To Maqsood: Splitting the moon and other strange miracles.

Submitted by Plato (India), Aug 6, 2007 at 06:09

Like not a single word of Quran is changed even after 14 centuries

For Muslims this is a matter of faith. Despite the fact that Othman had to burn other versions of the Koran Muslims believe this. They also forget that diacritical marks were put in later. The question that arises here is does the Koran kept in paradise have diacritical marks. If it does then the Koran that Othman approved was not the real Koran and for sometime Muslims did not possess the original. The original Koran was written down by other Muslims.

Zakir Naik claims:

Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur'an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur'an that was present at the Prophet's time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur'an' means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur'an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too. (http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm)

Zakir Naik has avoided answering whether the tablet in heaven has the diacritical marks or not. If the original in heaven does not have diacritical marks then the one we possess now is not the original. If it did then the one in circulation at the time of the Prophet and for a generation later was not the original.

Also his claim that the pronunciation of Arabic is the same as in the original Arabic is wrong. The Yemenis pronounce the word Allah itself differently from other Arabs. So too in India where the Muslims of Kerala follow the Yemeni pronunciation. The Egyptians do not have the ‘J' sound. They pronounce it like ‘G'. So Zakir Naik's claim falls flat. The doctor does not seem to realize that pronunciation is not the key but the meaning of the words. The meaning or at least the shades of it can change over time. How do we know whether in the meaning of the Koran at the time of revelation and by the time the tafsirs were produced there were no subtle differences in the meaning of words in it.

>>It is most read book ever present on the earth<<

If it is the most read book, it must also be the most read book which people read without understanding what they are reading, and who just make the sounds of the Arabic alphabet. Not a great fate for any book which is supposed to be guidance for the reader.

>>Recently it is confirmed by scientist that moon is splitted into two halfes in past, it is mentioned in Quran.<<

Well. Well. Well. I do declare.

>>If you want to know other proofs please let me know.<<

I do not want any other proofs. Just give me the name of the scientist who confirmed that the moon was split in half once upon a time and the proof he/she gave.

>>It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam.<<

If there was ‘inherent force of truth, reason and logic' in Islam what has happened to it now. With communication so good, why don't we see Islam spreading like wild fire.

>>Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam', which means peace. It also means submitting one's will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one's will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).<<

Islam is the religion most involved in violent activities all over the world. Why do Muslims indulge in the lesser jihad more than the greater jihad. Have you noticed that for the lesser jihad Allah makes a binding promise to reward you with paradise? For the greater jihad there is no such promise.

Claiming because the word Islam means peace automatically makes its followers peaceful is silly logic especially seen against the background of violence all over the Islamic world.

>>Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.<<

Really? What about this verse:

009.111 YUSUFALI: Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

What about these verses prodding the poor Bedouin to go to war?

009.120 YUSUFALI: It was not fitting for the people of Medina and the Bedouin Arabs of the neighbourhood, to refuse to follow Allah's Messenger, nor to prefer their own lives to his: because nothing could they suffer or do, but was reckoned to their credit as a deed of righteousness,- whether they suffered thirst, or fatigue, or hunger, in the cause of Allah, or trod paths to raise the ire of the Unbelievers, or received any injury whatever from an enemy: for Allah suffereth not the reward to be lost of those who do good;-

>>The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O'Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8):

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."<<

Have you heard of the opinion of a better known historian. Will Durant?

Islamic imperialism came with a different code - the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as mujãhids (holy warriors) and ghãzîs (kãfir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet.

Read this article by an ex-Muslim to get the flavour of what Muslims did in India.http://www.islam-watch.org/AlamgirHussain/india.htm

>>Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.<<

How did the Muslims end up in distant Spain. What business was it of theirs to go and conquer Spain. And then you complain about the Crusades. If Muslims can go and conquer Spain for no reason whatsoever at least the Christians had the excuse that Muslims had conquered their holy land and were converting the Christians to Islam.

>>Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.<<

All of Egypt was Coptic, all of Syria and Iraq was Christian. Why did they all convert to Islam. I will give you a hint. Mohammed preached for 13 years in Mecca without gaining any great following. After he enters Mecca as a conqueror people entered Islam in ‘troops'. Give it a little thought, Maqsood. There is even a verse in the Koran referring to this acceptance of Islam by people who had resisted for long, Surah 110.

Here is an incident quoted by Ibn ishaq in his Sirat Rasulallah (Translation by Guillaume), page 646: The Apostle said: If Khalid (Bin Walid) had not written to me that you had accepted Islam and had not fought I would have thrown your heads beneath your feet.

>>The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.<<

It is 80% after partition. If you include the pre-partition population the Muslim population would be more than 30%. You forget that vast areas of India were still ruled by local rulers, especially the south.

>>ndonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"<<

Two of the few regions where proselytisation was a success, probably because of the primitive culture of the region.

>>With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur'an says in the following verse:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error"
[Al-Qur'an 2:256]<<

The Koran also says:

9:29 YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

And also:

3:85 If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

You still insist there is no compulsion to convert???

>>It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur'an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:

"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious."
[Al-Qur'an 16:125]<<

Are 9:29 and 3:85 I quoted before talking of "arguing with them in ways that are best and gracious"

The Prophet could not conquer the hearts and minds of the Meccans despite touting his religion for 13 years inviting (all) ‘to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;' He had to go and conquer them with his sword before they became Muslims.

