear see translators footnote at end of article for a description of unclear or motahsabehat verses)</span> and never settle or agree on these verses status, but our opinion is built on several evidence that we consider (or others consider) solid, additionally we are basing our conclusion on the agreement of Islamic theologians , interpreters, and the prophet's close companions and followers from the very first days of the rise of Islam on the subject of the earth stillness , for these are the people that the Quran descended in their language and the language of their era. <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">While the claim by miracleists that the Quran intentionally refrained from shocking them by stating facts far from their acceptance and understanding is quite a silly far fetched claim , for all religions without exception were founded on demolition of established facts and dogmas and exposure of false but accepted beliefs, so really did Mohammed know about these cosmological facts but refrained from mentioning them to his followers in fear of raising turmoil.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Didn't Allah inform him in the Quran <span style="color: #6633ff;">" O Messenger. proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith."</span> So did Mohammed know what the miracileists claim today or did he not?<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">If he did, then he did not proclaim the message, and if not then such claims are false as even the apostle of Islam knew nothing about.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Regardless let us identify Islamic evidence that earth is still and non-rotational.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Evidence # 1 the earth is fixed by means of the mountains<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">6. Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, 7. And the mountains as pegs? Suarat An Nabaa , Yusuf Ali<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">6. Have we not made the earth leveled (smooth) and the mountains stakes "Translator"<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> A Watad (peg or stake) is a wooden piece driven into a wall or the earth and the plural is Awtad (pegs or stakes); Allah almighty says and the pharaoh the lord of stakes (Awtad) which was interpreted as: He had ropes and stakes for entertainment and also that this was referring to his armies whom secured his dominion and kingdom ship (adapted from Lisan Alarab)<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">32. And the mountains hath He firmly fixed;- Suarat An Nazeaat - Yusuf Ali<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">32. And settled the mountains: "Translator"<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Settle something (Arsa Alshaiee) : fixed it, Settled the peg :pushed it into ground (Alwagiz Lexicon (dictionary))<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">So Mountains are pegs that were pushed into the ground….for what purpose?<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; - Lukman 10 and Annahl 15 *<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">31. And We have set on the earth mountains** standing firm, lest it should shake with them,*<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span>* </span></b><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">The word that Yousuf Ali translated shake is<span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span>Tamid which we shall see later<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">** The ayah did not state mountains but things that settle (settlers or anchors) which is interpreted as mountains from other verses<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Accordingly mountains are as pegs to stop the earth from doing something called Almaid so what is Tamid verb and what is Almaid state?<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">*Mad is past tense of the verb Tamid (feminine) or Yamid (masculine)<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Mad Yamid Maidan : moved , deviated(swerve) The Mohit Alfairozi Abadi Dictionary<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Mad Alsarab (mirage) : Go hazy , Mad Maidan : Stager and swing, Mad Yamid : if he moves in strutting and prancing (maybe like a happy drunk the translator), Madat Alagsan (Branches): swayed <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">From Lisan Alarab<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Kad Mad Fahowa Maed (He Mad then he is a Madder Abou Elhaitham: <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Al Maeed (Someone who is under the verb mad) is someone who is riding the sea and is nauseated from the stank of the waters, gets dizzy and nearly passes out then it is said the sea maded with him Also Abu Alabass said referring to the verse lest it tamid with you i.e.: move and shake violently Alfaraa said I Heard the Arabs mentioning : Almaida Those whom are sea sick.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Lisan Alarab<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Mad Meim Yaa Dal : Something Mad i.e.: moved The branches Madat i.e.; Swayed- Mokhtar Elsehah Dictionary<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Accordingly the mountains are the pegs (anchors) that fix the earth in place in order to prevent its movement or sway and rotation… In short to allow the earth to become a settled place or as Yousuf Ali Translates AnNaml 61 " . Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable;"<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">While the translator's is" Or, Who has made the earth (karara) tranquil; made rivers in its midst; and provided it with anchors;"<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">As Karar is what has stabilized and settled down in place, i.e.: fixed a still and tranquil fixation. ( The lexicon of Quran meaning by Al-Asfahani)<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Evidence # 2 No indications of earth movement <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The earth is mentioned nearly 450 times in the Holy Quran, not once was it attributed with an act that indicates movement, including the act of prostration, which included all creatures except the skies and the earth, while we find for instance that the sun was merely mentioned less than 30 times, but in spite attributed several motional descriptions such as running(coasting), swimming, prostration ..etc.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">18. Seest thou not that to Allah bow down in worship all things that are in the heavens and on earth,- the sun, the moon, the stars; the hills, the trees, the animals; and a great number among mankind? But a great number are (also) such as are fit for Punishment: and such as Allah shall disgrace,- None can raise to honour: for Allah carries out all that He wills. – Suart Alhaj <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The verse illustrates that all beings prostrates to Allah except earth and heavens, as what is performing the act are the creatures residing in them<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Evidence # 3 the summon of earth at the beginning of creation<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">11. Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience." Suart Fusliat<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Earth and the sky were summoned into their current location once since the start of creation, and then settled down in place as an obedience to Allah.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Evidence # 4 the general association of earth and the sky versus the sun and the moon.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">For the earth and the sky are still, while the sun and the moon are coasting in their orbits.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Evidence # 5 the earth is a dwelling, a placement, an erection<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">64. It is Allah Who has made for you the earth as a resting place(Karar), and the sky as a canopy, </span></b><st1:city><st1:place><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Surat</span></b></st1:place></st1:city><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> Ghafir<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">10. It is He Who has spread out the earth for (His) creatures:Suarat Alrahman Yousuf Ali <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">10. And the earth he placed for creatures.-The translator<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">25. And among His Signs is this, that heaven and earth stand by His Command: then when He calls you, by a single call, from the earth, behold, ye (straightway) come forth.- Al-Rum Yusuf Ali<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">A dwelling is Karar in Arabic is referring to stillness (we say kar for something meaning that it stopped movement i.e. tranquil), and the earth is placed by the power of Allah and cannot leave its location it is also erect as the sky.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Evidence # 6 the earth is held or gripped<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">41. It is Allah Who sustains the heavens and the earth, lest they cease Fatir-Yusuf Ali<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">41 And Allah holds the heavens and the earth least they cease to exist. The translator<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">So the earth and the heavens are held by Allah's order else they would cease<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Allah does not grip any other celestial body, while he does hold the birds throughout their flight (a movement) so as to prevent their fall to earth, but the context is evident that the meaning is to maintain their flight, while the gripping of the sky and earth is to prevent their disappearance and to prevent the sky to fall collapse on earth, <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">65.He withholds the sky (rain) from failing on the earth except by His leave- Al Haj Yousuf Ali <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">*Rain is an addition by Yusuf Ali.