dhimmi no more, lahja or dialect: your arguments not working

Submitted by Saladin (United States), Jul 11, 2006 at 11:11

Christians quote text from the Bible and then interpret it to try convince everyone that Jesus was God. They have a text and they tell us what it means. Why? Because the dogma they believe in is simply not there in the words of text. And what's worse they base their claims on english (mis)translations of original greek and hebrew texts.

What you are trying to do here is take this method and turn it around and apply it to the Quran. The meaning of the verses are very clear but you say the words are doubtful. But you forget that Quran is a recitation. So please tell us when you heard this verse recited last time, how was it pronounced? maaliki or maliki? And what makes your arguments shallow is that the original text is still with us and it doesn't have the vowel marks!

If foreign words are used in the Quran, what is wrong with that? Haven't you seen translitration of foreign words in any language?

The grammar of a language comes after the language and not the other way round. You don't define the rules of using words of a language and then start speaking or wiriting it.

If you know better, there are no nasikh and mansukh in the Quran. So what is it with the verses banning intoxicants?

If you regard that hadith and sira are discredited, why do you believe all those hadith that give conflicting accounts of how old Ayeshah (RA) was at the time of her marriage to the prophet (PBUH)? what's the matter with you? can't you see you are not able to think clearly?

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".