All About The Quran

All About The Quran



The Quran is a Divine Miracle of Literature [Prophesy - Science -
Warnings - Wisdom - Truths]...and it has been Preserved 100% In the
Original Language - for over 1,400 years!

Humanity has received Divine Guidance only through two channels:

The Word of Almighty God ("Allah" [in Arabic]) [scriptures, Bible,
Psalms, etc.]
The Prophets sent by the Allah to communicate His Will to mankind

These two things have always been going together, hand in hand.

More important though, there were at that time, tens of thousands of
his companions ("sahabi" in Arabic) who memorized the complete Quran
from the instruction of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Even
the prophet himself (peace be upon him) used to recite it with angel
Gabriel once a year and in the last year of his life he recited it two
times just before the month in which he died.

Next, the leader who came after the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him) (Abu Bakr) entrusted the collection of the Quran to be written in
one volume by one of the Prophet's scribe, Zaid Ibn Thabit. He kept it
till his death. Then the next leader, Umar and after him to his
daughter, Hafsa who had been one of the wives of Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him).

Then from the original text which now resides in Topkope Museum, in
Istanbul, Turkey, the next leader, Uthman prepared several other exact
duplications and sent them to various Muslim territories such as;
Uzbekistan and Turkey and other places. These scriptures are still in
museums there and one has found its way to a museum in England as
well. All of them are exactly the same. Today many of the Muslims from
these areas are still memorizing the Quran.

The Quran was so meticulously preserved because it is the Book of
Guidance for all of humanity for all times. That is why it does not
address just the Arabs, in whose language it was revealed. In fact
Arabs today do not comprise more than 13% of the Today of Muslims in
the world today.



The Quran speaks to "mankind"

Quran speaks to all of mankind on a general basis without regard to
race, tribe, color, social position, financial condition or genealogy.

Allah the Almighty says:

"O Mankind! What has seduced you from your Lord so Generous?"

[Noble Quran 82:6]




The Practical Teachings of the Quran

Teachings of Quran are established by the example of Muhammad (peace
be upon him) and the good Muslims throughout the ages have endeavored
to emulate his teachings both in thought and conduct.

The distinctive approach of the Quran is that its instructions are
aimed at the general welfare of the mankind and are based on the
possibilities within his reach.



The Quran is Wisdom Conclusive.

It neither condemns nor tortures the flesh nor does it neglect the
soul.
It does not humanize God, nor does it deify man.
Everything is carefully placed where it belongs in the total scheme
of creation.

Yet it obviously is not written in human style (chronological order).
Those who would claim that the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
was the author of the Quran are claiming something that is humanly
impossible.

How could any person of the 7th century utter such scientific truths
as those found in the Quran?
Could he describe the evolution of the embryo inside the uterus so
accurately as we find it now recorded in modern science?
[See: Dr. Keith Moore's book - on embryology]


Secondly, is it logical to believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him)
who up to the age of forty was marked only for his honesty and
integrity, began all of a sudden the authorship of a book matchless in
literary merit and the equivalent of which the whole legion of the
Arab poets and orators of the highest caliber could not produce?

And lastly, is it justified to say that Muhammad (peace be upon him)
who was known as "Al-Ameen" (trustworthy) in his society and who is
still admired by the non-Muslim scholars for his honesty, would lie
about receiving the Quran (which forbids lying) from the Angel Gabriel
and then still be able to establish the best human society on the face
of the earth, based on truth?

Surely, any sincere and unbiased searcher of truth must come to the
conclusion that the Quran is the revealed Book of Almighty Allah.

Readers can easily see how the modern world is coming closer to
reality regarding the truth of the Quran.
We appeal to all open minded scholars to study the Quran in the light
of the aforementioned points.
We invite all to challenge the validity and accuracy of the sciences
known to man today and keep in mind that this is the EXACT TEXT used
by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) over one thousand four
hundred years ago.

We are sure that any such attempt will convince the reader that the
Quran could never have been written by any human being ever.