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Obviously the sky is directly located above the earth and that it is still , and if Allah lets go it shall collapse on earth<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Evidence from Sunah (Mohammed's sayings and deeds) and Salaf (Mohammed's companions' narrations, sayings and deeds)<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The Muslim nation with its diverse vast 73 parties have never reached a consensus on a certain subject, as theirs on the saying that the earth is the center of the universe, and that all things between it and the sky rotates around it, and that the sky and the earth are stationary.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Ibn Taimaih Says:<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The Skies are Round, as per the Muslim Scientist (Muslims uses the term scientist to indicate their theologians), it has been numerously narrated of various Islamic scientist and Imams (Islamic priests) such as Imam Abu Mohammed Ibn Hazm and Abu Elfarag ELJawzey, they reference both the book of Allah and the Sunah references, they simplified the matter by evidences of auditory recurrence (repetitive narrations) but also scientific proof is available, and I know of no Muslim scientist whom denies the fact."<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Ibn Al Manawy Says:<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The Earth globe is fixed at the center of the sky globe resembling a point in a circle, this is evident from observing celestial bodies which are seen from earth in the same place in the sky which means that earth is in the center of the sky.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Additionally Muslims calculate the distance from earth to heaven as a walked journey that takes up 500 years due to the verse that states:<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">5. He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning. Alsajdah<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Hayran<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span><b><span dir="rtl" lang="AR-EG" style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><span dir="rtl"></span><span dir="rtl"></span> </span></b><b><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">***Footnote: The meaning of motashabehat :<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">The motashabehat is another wonder of the ambiguity of the Quran <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">The reference is found in </span></b><st1:city><st1:place><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">Surat</span></b></st1:place></st1:city><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;"> Al-Imran verse no. 7<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">7. He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.-Yusuf Ali<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">While Ali's interpretation gives us a glimpse of the problem, a better understanding could be achieved by replacing the words fundamental and allegorical, which he used as an interpretation of the words Mohkamat and Motashabehat<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">To start with Allah states that he gave us two types of verses and the context follows that they are antonymous, in no way is Ali's choice of words indicating this.<o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">The word mohkam is translated as; coherent, well knit, cohesive, solid ,firmly connected <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">While the word motashabeh is translated as; alike, similar, analogous, parallel, <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">So we have two types of verses one mohkam and other motashabeh, and the unworthy follow the motashabeh why is it so to seek its hidden meanings, <o:p></o:p></span></b> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="direction: ltr; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;"><b><span style="color: #336600; font-size: 13.5pt;">As far as I see in light of this the text is referring to clear verses that are easily understood and unclear verses that have hidden meanings and are misleading. A lot is to be said on the above verse but its inclusion here is not for such reason.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>Areohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04275255158056301310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5022188438791354248.post-33980970140222296092007-10-20T10:11:00.000-07:002011-10-07T09:40:31.869-07:00Atheist ThoughtsOriginal author of the Arabic text is Almostashar<br />
<a href="http://el7ad.net/smf/index.php/topic,3926.msg40699.html">Link to the original Arabic text </a><br />
Translated by Duke Fleed<br />
<br />
*They claim that God is unlimited by time, while he states in the Koran that he created the earth in six days, and that angels and spirits rise up to him on command in a thousand years.<br />
<br />
*They claim that God is not subject to reason, while he states in the Koran that he feels anger, satisfaction, and embarrassment. He can be deceitful, he speaks and asks questions, he laments and tortures. Is this not caused by man and his doing?<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
*They claim that God does not create in vain, yet he has no need for his creations. Therefore creation is the ultimate vanity.<br />
<br />
* Does God need angels and a throne? Of course not! Then their creation is in vain.<br />
<br />
*They claim that God is above. Which part of the earth are they talking about, The North Pole or the South Pole?<br />
