The word for today is chutzpah, Spartans v. Muslims and the oral transmission of history

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jun 7, 2007 at 06:50

Our dear Sohail rabina yusahil aliukum

You have the audacity to debate a subject that you are clueless about. You do not even seem to realize that your own people the Hindus transmitted the Vidas orally with grear accuracy over a very long period of time.

But you select the Spartans and why is that? Was this an example given by the other wannabe historian MSM the Sword of Allah aka Saifallah?

But you know what? Yes holy books can can be transmitted orally over a very long period of time, but the islamic historical tradition is nothing but qissas (well you have to ask your pal MSM to tell you what this word really means) which is very different from holy books they mean nothing and get you no where as was proven by Crone in Meccan Trade.

Take the case of Surat Quraish. No one has a clue, not back then or now, what the word ilaf really means or even what this sura is talking about. This did not stop the brazen 3Ulama from making things up and qissas (oh you do not know any Arabic but your allah does not know any Urdu) they made up! and for this see Meccan Trade a book that you did not read. If oral transmission was indeed correct we would have one tafseer for such confusing sura and we would have one meaning by the masorites (oh may be you can check with our dear MSM to tell you what this word really means) for the word ilaf (and for the details of this funny little sura see Meccan Trade). And how do you explain that?

Take also the case of Q66 and Abul Qasim big time drama and there was either a woman by the name of Mariya al-Qibtiya to explain such confusing Quranic allsuions or as per ibn Kathir Muhammad ate some bad 3Asl nahl (oh you do not know any Arabic well may be you can ask your ignorant Mullah) but it cannot be both. So much for asbab al-nuzul and for the oral transmission of these bogus qissas.

Even in the substance of the masora the word MLK in Surat al-Fatiha is either Maaliki (the owner of as per the 1923-1924 Cairo edition of the Qur'an) or it is Maliki (the king of as per the 1969 Tunisian edition of the Qur'an) it is was heard by Muhammad as either Maaliki or maliki it could not have been both. Do you know what this means? It means that there was no oral transmission and that the masorites in distant iran and Mesopotamia in the 3rd century of Islam were guessing what the rasm of the word MLK would be after adding the long and short vowels. Do you know what this also means? It means that the 3Ulama were EDITING (gasp!) the Qur'an. So much for the unedited Qur'an

But do you really know what all this means? It means that

1. Either the Quranic material predates Muhammad

2. Or that the Qur'an was really canonized in the 3rd century of islam

The above detaches Muahammad for the Qur'an and Islam from Arabia!

Now you tell us ya ayuha al-fahlawi al-kabeer where do the Spartans fit in?

You claims are bogus but your chutzpah has no limits

---

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".