From allahsquran.com

BV BV wrote:
> All About The Quran
>
>
>
> The Quran is a Divine Miracle of Literature [Prophesy - Science -
> Warnings - Wisdom - Truths]...and it has been Preserved 100% In the
> Original Language - for over 1,400 years!
>

You realize, of course, that Moses is mentioned in the Koran 186 time, Jesus
46, and Mohammed only once, don't you? You have been told, I'll guess, that
40% of the Koran is a direct translation from contemporary Christian Syracic
texts - well, sort of Christians, a group that denied the Trinity and were
exiled to Arabia. They eventually died out.

There is significant scholarly doubt that the Mohammed outlined by the
Hadith ever really existed.

On Tuesday, 24 July 2012 02:42:48 UTC+1, HeyBub wrote:
> BV BV wrote:
> > All About The Quran
> >
> >
> >
> > The Quran is a Divine Miracle of Literature [Prophesy - Science -
> > Warnings - Wisdom - Truths]...and it has been Preserved 100% In the
> > Original Language - for over 1,400 years!
> >
>
> You realize, of course, that Moses is mentioned in the Koran 186 time, Jesus
> 46, and Mohammed only once, don't you? You have been told, I'll guess, that
> 40% of the Koran is a direct translation from contemporary Christian Syracic
> texts - well, sort of Christians, a group that denied the Trinity and were
> exiled to Arabia. They eventually died out.
>
> There is significant scholarly doubt that the Mohammed outlined by the
> Hadith ever really existed.

The OP should also be aware that the original written language was devoid of vowel marks but the 1400 year old preserved version has modern vowel marks. Very farsighted of Mohammed. The lack of vowels means that some words can be interpreted in two or more ways.

Further, the Koran has changed over the years particularly where a new political leader/caliph wanted to rubbish opponents.

Further, the Koran did not exist in the time of Mohammed and was only formed from scraps of writing made by others after his death. Which explains in part why it is so disjointed and makes the Bible look like an easy read.

The Koran also contains the Satanic Verses which essentially falsifies the teachings of the book.

I have no doubt that a robber baron called Mohammed existed. And that was all that he was.

In article <734b31d3-f62f-4885-b849-e552c1faa91a@googlegroups.com>,
Alistair Maclean <alistair.j.l.maclean@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 24 July 2012 02:42:48 UTC+1, HeyBub wrote:
>> BV BV wrote:
>> &gt; All About The Quran
>> &gt;
>> &gt;
>> &gt;
>> &gt; The Quran is a Divine Miracle of Literature [Prophesy - Science -
>> &gt; Warnings - Wisdom - Truths]...and it has been Preserved 100% In the
>> &gt; Original Language - for over 1,400 years!
>> &gt;
>>
>> You realize, of course, that Moses is mentioned in the Koran 186 time, Jesus
>> 46, and Mohammed only once, don't you?

[snip]

>The OP should also be aware that the original written language was
>devoid of vowel marks but the 1400 year old preserved version has modern
>vowel marks. Very farsighted of Mohammed. The lack of vowels means that
>some words can be interpreted in two or more ways.

Would any one of these scholars be so kind as to inform the readers here
which version and/or translation of the Quran they read and researched to
reach their conclusions?

DD

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>> You realize, of course, that Moses is mentioned in the Koran 186
>>> time, Jesus 46, and Mohammed only once, don't you?
>
> [snip]
>
>> The OP should also be aware that the original written language was
>> devoid of vowel marks but the 1400 year old preserved version has
>> modern vowel marks. Very farsighted of Mohammed. The lack of vowels
>> means that some words can be interpreted in two or more ways.
>
> Would any one of these scholars be so kind as to inform the readers
> here which version and/or translation of the Quran they read and
> researched to reach their conclusions?
>

For me, I read no version of the Koran written in Arabic. Why do you ask?

In article <R8ednexDaZDQ3ozNnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@earthlink.com> ,
HeyBub <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>> You realize, of course, that Moses is mentioned in the Koran 186
>>>> time, Jesus 46, and Mohammed only once, don't you?
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The OP should also be aware that the original written language was
>>> devoid of vowel marks but the 1400 year old preserved version has
>>> modern vowel marks. Very farsighted of Mohammed. The lack of vowels
>>> means that some words can be interpreted in two or more ways.
>>
>> Would any one of these scholars be so kind as to inform the readers
>> here which version and/or translation of the Quran they read and
>> researched to reach their conclusions?
>>
>
>For me, I read no version of the Koran written in Arabic.