<br />
*Are God and man two separate entities? If the answer is yes, then God is limited by space, and if the answer is no, then man and God are one.<br />
<br />
* They claim that man’s misfortunes happen to test his patience. Why do animals suffer the same misfortunes? Does this happen to test their patience as well?<br />
<br />
*They claim that God is capable of doing anything by saying “let it be”. We have no proof that it has ever been used; therefore this is a false claim.<br />
<br />
*Is punishment for gloating and revenge, or is it for deterring others? If it is for gloating and revenge, then it is an emotionally driven act that is beneath God. If punishment is a deterrent, then what is the value of punishment in the afterlife?<br />
<br />
*They claim that God is eternal. Prove it!!<br />
<br />
*God is thanked when I do a good deed; however when I do a bad deed God is not cursed. Why do we give God credit when credit is not due?<br />
<br />
*God has been created by the primitive mind to explain many phenomena, and the modern mind still adheres to that delusion despite its primitive origin.<br />
<br />
*Why is it that in our present time prophets, genies, magic, and paranormal phenomena have not appeared. Ignorance is the birth place of superstitions.<br />
<br />
*Hearing the word God always reminds me of injustice, backwardness, racism, ignorance, and evil. All are synonymous with God.<br />
<br />
*Religion is ugly makeup to improve the image of God.<br />
<span class="fullpost"><br />
*God says that eclipses are signs to intimidate his subjects, and he orders them to pray to dissipate the darkness. Science explains how they happen and how we can predict them and encourages us to enjoy watching them. So who is more knowledgeable?<br />
<br />
*God turns murderers into prophets and messengers and lets them into heaven. Hell is the place for philosophers, thinkers, and geniuses.<br />
<br />
*They taught us that God exists and is alive and all living things have a creator. Who created God?<br />
<br />
*They deny evolution, yet it happens thousands of times every day. Aren’t we all the product of a sperm and an ovum that has evolved to become a human embryo and then further evolved to become an intelligent human? Don’t they realize that?<br />
<br />
*Those who claim the existence of God are desperate to detect his existence by uncertain theories and hypotheses.<br />
<br />
*Mohamed forgives those who disbelieve in God but does not forgive those who have done him harm.<br />
<br />
*Mohamed the messenger of mercy kills treacherously and mutilates his enemies, so how is he different from gang leaders and the Mafia?<br />
<br />
*Capturing women and children as spoils of war, looting, and slavery are the results of Mohamed’s wars.<br />
<br />
*I do not know what the difference is when you pray to Allah, or a stone, or a cow, or Krishna, or Buddha, or Jesus, the result is always the same.<br />
<br />
*I do not know what the difference is when you circle around, idolize, and kiss a stone, and pray to Allah next to it, and when you circle around, and idolize a cow and pray to Krishna next to it. A cow can be more beneficial than a stone.<br />
<br />
*Which is more beneficial to humanity and eases its suffering, Prophets of God or scientists and inventors, God’s books or science books?<br />
<br />
*Religion considers it wise, logic, and just to cut off the hand of a thief who steals a quarter of a golden dinar (coin), while it does not cut off the hand of a person who steals millions by embezzlement, fraud, or cheating.<br />
<span class="fullpost"><br />
*Religion considers it logic and just to stone and whip a poor fornicator while it allows the rich to enjoy sexual relations with an unlimited numbers of female slaves and captive women.<br />
<br />
*Religion considers it humane to enslave humans like cattle, legalize slavery, and encourages it during wars, although it is not a human need, while it forbids fornication, although sex is a human need.<br />
<br />
*Clerics tell us that the great divine justice mandates the existence of the rich and the poor, the happy and the miserable, the ruler and the ruled, and all are subject to the same test during life. Furthermore, they think it is possible and just for a happy, rich ruler to go to heaven while the ruled who is miserable, and poor might go to hell.<br />
<br />
*Do they want us to believe in God or in a hidden mysterious force? If it is the former, what is the evidence of his existence, if it is the latter, we don’t need to believe in it, facts impose themselves.<br />
<br />
* When clerics try to convince you of their beliefs, they deceive you and mislead you by omitting some facts and emphasizing others without a conscience just like con men.<br />
<br />
* Clerics feel that it is fair to find fault in their opponent’s actions and disregard their own obvious faults.<br />
<br />
* It is natural for people to create a particular legislation then replace, modify, or delete it according to the current circumstances. When similar actions are performed by God, they are just as absurd as the absurdity of his existence.<br />
<br />
* When the right environment exists, anyone is capable of claiming to be a prophet and people will believe him.<br />
