Where does "allah" say...

[ApplePie7]

Any of them? Well they've engaged you in debate here. At least elwill has. I think you're being unfair. You don't criticse Beamishboy for non-debate. All he's done is post here that he thinks you're right. And then again, and then again, and then again. Like a cheer-squad of one.

Certainly some wish here to raise a past mistake of yours (which you surely must be thinking of here)* however I look forward to your question being answered by Moslems regarding your original OP (you split your own thread, but more of that in a moment). I thought too perhaps they have a 'royal we'. Your own response in post #22 suggest this... that when talking to their god they use singular, but when he's talking its plural.

I think elwill is wrong to suggest that nothing in Arabic was written down prior to the Koran (post #17)

Then you start a new topic in post #23! Your discussions with elwill over three/trinity in fact point to why the Koran was not written by Christians - because Chrisitans (we who believe in the Trinity) would not be suggesting that Christians believe in three gods.

I also think ApplePie's argument that there was no 'period' between "the truth" and "Jesus Christ" might be flawed.

Here's why, as an example.
When the Bible was first written there was also no slits into verses and so on. All letters were most likely in capitals as minscules (lower case) weren't polularised until the Carolingian court.

So a verse might read
(Matthew 10:29-30)
ARE NOT TWO SPARROWS SOLD FOR A PENNY YET NOT ONE OF THEM WILL FALL TO THE GROUND APART FROM THE WILL OF YOUR FATHER AND EVEN THE HAIRS OF YOUR HEAD ARE NUMBERED
(if in fact spacing existed, I don't know if it did)

Now simply because a period doesn’t exist between FATHER and AND doesn’t mean that a person reading this would not know that it is in fact a point to stop as one does at the end of a sentence. Unless you're to argue that scholars arbitrarily split these up into sentences.

I think ApplePie’s theory might be flawed unless he can show that in Arabic readings they would be confused as to where in lie the breaks because even their people spoke a living language where people pause, and change inflections etc.


*with your theory of the Koran written by Christians there was massive holes in that theory that you wouldn't discuss, such as why Chrisitans with a perfectly adequate Bible would decide to write a book in a highly metaphorical language for the Arabs.

Instead of worrying about others....please show us your defence of the ayahs covered.

 

[beamishboy]

Jesus Christ is God Almighty in both books, as well...

Amen! Jesus Christ is indeed God Almighty. We believe in one God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

For a while, Islam_muler made the terrible error of saying that you didn't believe Jesus is God. I'm glad you've cleared it up!

 

[ApplePie7]

Amen! Jesus Christ is indeed God Almighty. We believe in one God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

For a while, Islam_muler made the terrible error of saying that you didn't believe Jesus is God. I'm glad you've cleared it up!

 

[elwill]

I think elwill is wrong to suggest that nothing in Arabic was written down prior to the Koran (post #17)

you misunderstood what i meant
i didn't said nothing in arabic was written , i meant just the science of the language , the basics , the grammar
this type of science which non_arabs may needs it to learn the language

read what i said again
The Classical Arabic language became a language we can talk about as having a fixed grammar largely because of the Qur'an.

arabs themselfs in the time of mohammed (pbuh) didn't need to write grammer basics to talking perfect arabic .

Dictionaries and grammar books were first written to preserve the language of the Qur'an and the hadiths from the changes to the Arabic language that were happening as a result of the sudden growth of the Islamic Caliphate into new populations stretching from

so, motalban , i didn't mean that arabs didn't write in arabic before the islam , i just meant the basics and the grammar

 

[dnihila]

Well before I mention any verses from the Holy Quran, I may remind you of a fact that prophet Muhammed ( peace be upon him ) has the ispiration by the angel Gabriel so how come he will say (I) and the people might think that that is prophet Muhammed ( peace be upon him) talking about himself as a god??? By the way it is the same case in the Holy Book!!! Cause the Holy Book was inspired to both Moses and Jesus ( peace be upon them)

Read the following please:

Surah 106. Winter, Quraysh
1. For the covenants (of security and safeguard enjoyed) by the Quraish,
2. Their covenants (covering) journeys by winter and summer,-
3. Let them adore the Lord of this House,
4. Who provides them with food against hunger, and with security against fear (of danger).