The question was 'which version and/or translation' did you read. You've
admitted ignorance of the source doucment and now must rely on a
translation.

Which translation of the Quran did you read and research to reach your
conclusions?

>Why do you ask?

Making certain all participants are using the same text decreases the
possibility of certain kinds of errors; when an assertion about textual
content is made it is easier for all to insure that they are, quite
literally, 'reading from the same page'.

DD

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:33:41 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>Which translation of the Quran did you read and research to reach your
>conclusions?

That is not the common practice. People with strong opinions on
what God wants generally start off with conclusions, then search for
ways to interpret their scriptures to support them.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <R8ednexDaZDQ3ozNnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@earthlink.com> ,
> HeyBub <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>> You realize, of course, that Moses is mentioned in the Koran 186
>>>>> time, Jesus 46, and Mohammed only once, don't you?
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> The OP should also be aware that the original written language was
>>>> devoid of vowel marks but the 1400 year old preserved version has
>>>> modern vowel marks. Very farsighted of Mohammed. The lack of vowels
>>>> means that some words can be interpreted in two or more ways.
>>>
>>> Would any one of these scholars be so kind as to inform the readers
>>> here which version and/or translation of the Quran they read and
>>> researched to reach their conclusions?
>>>
>>
>> For me, I read no version of the Koran written in Arabic.
>
> The question was 'which version and/or translation' did you read.
> You've admitted ignorance of the source doucment and now must rely on
> a translation.
>
> Which translation of the Quran did you read and research to reach your
> conclusions?

That I must rely on a translation is a conclusion YOU reached without any
basis. Further, I admitted NO ignorance of the source document. My
(admittedly) limited knowledge comes from the works of others who've spent
decades in the study of Islam, most recently "Did Mohammed Exist" by Robert
Spencer. This work is a collection of notes by other scholars who have
studied Islam their entire careers.

>
>> Why do you ask?
>
> Making certain all participants are using the same text decreases the
> possibility of certain kinds of errors; when an assertion about
> textual content is made it is easier for all to insure that they are,
> quite literally, 'reading from the same page'.
>

In the case of the Koran, there is NO "same page." There are several
renditions and about 40% of the work is a direct translation from Syracic
Christian sources.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:14:51 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <R8ednexDaZDQ3ozNnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@earthlink.com> ,
>> HeyBub <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>>> You realize, of course, that Moses is mentioned in the Koran 186
>>>>>> time, Jesus 46, and Mohammed only once, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> The OP should also be aware that the original written language was
>>>>> devoid of vowel marks but the 1400 year old preserved version has
>>>>> modern vowel marks. Very farsighted of Mohammed. The lack of vowels
>>>>> means that some words can be interpreted in two or more ways.
>>>>
>>>> Would any one of these scholars be so kind as to inform the readers
>>>> here which version and/or translation of the Quran they read and
>>>> researched to reach their conclusions?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For me, I read no version of the Koran written in Arabic.
>>
>> The question was 'which version and/or translation' did you read.
>> You've admitted ignorance of the source doucment and now must rely on
>> a translation.
>>
>> Which translation of the Quran did you read and research to reach your
>> conclusions?
>
>That I must rely on a translation is a conclusion YOU reached without any
>basis. Further, I admitted NO ignorance of the source document. My
>(admittedly) limited knowledge comes from the works of others who've spent
>decades in the study of Islam, most recently "Did Mohammed Exist" by Robert
>Spencer. This work is a collection of notes by other scholars who have
>studied Islam their entire careers.
>
>>
>>> Why do you ask?
>>
>> Making certain all participants are using the same text decreases the
>> possibility of certain kinds of errors; when an assertion about
>> textual content is made it is easier for all to insure that they are,
>> quite literally, 'reading from the same page'.
>>
>
>In the case of the Koran, there is NO "same page." There are several
>renditions and about 40% of the work is a direct translation from Syracic
>Christian sources.
>

Much like the Bible which was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic
(Jeasus' native tongue). The problem doesn't necessarily come in the
translation (although it can); it comes in the interpretaton of the
translation.

