Our dear Hassan aka Pierre and learning Arabic and Muhammad in the Qur'an

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Apr 20, 2007 at 07:17

Could it be that I know Arabic because I study the history of early islam? You? you pontificate about the religion of the Arabs and the central theme of islam is the Arabic language. So you tell us ya ayuha al-fahlawi al-kabeer: how could you pontificate about a book the Qur'an that is, that you cannot even read in its primary language Arabic that is?

Well the answer here is you have to depend on poor translations by other wannabe Arabs. We infidels do our home work and we learn Arabic first. You? you have to depend on others to spoon feed you what the Qur'an is really saying and this is very sypmtomatic of your very poor Muslim education. And are you aware that _all_ your replies so far have been nothing but spamming or no substance or fahlawa and hadaqa. And shame on you for not being more demanding of your tendentious Muslim sources about let us say the subject of the transmission of the Greek learning. And do me a favor and stop your lame diatribes about my Arabic. If you find a mistake let me know as I can learn more! You? you are jealous that I know Arabic and you do not!

What do I think of the Arabic language? It is a great language like any other language, but it is not anymore or any less great than any other language, Urdu included.

Now am I a Hindu? No I'm not but I would be proud to be one. The Hindus have a great doctrine called vedanta dharma (sp?) which is miles ahead from the likes of the bogus tawheed!

Now your lesson for today is Muhammad in the Qur'an:

1. There is no way that one can reconstruct the life of Muhammad by reading the Qur'an only I challenge you to prove me wrong.

2. So how can we reconstruct the life of Muhammad if it cannot be done by reading the Qur'an only? The answer here is we have to read sources external to the Qur'an but the Sira is unhistorical and the hadith is bogus so we are left with the Qur'an and we are back to square one.

3. Now the Islamic tradition tells us that Muhammad's name was Qutham and his Kunya was Abul Qasim, go figure, but you will not find either name in the Qur'an and why is that? And who was really Qasim? We never know.

4. The Qur'an mentions the name Muhammad 4 times and the name Ahmad one time. But the tradition also tells us that Muhammad was prognosticated in the Bible and in this case the Christians harafu (corrupted) the Bible to get rid of any prognostication of Muhammad's name. But this does not stop the brazen 3Ulama from stating that the Biblical paraclete is Muhammad! oh I forgot the blessed! Do you see how this is really absurd? So on the one hand the 3Ulama claim that the Christians corrupted the Bible and deleted any prognostication of Muhammad in the Bible so how come we still have the paraclete thing in the Bible? This is indeed absurd Muslim logic. So now we have the blessed, oh, I forgot Muhammad that is, but how do we know that this Muhammad mentioned in the Qur'an is indeed the historical Qutham aka Abul Qasim? The answer here is we do not know!

So the next time you see the likes of Pickthall inserting the name of Muhammad in his translation, look at the corresponding Arabic and if you do not find the name Muhammad mentioned, it only means that Pickthall was making things up and he was editing the book of your Allah and it does not become a translation anymore and it becomes a ta'weel, which is very different from a translation (see tarjamit al-ma3na and the concept of "al-tafseer lel sahab wa al-ta'weel lel 3Ulma" ). and I can assure you that Pickthall was neither a sahaba nor a 3Alim! So much for the unedited Qur'an.

I'm not telling you anything new here. How come you did not know that?

Now wanna talk about the Trinity? I can assure you that you will learn a lot.

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".