From: aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Islamic stories...
Date: 27 Aug 1992 11:14:48 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

>From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)

In article by: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
>In article <l9nl03INNg6p@pollux.usc.edu>, aabdalla@pollux.usc.edu (Ahmed Abd-Allah) writes...
>>I'm glad you posted: it gives me an opportunity to really start a good 
>>discussion now.  First: who wrote the translation you used?
>
>	I didn't use one translation. I have the Yusif Ali, the M. 
>Shakir and the N. Dawood translations. But I like to paraphrase, since 
>whenever I have quoted the Q. in a debate with a Muslim, I have been told 
>that I have been using the wrong translation. That seems to be the 
>first step. So when I ask which translation to use I received 
>different answers. Most tell me that the translations are wrong just 
>by the fact that they are translations. I need to learn arabic they 
>tell me.

It's good to hear that you have the three translations.  This should protect
you adequately against mistranslation.  Ali and Shakir are Muslim, and
Dawood is a Jew, but I am impressed nonetheless with the latter based on
Mr. Arthur Johnson's kind post where he did quote from Dawood's
translation.  And speaking of Mr. Johnson, most of his answers to you are
the answers I gave you in my first rebuttal - and he is a nonMuslim by his
own admission.
As to advising you that you 'need' to learn Arabic, that's simply not true,
and I think you're not levelling that charge against me.  Those Muslims 
who gave you that excuse may have been a little too hasty.

>>>	God never commands us to do a shameful thing (7:28; 6:131)
>>>	God commands people to sin in order to rightly destroy them 
>>>	(17:16)
>>I strongly recommend that you abstain from quoting things in fragments
>>to hide their context - not just with the Qur'an, but in general.  And
>>with the Qur'an, you ought to quote the verse directly, instead of 
>>paraphrasing as you do.
>	I would rather paraphrase since I have been told that the 
>arabic is not directly translatable.

Correct, the Arabic is not directly translatable.  But neither is English
going to Arabic, or Greek going to English.  This is no excuse, however,
for paraphrasing.  As it is, Mr. Johnson took the time to post the entire
passages, as I did with some of them.

>>Verse [7:28] is speaking on the mentality of some people who sin:
>>	[7:28]
>>	When they do anything that is shameful, they say:
>>	"We found our fathers doing so" and "Allah commanded
>>	us thus".  Say (O Prophet): "Nay, Allah never
>>	commands what is shameful: Do you attribute to Allah
>>	something of which you have no knowledge?"
>>I don't know what your translation is talking about in [6:131]; it
>>is very clearly wrong.  It does not speak of the same subject as [7:28].
>>[6:131] states that God does not destroy any community for its evils
>>until it has been warned.
>>	[6:131]
>>	For thy Lord would not destroy a community for its 
>>	wrongdoing so long as its people are unwarned (or ignorant).
>	Correct. I had said that Allah does not command us to do a 
>shameful thing, which you bear out.
>>By paraphrasing [17:16] AND ignoring the verses preceding it you add
>>to the translator's mistranslation: a double mistake.  
>	Preceding it? The Qur'an is not compiled in a temporal form. 

I am puzzled by your defense here.  Rather than admit that the context is
clear in its meaning, you are about to charge that the Qur'an is 
arranged in a strange form.  This shows that you have some knowledge of
history which is good, but you oversimplified dramatically.

>It is not `this is the oldest, this goes first.' It is `this is the 
>longest, this goes first.' The fact that averse precedes another in 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wrong.  Please look at verse [2:282].  This is the longest verse in the
Qur'an.  Is it the first?  Now look at the very first chapter of the
Qur'an.  How many verses does it have?  You will find 7.  How many
verses does chapter two have?  You will find 286.  I believe you may
have oversimplified by declaring your observation to be an ironclad
rule.
The fact is that the Qur'an was revealed over a period of 23 years.  The
Prophet would either get a stream of verses or as few as one verse at
any one time, depending on the Will of God.  The method of transmittal
was via the angel Gabriel: He would come to Muhammad, tell him the 
verse(s), then tell him its place in the Qur'an.  Gabriel, it is 
safe to say, got this information from God.  So let us assume that the
verses you refer to were indeed NOT given in chronological order: yet
if God Himself told us where the verse goes, don't you think that there
is a reason for this, a reason called 'context'?  This is not an 
unreasonable argument.  
And on top of that, the irony is that the chronological order of the
Qur'an is known for the MOST part: Chapter 17 was revealed within the
last year before the Migration from Makkah to Medina which occurred
in 622 CE.

>the Q is not proof that it was written first, since the compilers of 
>the Q started with the longest verses and then went to the shortest. 
>For you to say that 17:15 comes before 17:16 in a temporal sense is a 
>fabrication. Or, `lie' in your words.