Surah 114. Mankind

1. Say: I seek refuge with the Lord and Cherisher of Mankind,
2. The King (or Ruler) of Mankind,
3. The Allah (for judge) of Mankind,-
4. From the mischief of the Whisperer (of Evil), who withdraws (after his whisper),-
5. (The same) who whispers into the hearts of Mankind,- 6. Among Jinns and among men.

Surah 112. The Unity, Sincerity, Oneness Of Allah

1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; 4. And there is none like unto Him.

And what was prophet Muhammed was inspired to say:
Surah 18. The Cave

110. Say: "I am but a man like yourselves, (but) the inspiration has come to me, that your Allah is one Allah. whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner.

http://www.holybible.com/resources/KJV_DFND/index.php?Book=68&mode=4&BookTitle=Luke&Chapter=1
1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. Defenders Notes >>​

1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Defenders Notes >>
1:29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. Defenders Notes >>
1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. Defenders Notes >>
1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: Defenders Notes >>
1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Defenders Notes >>
1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Defenders Notes >> Defenders Notes >> Defenders Notes >>

I am confused. Would you please explain the difference between the two phrases? Of his father David and the son of God.

(6. Show us the straight way, 7. The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray. ) Amen
May Allah/God lead us to the right path.

 

[dnihila]

3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Defenders Notes >>​

3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,​

3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,​

3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,​

3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,​

3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,​

3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,​

3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,​

3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,​

3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,​

3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,​

3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,​

3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,​

3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,​

3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,​

3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.​

And you are saying that Adam is the son of God like Jesus???? Or you are saying that jesus is Adam and Adam is Jesus?​

Surah 3. The Family Of 'Imran, The House Of 'Imran

59. The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

 

[Montalban]

Instead of worrying about others....please show us your defence of the ayahs covered.

Well you just missed an opportunity for you to discuss objections I raised. Seems you're all on about 'everyone' not debating you, but when they do, you miss this entirely.

Welcome back.

 

[Montalban]

you misunderstood what i meant
i didn't said nothing in arabic was written , i meant just the science of the language , the basics , the grammar
this type of science which non_arabs may needs it to learn the language

read what i said again
The Classical Arabic language became a language we can talk about as having a fixed grammar largely because of the Qur'an.

Yes, but if it was written down, at all, prior to the Koran then it must have followed a grammar. What you mean is that the rules of grammar as you have now were not as they have then. It would be impossible for anyone to have communicated in a written language in any meaningful way without a grammar!

arabs themselfs in the time of mohammed didn't need to write grammer basics to talking perfect arabic .

Whatever they did write would have had a grammar. For e.g. English, which owes so much to Shakespeare, written before he came into being had a grammar. It had a different grammar. But a grammar it did have.

Dictionaries and grammar books were first written to preserve the language of the Qur'an and the hadiths from the changes to the Arabic language that were happening as a result of the sudden growth of the Islamic Caliphate into new populations stretching from

So what?

so, motalban , i didn't mean that arabs didn't write in arabic before the islam , i just meant the basics and the grammar

Which means that Arabic was a bunch of words written down in any word order

However I appreciate you engaging in debate with ApplePie who seems to think no one is doing this, even me.

 

[ApplePie7]

Well before I mention any verses from the Holy Quran, I may remind you of a fact that prophet Muhammed ( peace be upon him ) has the ispiration by the angel Gabriel so how come he will say (I) and the people might think that that is prophet Muhammed ( peace be upon him) talking about himself as a god??? By the way it is the same case in the Holy Book!!! Cause the Holy Book was inspired to both Moses and Jesus ( peace be upon them)

If this is the case, then where in all of the Koran is anything like the following written…


“I, Muhammad, wrote this here Koran”

Or…

“I, Muhammad, dictated this here Koran”

Or…

“I, Muhammad, was inspired by an angel”

Or…

“I, Muhammad, was divinely inspired”



Fact is, the Koran never once mentions who wrote the text, or that it was divinely inspired.


Not once.


