Liberate wrote:As I said I am no longer addressing any of your arabic translational rhetoric until you prove you are an arabic scholar.
Well then dont reply to me, cause that is what you are going to get.
If anybody was to come to you and tell you this is what I think this ayat means the first thing you would do is patronise and insult their knowledge of arabic, if you can claim that all the highly educated arabic scholars that translated the quran into english are stupid and none understand arabic properly bar you, it is time you started to back up what you say and stop giving us acrobatic linguistic nonsense, starting with your qualifications, I suspect the reason why you don't want to give us those qualifications is simply because you don't have any.
Liberate wrote:Where does "bidden to observe" "dictated to them in God's scripture" suddenly mean they corrupted and altered the scriptures?.....
....where does "required to guard...entrusted the protection of Allah's book..." mean they altered and corrupted the scriptures?
So tell me which one is the correct translation, they contradict each other ? You have no verification, you have demonstrated an error on their behalf but who is wrong.
Why are you trying to shift focus, where in any of those translations even in your desperate rendition of that ayat does it state that they corrupted and altered their scriptures?
Liberate wrote:Do you have a short attention span or is someone masquerading as your nick?
Did you not say every nation had been sent a herald
Did I not tell you by implication every nation has been sent a book
Did I not tell you that "Kitaab" does not always denote a physical book? Also the verse is indefinite as to messengers.
Sources pls, if I am to go on your say so we are back to where this thread started...your qualifications pls.
You are the one using sura 35:24 to suggest heralds have been sent to every nation, the very next verse 35:25 says :
And if they treat thee as a liar, those who were before them also treated their Messengers as liars. Their Messengers came to them with clear Signs, and with the Scriptures, and with the illuminating Book
So which
"illuminating book" is the koran talking about which
"scripture" is the koran talking about, this is the succeeding ayat to 35:24 which you use to claim heralds have been sent to every nation, then by default every nation has been sent scriptures, every nation has been sent the
"illuminating book", if you deny this is what is implied (since any logical person can see that this can only be talking about the people of the book, jews and christians and not the entire world, unless ofcourse Mohammed didn't know that the world consisted of more than the byzantines, persians, arabs and jews) you are going to have to revise where it is you obtained the view every nation has been sent messengers/heralds... that leaves you with just the hadiths.
H2O wrote:Easy. The introduction of the diacritcal marks into the Quran was not altering the Quran. It was to asure the proper reading of the Quran by those who were students of Arabic
This is a bare faced lie, the introduction of the diacritical dots was very very important, there was no prophetic mandate and people were confused over which words were meant or who was being active or passive, all had to be clarified over several years with the help of scribes and without the intervention of Mohammed who was long dead:
Then Liberates source of Quotation say the following:
Liberate wrote:This is what islamworld.net says about the diacritical dots:
Quote:
The Arabic letters, as we know them today, are made up of
lines and points. The latter are called i'jam. The ancient
Arabic script did not have them, but consisted of strokes only.
The addition of diacritical points to the plain writing of
strokes helped to distinguish the various letters which could
be easily mixed up.
Easily mixed up by who ? This does not directly of indirectly refute what I said "It was to asure the proper reading of the Quran by those who were students of Arabic "
Then he makes another Quote :
Liberate wrote:This is what the dictionary of islam says:
...When more and more Muslims of non-Arab origin and also many ignorant Arabs' [Yaqut reports in his book irshad that al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf himself once read ahabba in 9: 24 wrongly as ahabbu, see GdQ. 111, 124, note 6.] studied the Qur'an, faulty pronunciation and wrong readings began to increase.
This supports my statement. As for the ignorant Arabs of that time is more than likely refering to those Arabs who barely knew how to read and write whom were still learning.
Liberate wrote:the few qurra some say as few as 5 who could not read or write were long dead if they translated what they memorised to a network of successive mass memorisers why does the earliest quranic fragments circa 800AD
There is no Hadeeth that gives the number of Hafazhatul-Quran that were killed and those who were not killed. Hadeeth reports that many Hafazhatul-Quran were killed in the battle of Yamama, it does not say the majority Hafazhatul-Quran were killed. I would like to know where you are getting this off the wall make believe number of 5 from ?
Is this what my post was about?
Let me remind you of the rules of debate, if someone points out something for you to answer you do not pick on an irrelevant point and make your succeeding post purely focused on that point as if it was the main contention of debate.
Why did you dismiss the very next sentence of my post?
Didn't you see the very serious question on the authencity of your book?
Sources pls, the few qurra some say as few as 5 who could not read or write were long dead if they translated what they memorised to a network of successive mass memorisers why does the earliest quranic fragments circa 800AD (150+ after the death of Mohammed) NOT HAVE ANY DIACRITICAL DOTS OR VOWELS, how do we know who is talking in the first person or third person, who is being active or passive, what represents the letters B,T,H who made these adjustments which so called prophet was watching them and giving them prophetic advice to make these changes?
The quote in large font is what I would like you to answer, that archaelogical evidence alone destroys islam as nothing but a demon fabricated religion, the notion of God speaking to Gabriel to Mohammed to have it written down verbatim and preserved is simply nonsense.
Liberate wrote:Have all nations been sent with heralds with books? yes or no?
No. Cause all Heralds ie Prophets were not messengers. There are two types of Prophets. 1) Nabiy and 2) Rasoolan Nabiyyan. Some Heralds were only Prophets and some were Prophetic messengers. Prophetic Messengers were the ones that received a "Kutub, Suhuf, or Zubur, that were to be writen to teach and instruct their people with.
Sources pls, I am no longer relying on your say so, if you can't provide any sources then you are speaking from your own assumptions that brings us back to the topic at the top of the thread, your arabic scholar qualifications pls.