>>An article in Reader's Digest ‘Almanac', year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth' magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?<<

In 1941 India's share of the sub-continent's population was 314 million (http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/india.html) The population today is more than a billion (in 60 years) an increase of more than 300 per cent. So what is the big deal in an increase of 235% in 50 years? Just natural population growth, Maqsood, not people converting in droves.

>>Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?<<

Show us the figures for conversions to Islam and not increase due to Muslims tending to have large families and immigration. Do you have any figure for people wholeave Islam unannounced because of fear of being murdered by Muslims.

>>Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, "People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born".<<

I cannot agree more. The fallout from Allah's dropping Mohammed on earth is still affecting all of us after 1400 years. The destruction it caused and is still causing, no human nuclear bomb can match.

>>All these words pigs, najees and apes are not used for jews or any religion but for the non believers who who refused the sayings of Allah and Allah Almighty converted them to Apes and Pigs. <<

002.065 YUSUFALI: And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

5:60 Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with Allah ? (Worse is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. Such are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.

2:65 is clearly referring to Jews.

>>Ans: How can u say that, it is clearly talking about past as i said above. It is past history of some nations those were destroyed by Almighty Allah because they refused Allah and worshipped other than Allah.<<

Yes obviously it is talking about past history. But who kept the Sabbath except the Jews and Christians. They were turned to apes and pigs as it says in 2:65. So too about idol worshippers in 5:60.

Why does Allah have such hatred for people who do not keep the Sabbath and those who worship idols. Is He so insecure that He feels He has to destroy His own creatures to feel secure?

So you are wrong about it not being about jews or other religions. 5:60 is talking about idol worshippers. Idol worshipping is a form of religion practiced by more than a billion people. Are you approving of the Koran's name-calling and Allah cursing his own creation?

>>Allah will destroy the whole world when there will be no believer. (End of times) i.e Qiamat

Allah does not want to destroy his creation but creation itself wants to be destroyed as said by Allah in Quran:<<

I am beginning to feel sorry for Allah. Why does he bring forth a creation that wants to self-destruct. He is either a bad designer or he created human beings who will disbelieve so that Allah gets an excuse to destroy his creation! Weird.

>>We have brought them a Book elucidating everything with knowledge, as guidance and a mercy for people who believe.
(Qur'an, 7:52)<<

Elucidating everything? A very tall claim. Only believing Muslims see all knowledge in the Koran, from embryology to cosmology. The only problem is they discover them after unbelievers have explained the secrets of embryology and cosmology. Muslims are unable to discover anything in the Koran on their own.

>>Look how We explain the Signs with various symbols
so that hopefully they will understand.
(Qur'an, 6:65)<<

This is a strange verse. What does it mean? What signs (ayas?) have been explained with various symbols. Hopefully you can make me understand.

>>We have revealed to you the Qur'an in your own tongue, so that you may give good news to those who guard against evil and give warning to a contentious nation.<<

Here we see Allah showing his favouritism towards the Arabs. He reveals the Koran in Arabic but shows no such favour to other people. Muslims do claim that all people were given the Koran but it got corrupted or lost. After having failed to protect the scriptures He gave to other people He gives one to the Arabs which he decides to protect for all time. Why did He not protect the scriptures He gave to the others.

>>If u know history many nations have been destroyed completely before Hazarat Essa <<

(Qur'an, 19:97)

>>Allah gave warning again and again, y people dont understand, why they worship idols and other things also created by Allah.<<

Why is Allah so scared of people worshipping someone or something else that he wants to utterly destroy them. His belief in Himself is very poor. How can it harm Him if I worship a piece of stone. Muslims also bow to and feel awed by a piece of black stone.

>>It is them who wants to be destroyed.<<

All us unbelievers are suicidal?

>>Even non-Muslim scholars agree that the Qur'an is Arabic literature par excellence – that it is the best Arabic literature on the face of the earth.<<

How many of those non-Muslim literary critics knew Arabic? I cannot read Arabic, but even the best of translators don't give the impression that it is great literature. It jumps around wildly from one thing to another. Most of the verses are unintelligible unless we are aware of the context and the chronology of the verses. It is full of imprecations and threats against people who will not accept it as the word of God. It claims there are verses in it that no one can understand and does not spell out those verses. So how are we to know whether we have understood its message or not. Great literature? Give us a break Maqsood

>>The Qur'an challenges mankind to produce the likes of it:

"And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Surah like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. "But if ye cannot –and of a surety you cannot – then fear the Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones –which is prepared for those who reject Faith."[Al-Qur'an 2:23-24]1<<

What kind of challenge is it that goes on to claim that the challenge cannot be met? The challenger has already decided that it cannot be met. Only an extremely egotistical and proud Being can make such a claim. And who is going to be the judge. Some people did try and Allah's followers, to ensure the challenge went unmet, murdered them.

I challenge you to create a piece of literature like Shakespeare's or a story like Harry Potter for that matter.

I once read an article by a Muslim (Imran Aijaz), probably ashamed of fellow Muslims touting this as some kind of miracle, where he gives the example of flower arrangement to show up this argument. If you arrange flowers in a vase and give a challenge to arrange them more aesthetically, what kind of measure would you use to judge the results. Each arrangement would perhaps be unique.

Each will claim to be inimitable. He says the proponents of this ‘tiresome polemic' have argued that it is the employment of Arabic by the Author of the Koran which cannot be matched, on numerous grounds such as balagha (conveying meaning in the best verbal forms), fasaha (eloquence), nazm (choice and arrangement of words). As Aijaz says these are as subjective as those flower arrangements. There is no ‘objective backdrop' to judge.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".