See above.

>>	[17:16]
>>	When We decide to destroy a community We (first) send
>>	a command (to mend their ways) to those among them
>>	who are given the good things of this life and yet 
>>	transgress, until the word is proved true against them
>>	(with no excuse): then We destroy them entirely.
>The part of `to mend their ways' is an addition. It is not in 
>the Q. You are inserting something so that the Q does not contradict 
>itself. The meaning of 17:16 is that Allah tells the people to sin so 
>that he can rightly destroy them.

No.  You have three translations of the Qur'an with you.  Please read all 
three.  Tell me, from where did you get your idea - does it come from
Dawood's translation?  My guess is no, otherwise Mr. Johnson would have
referred to it.  Perhaps we should look at [17:16] for the moment as if
it were all alone: let us assume the Qur'an only consisted of this single
verse temporarily.  What does it look like in a literal sense?

	[17:16]
	And when We decide to destroy a town We 'AMARNA'
	those among them who have material wealth and ease
	then they stray in it, so that the word is proved 
	true against them: then We destroy it entirely.

The verb 'AMARNA' has eight translations (Hans Wehr Arabic English
Dictionary), but let us look at only the first or primary meaning
lest I be accused of sidestepping.  The primary meaning is "to
order, command, bid, instruct or to commission, charge, instruct."
At this point, there are two different meanings: "to order" and "to
commission".  You claim it is "to order" - and then you insert your
own words WITHOUT justification completing this with "to sin" - i.e.
"to order to sin."
The most you can say is that it may mean "to order" something.  What
about the other primary meaning - "to commission"?  This is the 
meaning which even Dawood (not to mention the Muslim translators and
scholars) understands.  In other words the people (in power) in the town
are commissioned to save it, to act as a final warning to its people -
and the word "warn" is used by Dawood, who is a Jew as I noted above.

	[3:108]
	...Allah wills no wrong to His creation.

>>Why did you misquote?
>	Why did you insert something that wasn't there and presume 
>that it was a quote?

Because not only does verse [3:108] justify this meaning, so does the
rest of the Qur'an.  As I stated above, you took a possible meaning of
a verb, and then filled in your own subject: "to order"  --> "to sin".
Justify this using the Qur'an which is its own best commentary.

>>>	8 days in Creation (41:9-12)
>>>	6 days in cretaion (10:3, 11:7, 7:54)
>> 
>>With this paraphrase, you commit an outright lie, if I may be so blunt.  
>>I hate to use such strong language, but you should have quoted the
>>entire passage instead of paraphrasing.  NOWHERE in [41:9-12] is a
>>figure of '8 days' given.  I leave it to you to present your claim.
>	The earth was made in 2 days (41:9)
>	all things in it      4 days (41:10)
>	the heavens in        2 days (41:12)
                ---------------------------
>		total =       8 days	  

Mr. Johnson posted the verses which you have again paraphrased.  He also
noted that this is one set of verses which he could not understand except
as a contradiction.  These verses, taken by themselves may or may not mean
a total of eight days certainly.  Just as the verses mentioned above, when
taken separately, can be confusing.  Here is a simple analogy which might
make you smile :-), and yet I hope you see my point - I am interested in
what Mr. Johnson will say.

	Ahmed takes 5 minutes to take his shower.
	Ahmed takes 7 minutes to boil his eggs.
	Ahmed takes 10 minutes to eat his eggs.

You and Mr. Johnson would conclude that these three sentences MUST describe
a total of 22 minutes of poor Ahmed's life.  Well.  As it turns out, Ahmed
put the eggs on the stove and then immediately went to the shower - thus
wisely saving time.  The actual time spent is 17 minutes, mmmmm?

Ok, I hope the analogy made its point.  However, in order for it to be
applicable to this situation, there should be something in the Qur'an
telling us the total time.  As you and Mr. Johnson have noted, there
are many verses describing the total as six days.  For me, that is enough:
verses [41:9-12] speak of a sequence but no total - one can get the wrong
total by simple addition of the days described here.  But I don't want to
squirm out of this as someone might squirm out of an equivalent situation
like, say, with the Bible and its problems.  So let us ask an even stronger
question to settle this once and for all:  Does Allah imply anywhere in
the Qur'an of SIMULTANEITY between various actions during creation?
Consult your copy of the Qur'an:

	[79:27-30]
	Are you the more difficult to create or is it the
	sky above?  Allah has built it: On high has He raised
	its canopy, and He has given it order and perfection;
	He did make dark its night, and He brought out its light.
	And earth, after that, did He spread out.