What it does claim, however, is that it merely copied and translated the previous inspired Jewish and Christian scriptures into Arabic.

 

[Montalban]

If this is the case, then where in all of the Koran is anything like the following written…

So we're back to your OP now? You've decided to drop your own off-topic side-thread?

I've addressed this too.

So much for you demanding that people engage you in debate. I have and you ignore it.

And by the way, I don't have to offer a 'defence of the ayahs'. It's you with the premise we're debating.

 

[Montalban]

Fact is, the Koran never once mentions who wrote the text, or that it was divinely inspired.[/FONT][/SIZE][/U][/B]


Not once.


What it does claim, however, is that it merely copied and translated the previous inspired Jewish and Christian scriptures into Arabic.

But it wasn't a divinely inspired copy?

 

[elwill]

Yes, but if it was written down, at all, prior to the Koran then it must have followed a grammar. What you mean is that the rules of grammar as you have now were not as they have then. It would be impossible for anyone to have communicated in a written language in any meaningful way without a grammar!

Whatever they did write would have had a grammar. For e.g. English, which owes so much to Shakespeare, written before he came into being had a grammar. It had a different grammar. But a grammar it did have.

So what?

Which means that Arabic was a bunch of words written down in any word order

However I appreciate you engaging in debate with ApplePie who seems to think no one is doing this, even me.

the arabs wrote and speak the arabic with it's Grammer by nature , they didn't learned it from grammer books

there are many things in the arabic language grammer you cant imagine by your english language
for example if we take one word for example , very familier word as allah
somtimes we read it as allaha , allaho , allahi
they are all wrote in the same word in arabic "allah"
but how to pronunciation it ? is it allaha , or allaho or allahi
if you pronunciation it in wrong way , may be it will change the meaning completely , or it just distort the original language
anyway the arabs by nature used to pronunciation the words correctely by nature , but nonarabs somtimes pronounicitation the words by wrong way , so that they form the writen grammer of language

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لاَ تَغْلُواْ فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ إِلاَّ الْحَقِّ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللّهِ
do you see these marks above and under the letters ?
this is the basics of grammer to know how to prnonicitation the word correctly , it's a very complex language , i just gave you simple example above to understand the sitauation i'm talking about , even the dots exist on letters wasnt exist


most of people refuted the preservation of quran because Othman burnt all verisions but one to unite the book
they didn't know why , they just make conclusions that there were differences , and it is not true
there were no basics in writing , most of arabs were unlettered
, it wasn't about containing of the book , it was about the form of writing which may be will create confusions between non arab muslims or between muslims in the future

 

[Montalban]

the arabs wrote and speak the arabic with it's Grammer by nature , they didn't learned it from grammer books

That's irrelevant. Whether they learnt it from a book, or by a correspondence course.

there are many things in the arabic language grammer you cant imagine by your english language

I'm not imagining anything by my English language. And I'm aware of differences. I've done a language; Irish, as well I have done a Post Graduate Certificate in TESOL (Teaching English to Students of Other Languages). And, I did the latter 'for fun' as I love constructions of meaning, etc.

I love the study of knowledge and meaning. It's why I'm such a pest when debating people over what they write, not what they might mean.

most of people refuted the preservation of quran because Othman burnt all verisions but one to unite the book
they didn't know why , they just make conclusions that there were differences , and it is not true
there were no basics in writing , most of arabs were unlettered
, it wasn't about containing of the book , it was about the form of writing which may be will create confusions between non arab muslims or between muslims in the future

Since you raise that issue here;
How did he determine which was correct? Given your previous statements about un-written grammar you've just made this task even more difficult.

I note ApplePie's not addressing either of us.

I also note that Beamishboy contributes nothing here but his opinion ApplePie is correct - based on his own non-comprehension of Arabic.... he assumes ApplePie is correct

 

[Montalban]

most of people refuted the preservation of quran because Othman burnt all verisions but one to unite the book
they didn't know why , they just make conclusions that there were differences , and it is not true
there were no basics in writing , most of arabs were unlettered
, it wasn't about containing of the book , it was about the form of writing which may be will create confusions between non arab muslims or between muslims in the future

I touched on this earlier you're now in a bit of a bind.

