Our dear iam and the Qur'an

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), May 2, 2010 at 09:17

I wrote

>For the readers: You will notice that our dear iam the demagogue just did not address the most important part of my post and that is the Quranic evidence (eg: al-ayka or layka) we have in the text about other texts that pre-date the Qur'an by hundreds of years and these texts do not exist because they could have been destroyed or they are in a cave waiting to be discovered

And this was our dear iam's answer

># The Quran does not impact here at all -

Hello: The Qur'an is an Arabic language text that has a history too! and I can assure you that it did not drop from the sky and how many times do I have to tell you that? And did you think for a minute how can the Arabs that did not have any literary tradition have a book like the Qur'an composed as we are told just like that?

The answer to this: Muslims tell us that the Qur'an dropped from the sky. So did the Qur'an drop from the sky?

Logic as well as texual criticism of the Qur'an reveal that the Qur'an is really a mish mash of older texts (eg: the Bible, the secular literature of the Syrians and the Greeks and the Jewish tradition or al-Isra'iliyat and it is even difficult at times to define what is really Arabic in the Qur'an) nontheless we have it written IN ARABIC or in Garshouni (and for this see: Q72:18 where the word ALMSJD was read by the ulama as masaajid and it must be from Syriac mesgod and in Q72:19 there is no Arabic word called LBDA and it must be the Syriac 3abada as the letter lam and 3ayn in Syriac can be misread and for this see Luxenberg) or oral texts and in the case of al-ayak layka it must have been several hundreds of years and some of it could be from al-shi3r al-jahili (and for this see Surat al-Nijm) and yes much of al-shi3r al-jahili was made up in the 2nd and 3rd centuries of islam during the Muslim masora) nonetheless these were oral texts

And here is another example: in the case of let us say the story of ahl al-kahf (The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus) it must have been 100 years prior to the date of Muhammad's mab3ath in 610CE as the story was written by a Syrian in Syriac who died about 515CE and more evidence that the ulama were dealing with a text and in this case the case the word al-raqeem (the name of the dog) that it must have been a misreading of the Syriac name of the Emperor Decuis which in Syriac would be DQS (DiQiS) and in this case there was a disconnect between the text of the story that must have been in Garshouni and the time the Qur'an was canonized and by then the Ulama had no clue what the word DQS really means

Let me guess: You did not get it right?

>it was written around 600 CE.

This is what Muslims tell us but the Islamic Historical Tradition is the biggest literary fraud in the history of mankind

>If something in it is claimed as pre-dating the Quran, and you claim it is subject to a yet to be discovered relic, then you should wait till that discovery occurs.

No you do not get it. History is never black and white it is grey except in the mind of dogmatic people lile you and argument from silence is a poor argument now do you get it?

But you know what? The islamic tradition tells us that Uthman the 3rd khalifa and the one that is credited for the copy of the Qur'an that we have now (Mushaf Uthman or the codex of Uthman) DESTROYED all copies of the "variant readings" of the Qur'an so how do we know that he did not destory the written literary sources of the Qu'ran and we will never know and some of such sources could be hiding in some cave waiting to be discovred just like the Qurman library or waiting in a clay jar like the Nag Hammadi library now do you get it mr dogma?

>It is hardly a proof now that Arabic writings predate 400 CE or thereabout.

Hypocrite

But you told us that it 300CE too right? So what changed? or is it ya3ni bel taqrib

> We had no proof of King david till the Tel Dan find - why is there no proof from you till now, when the Arabs were not exiled and their lands not plundered as of the Jews?

You are not very focused are you?

>This says that even in the future we cannot expect the proof you wait for.

No you do not as this is what the study of history is all about

And if we are to follow his bogus logic then I can see his likes telling the world prior to the discovery of let us say The Gospel of Thomas (which historians knew that is existed but there was no copy) in the mid 1940's; There is no such thing as the Gospel of Thomas but we have it extant in Coptic. And as for the argument from silence" god forbid as he has no clue what it really means

># The Gospels does not impact here.

Hello: this is what argument from silence is all about!

Also notice that this thread is about what is really Egyptian Arabic? And is it a language or a dialect? You will not hear a logical answer from him. Mr ignorant I study history You? you are a demagogue now do you get it?

># Then please show some historical proof of any Arabic writings pre-400 CE like a historican should - without deflecting to EA.

What does this date of 400CE have to do with EA?

> Note that the Hebrew and Greek do not have to look at Egyptian hybrids common to many other Arabian writings, so why do you?

Why do I what?

> If there is no evidence of an Arab race pre-500 BCE -

And what does this have to do with EA?

>how can there be Arabic writings or Egyptian-Arab writings before this time? There is no evidence, which is why you deflect and won't

Hello: EA starting point was 642CE the year of the Arab invasion of Egypt like it or not

Go and tell them at Hebrew University which has one of the best Arabic language and islamic studies centers in the whole world about your little cockamamie theories and they will laugh at you I promise you

---

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".