The earth was in existence as the sky was being formed according to
this verse.  Only after the actions described above had taken place
did God 'spread out' or extend the surface of the earth.  The 
implication is that certain stages of creation of the earth and
the heavens took place concurrently.
I have one last question for you: if you claim to have Yusuf Ali's
translation, then why didn't you consult it?  All this information is
contained therein.
	
>>>	Commands people to wait one year in order to remarry after the 
>>>	death of a spouse (2:240)
>>>	Wait for only 4 months and 10 days (2:234)
>> 
>>Either your translator has made an even worse mistake, or you have
>>misread something.  Either way, your paraphrase is wrong.
>
>	The translation that I am using states that women should keep 
>themselves apart from men for 4 months 10 days (2:234). While 2:240 
>states that there should be a year's maintenance so that the widows 
>should not leave their homes. Be apart from men for a year and be 
>apart from men for 4 months 10 days. Very consistent.

Please see Mr. Johnson's reply to you.  Neither he nor I can seem to
convince you that you are misreading these verses.  For the third time,
since Mr. Johnson brought it up as well, the widows are NOT obligated
to stay like rocks in their houses for a full year - you are reading 
into the verse what you want to see.  The widows may leave any time.
On the other hand they may not remarry until a period of four months
and 10 days has passed - any prospective suitors should know whether
she is pregnant or not out of fairness.  Do you see now?  If you don't,
then I cannot help you on this point.

>>>	God said Muhammad not to marry any other woman (33:52)
>>>	God told Muhammad to marry any one he wanted or liked (33:50)
>> 
>>When I saw how long these two verses were, I nearly fainted...  Your
>>translator and yourself are again guilty of mistranslation, misquotation,
>>and thus wrong.
>> 
>>	The beginning of [33:50]
>>	O Prophet, We have made lawful to you your wives to
>>	whom you have paid their dower...
>> 
>>	The beginning of [33:52]
>>	It is not lawful to you (O Prophet) to (marry more) 
>>	women after this...
>> 
>>Where's the contradiction?  [33:50] speaks of the wives of the Prophet.
>>[33:52] speaks of other women.  In this case, I don't think your translator
>>made a mistake: I find it hard to believe he doesn't know the difference
>>between the Arabic words for 'wives' and 'women'.  Perhaps you misread 
>>something.
>	Other women before they became his wives. Like his 
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You've committed a familiar error: adding your own phrase to the words of
the Qur'an to create a contradiction.  As Mr. Johnson has pointed out, the
verse in question ([33:52]) speaks of "women".  Would you mind terribly
posting your translations of this verse?  Perhaps there is an error in 
the translation that needs to be corrected.

>son-in-law's wife that he took, and the 8 year old girl that he 
>`married.' For that matter, Muslims are limited to 4 wives. How many 
>did Muhammed have?

Based on my limited experience with debating, I have noticed that when
someone's position becomes untenable, that person begins to start 
discussing anything but the point in question.  Mr. Johnson answered
your questions truthfully and civilly.  I will not bother until you
bring them up in a formal manner.  Let us try and settle issues one at 
a time.  Perhaps you will be pleasantly surprised by Islam - perhaps
you won't.

[stuff deleted]
>>>	Commands them to kill non-Muslims after  the months of Rageab, 
>>>	Zu El Kea'ada, Zu El Heaga, Ramadan (9:5; 9:73; 66:9; 2:193; 
>>>	2:256)
>>The logic that you are using is mysterious to me.  My previous post
>>spoke of the Love of God.  Your reply is to come up with five verses -
>>and not a single one quoted - that speak of war.  However, in this case
>>your are at least partially right: these verses DO speak of war.
>Wrong.
>You didn't say that you were speaking of the love of God. You 
>said that Christians thought that theirs was the only religion that 
>had love... implying that Muslims have a religion of love. If you can 
>call slaying non-Muslims love, then you may have a point. Otherwise 

Perhaps you are of the school of thought that any religion that condones
any type of killing has no love.  I cannot debate this point with you
since it seems to be one of your fundamental assumptions.  For myself,
I have no assumptions on this point: Allah condones the return killing of 
perpetrators of violent killing; Muslims MUST defend themselves in war
against the most well-intentioned of non-Muslims or otherwise.

This is, in fact, very similar to the Catholic concept of a 'just war', if
that helps you understand the Truth any better.

>you have a blood thirsty cult that is perpetuated at the tip of a 
>scimitar.
>	Like, for instance, where do we get the word `assassin' from?

>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

A note to Mr. Johnson, whom I hope has read this: My answers here are
my answers to you as well (to save bandwidth and my time).  Any 
differences are intentional, but I am happy to see that there are few -
I appreciate your honesty.

Ahmed A. Abd-Allah

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15401 alt.atheism:16358