<br />
* People who seek the truth only need to open their eyes to find it.<br />
<br />
* It is schizophrenic how they turn to the west for knowledge, civilization, prosperity, justice, and freedom, while they despise and curse it at night behind closed doors.<br />
<br />
*They bawl from religious platforms and televised media promoting virtue, self denial, and justice, while they are the ones who live in palaces, with extravagant lifestyles, and big bank accounts. They hail and pray in their Friday sermons for the biggest thief, the great adulterer, and the wise unjust.<br />
<br />
*They believe that it is fair to spend billions building temples, mosques, and churches and printing holy books, while billions of people suffer and die of poverty, hunger, and ignorance.<br />
<br />
* Religions are tools in the hands of clerics and rulers to control the masses.<br />
<br />
*The great conspiracy between rulers and clerics still fools the people.<br />
<br />
*The holy books only mention the Israelites, and their silly repetitive prophets. What about the civilizations of the old world, the scientists and philosophers and sages of Greece and the Greeks, Assyrians, Romans and Sumerians, China and others who influenced modern world civilizations? Which ones are more worth mentioning?<br />
<br />
* Clerics who promote the alleged scientific miracles in the holy books are like a drowning man grasping at a straw, they are very desperate especially after the emergence of the current civilization has bombed their minds, books and religions. Once a scientific discovery has been made, they shamelessly claim that it has been already mentioned in their books. Why haven’t they discovered that before? How come God has not sent with each prophet a physical, chemical, or mathematical law so we can praise and thank him for saving the humanity from ignorance? Instead he bothers us with reading his holy books that are full of repetitive myths, genies, and other nonsense.</span></span>Duke Fleedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11180606938282852542noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5022188438791354248.post-75403707073192397112007-10-18T01:34:00.000-07:002011-10-07T09:40:24.137-07:00An Example of Quranic discrepanciesThe original Arabic text could be found at <a href="http://el7ad.com/smf/index.php/topic,14822.0.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Forum Of Arab Atheists</span></a><br />
<br />
The Author of the original text is: Walid<br />
Quranic verse translation is adopted from Yousef Ali's Quran meanings and from the translators understanding of Arabic language as a mother tongue.<br />
Translated By: Areo<br />
<br />
Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy-An examination of Quranic discrepancy.<br />
<br />
The Quran challenges its opposers with a verse well known to all of us – Say had it been from any but Allah we would have found a lot of discrepancies<br />
<br />
To start with the word much is in itself an obvious discrepancy.<br />
For a book from Allah would be refuted by one discrepancy not much<br />
As a supreme being would be expected to provide a flawless text and just one flaw would render the text defunct, as the alleged qualities attributed to Allah in the Quran contradicts even the smallest of flaws or even a glimpse of one.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
In spite of this I will examine some of the discrepancies I found in the text which I hope are quite obvious, in this I shall try to refrain from referring to such discrepancies swarming the internet on various Christian sites, which all are aware of.<br />
<br />
Discrepancy # 1<br />
When I mock someone for failure to achieve a certain task, and at the same time fail to achieve that same sort of thing, and ask believers to accept both attitudes in my favor isn’t that considered a discrepancy?<br />
Isn’t taking two contradictory stances worth scrutiny?<br />
Let us consider two incidents<br />
<br />
Incident #1<br />
<br />
Abraham versus Nimrod<br />
<br />
Abraham in spite of the naïve presentation, asks Nimrod to present a stunning miracle as proof of his alleged divinity or power.<br />
We do support Abraham in his legitimate request, which should come as a judge between false and truthful allegations<br />
<br />
Nimrod could have of course countered Abraham with the same request, or a different one but didn’t, so the story goes<br />
<span class="fullpost"><br />
258. Hast thou not Turned thy vision to one who disputed with Abraham About his Lord, because Allah had granted him power? Abraham said: "My Lord is He Who Giveth life and death." He said: "I give life and death". Said Abraham: "But it is Allah that causeth the sun to rise from the east: Do thou then cause him to rise from the West." Thus was he confounded who (in arrogance) rejected faith. Nor doth Allah Give guidance to a people unjust.-AlBaqara 258<br />
<br />
Very well so we deduce that failure to fulfill the challenge (requested miracle) is proof of a false allegation.<br />
And that the request of a miracle is a legitimate one.<br />
<br />
Does anyone disagree on my understanding of the verse?<br />
<br />
Let us move on to the next verse<br />
<br />
Incident # 2<br />
<br />