Regards,
--

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

Do you think that when they asked George Washington for ID that he
just whipped out a quarter?
-- Steven Wright
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

In article <0k3618t0tblj1otqumptksq05o58j31kgt@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:33:41 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>>Which translation of the Quran did you read and research to reach your
>>conclusions?
>
>That is not the common practice. People with strong opinions on
>what God wants generally start off with conclusions, then search for
>ways to interpret their scriptures to support them.

When a statement is made about a specific tome (ie, the Quran), then I
begin by asking which version of said tome was used as a basis... it is a
habit of mine. If the assertions are based on secondary sources then it
could be possible to begin with examining those... but so far no secondary
source has been cited, either.

DD

In article <C5OdncPQZNhBj47NnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@earthlink.com> ,
HeyBub <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <R8ednexDaZDQ3ozNnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@earthlink.com> ,
>> HeyBub <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>>> You realize, of course, that Moses is mentioned in the Koran 186
>>>>>> time, Jesus 46, and Mohammed only once, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> The OP should also be aware that the original written language was
>>>>> devoid of vowel marks but the 1400 year old preserved version has
>>>>> modern vowel marks. Very farsighted of Mohammed. The lack of vowels
>>>>> means that some words can be interpreted in two or more ways.
>>>>
>>>> Would any one of these scholars be so kind as to inform the readers
>>>> here which version and/or translation of the Quran they read and
>>>> researched to reach their conclusions?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For me, I read no version of the Koran written in Arabic.
>>
>> The question was 'which version and/or translation' did you read.
>> You've admitted ignorance of the source doucment and now must rely on
>> a translation.
>>
>> Which translation of the Quran did you read and research to reach your
>> conclusions?
>
>That I must rely on a translation is a conclusion YOU reached without any
>basis.

Either you used a Quran written in Arabic or you didn't. Since
non-existence is the default state the conclusion is rather plain.

>Further, I admitted NO ignorance of the source document.

I wonder who posted 'For me, I read no version of the Koran written in
Arabic.'

>My
>(admittedly) limited knowledge comes from the works of others who've spent
>decades in the study of Islam, most recently "Did Mohammed Exist" by Robert
>Spencer. This work is a collection of notes by other scholars who have
>studied Islam their entire careers.

So, it seems, you feel free to make assertions about a text which you have
read neither in original nor translation. The quality of the assertions
may reflect that.

>
>>
>>> Why do you ask?
>>
>> Making certain all participants are using the same text decreases the
>> possibility of certain kinds of errors; when an assertion about
>> textual content is made it is easier for all to insure that they are,
>> quite literally, 'reading from the same page'.
>>
>
>In the case of the Koran, there is NO "same page."

That might be a reason for having put it in single quotes, ie 'same page'.

DD

SkippyPB wrote:
>
> Much like the Bible which was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic
> (Jeasus' native tongue). The problem doesn't necessarily come in the
> translation (although it can); it comes in the interpretaton of the
> translation.
>

Yep. But the injunction "All translators are traitors" applies to the basic
translation too. Here's an example:

Using Roman characters, the name of God in the Hebrew is YHWH.

Following the injunction to not take the Lord's name in vain, when read in
the synagogue, the word "Adonai" (meaning king or lord) is automatically
substituted by the reader, much the same way we say "et cetera" when
encountering the word "etc.".

Beginning in the 7th century, a group of Jewish scholars added diacritical
(vowel) marks to the original Hebrew text. When they got to the word YHWH,
they added the vowels for Adonai !

Now skip to the 16th century.

Martin Luther translated the Hebrew (and Greek) texts into German, but he
didn't know the above trick! So, when he came across the word YHWH with its
accompanying vowels, Luther rendered the word as YeHoWaH.

Skip forward another hundred years.

The creators of the King James Bible merely substituted a "J" for the German
"Y" and a "V" for the "W" and came up with the word "Jehovah." Jehovah is a
word that was unknown to both Moses and Jesus. Jehovah is, in fact, a
completely made-up word that started with a mistake and got further muddled
by translators.

Heck, we even have whole religions named for that word, and all this
silliness and error could have been prevented had Martin Luther consulted
with any six-year old Jewish boy!