Mohammed is speaking in the name of God, as he Allah will either not appear to humans or lower himself to them,<br />
Fair enough a God and his eminence is appreciated<br />
He chooses a certain human to represent him<br />
Well that’s up to him no objections here<br />
<br />
So the prophet is addressing people as Allah's representative<br />
So how did the people respond to him?<br />
Same as Abraham did with Nimrod<br />
They asked him to present them with a miracle<br />
What was his response?<br />
<br />
<br />
Al-Isra 90-93<br />
90. They say: "We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth,<br />
91. "Or (until) thou have a garden of date trees and vines, and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst, carrying abundant water;<br />
92. "Or thou cause the sky to fall in pieces, as thou sayest (will happen), against us; or thou bring Allah and the angels before (us) face to face:<br />
93. "Or thou have a house adorned with gold, or thou mount a ladder right into the skies. No, we shall not even believe in thy mounting until thou send down to us a book that we could read." Say: "Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- an apostle?"<br />
<br />
Here the messenger denies the sender and merely acknowledges his humanity, as if the challenge was for him not for<br />
the sender.<br />
<br />
What is the difference between Mohammed (Allah's representative or spokesman) and Nimrod<br />
Both failed the same test<br />
But Quran asks followers to deem Nimrod and follow Mohammed<br />
The question is dear constant believer isn’t this a discrepancy?<br />
<br />
<br />
Discrepancy # 2<br />
<br />
Al-Ahzab<br />
40. Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.<br />
<br />
Here Allah changes a certain principal; he has decided to stop sending messengers<br />
<br />
Here the Quran contradicts itself<br />
Either Allah is unjust<br />
And this means all the Quran is refuted<br />
Or he is just<br />
And he will not judge people after the death of Mohammed<br />
<br />
And by this once more the Quran contradicts itself<br />
As Allah created humans to worship him<br />
And worship requires a message<br />
And a message requires a messenger<br />
<br />
Some might object that the message is present<br />
While the message is present, it does contain its stamp of self refutation, as it states that Allah will not punish without sending a messenger<br />
<br />
So what do we believe?<br />
Is Allah going to punish us or not?</span>Areohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04275255158056301310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5022188438791354248.post-2382902769453846162007-10-13T14:15:00.001-07:002008-10-04T06:52:34.037-07:00Blog Articles and Authors<p style="text-align: center; font-family: lucida grande;"></p><div style="font-weight: bold;" align="center"><em><a name="Articles" style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"><u><span style="font-size:130%;">Articles of the Blog </span></u></span></a></em><br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://arabatheist1.blogspot.com/2007/10/example-of-quranic-discrepancies.html" target="_blank"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">An Example of Quranic discrepancies</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> translated by <a href="http://arabatheist1.blogspot.com/search/label/Areo">Areo</a><br /></span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><a href="http://arabatheist1.blogspot.com/2007/10/athiest-thoughts-volume-i.html" target="_blank"><br /></a><br /><a href="http://arabatheist1.blogspot.com/2007/10/athiest-thoughts-volume-i.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:130%;">Atheist Thoughts</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> translated by <span style="color: rgb(0, 34, 187);">Duke Fleed</span><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://arabatheist1.blogspot.com/2007/10/rotation-of-earth-between-science-and.html" target="_blank">The rotation of the Earth between Science and Religion</a> translated by </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://arabatheist1.blogspot.com/search/label/Areo">Areo</a><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://arabatheist1.blogspot.com/2007/10/quranic-miracles-allegers-play-with.html" target="_blank">The quranic miracles allegers play with words - the development of embryo</a> translated by<span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 153);"> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 34, 187);">Atheeriraqi</span><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://arabatheist1.blogspot.com/2007/10/is-this-god.html" target="_blank">Is this God?</a> translated by<span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 153);"> <span style="color: rgb(0, 34, 187);">Mandamus</span></span><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://arabatheist1.blogspot.com/2007/10/is-quran-rhetorical-miracle-linguistic.html" target="_blank">Is the Quran a rhetorical (linguistic) miracle?</a> translated by </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://arabatheist1.blogspot.com/search/label/Areo">Areo</a></span></span></div>أثير العانيhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03278032331810402620noreply@blogger.com