You claim that the grammar wasn't established until the Koran, given that, as Othman chose particular Korans to destroy so as not to confuse muslims in the future you've got Othman in effect arbitrarily choosing one Koran - because according to you, he's not judging the other copies on their grammar, because the grammar wasn't established until the Koran.

So you've got Othman choosing a Koran to be the Koran by which to judge what is proper grammar!

Rather circular logic.

 

[elwill]

Since you raise that issue here;
How did he determine which was correct? Given your previous statements about un-written grammar you've just made this task even more difficult.

When the Noble Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, it was revealed in Arabic, and in the Quraishi dialect. The Quraishi dialect is the most proper Arabic dialect that properly uses the Arabic words without altering their sound.

The Quraishi dialect was the most popular dialect in the Middle East at that time, and is today the dialect used among Arabs who speak Proper Arabic. The dialect that books teach at schools is also a Quraishi dialect today.
Back in the Middle East 1400 years ago, the Quraishi dialect was not the only one used among Arabs. There existed 6 other dialects along with it, but as I said, it was the most popular.

It is very important in the Islamic faith that when we recite the Noble Quran, we recite it in the Quraishi dialect or what we call today in the proper Arabic. We can't pronounce for instance "th" as "sa" or "za". We can't pronounce "la" as "laman". We can't pronounce "ja" and "ga", etc...

If the Noble Quran is recited in a different dialect than the Quraishi one, and if one tries to write down what he is reciting, he could and would end up with different words in spelling and in some cases in meaning as well than the original copy of the Noble Quran.

When Uthman got hold of all of the Qurans that were written in different dialects, and in some cases were altered to sound exactly like the other dialects, he ordered for them to get burnt because they did not use the proper Arabic that was revealed unto our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, and in some cases their words were different because of this dialect difference. He then compiled all of the Noble Surahs (Chapters) of the Noble Quran that were already written during the time of Prophet Muhammad in the city of Madina and formed what we call today the one true copy of the "Noble Quran".

 

[Montalban]

When the Noble Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, it was revealed in Arabic, and in the Quraishi dialect. The Quraishi dialect is the most proper Arabic dialect that properly uses the Arabic words without altering their sound.

Demonstrate for me that one dialect of Arabic was more 'proper' than another.

Further, explain how this at all addresses the problem of grammar already raised here.

The Quraishi dialect was the most popular dialect in the Middle East at that time, and is today the dialect used among Arabs who speak Proper Arabic.

Given that its the one in the Koran (if you're correct on that) it would be the most widely used version

The dialect that books teach at schools is also a Quraishi dialect today.
Back in the Middle East 1400 years ago, the Quraishi dialect was not the only one used among Arabs. There existed 6 other dialects along with it, but as I said, it was the most popular.

And they all had different grammars?

When Uthman got hold of all of the Qurans that were written in different dialects, and in some cases were altered to sound exactly like the other dialects, he ordered for them to get burnt because they did not use the proper Arabic that was revealed unto our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, and in some cases their words were different because of this dialect difference. He then compiled all of the Noble Surahs (Chapters) of the Noble Quran that were already written during the time of Prophet Muhammad in the city of Madina and formed what we call today the one true copy of the "Noble Quran".

So he based his reasoning on the fact that the dialect most widely spoken becuase of the use of the Koran was used in the Koran???

Show that the other Korans were in different dialects.

 

[elwill]

Demonstrate for me that one dialect of Arabic was more 'proper' than another.

i already gave you examples , here is another

some Arabs used to have a dialect which originated from Yemen, where they would add "an" at the end of a noun. Take for instance the popular word of today "Taliban", as in the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Taliban" is the same as the Arabic word "Talib" which means "Student".

Further, explain how this at all addresses the problem of grammar already raised here.

i didn't mentioned the grammer when i raised this issue , i just mentioned about the form of writing , although there are relations between grammer and promounce of the words

Given that its the one in the Koran (if you're correct on that) it would be the most widely used version

yes

And they all had different grammars?

no , they all have the smae grammer , the differes in the pronounce

So he based his reasoning on the fact that the dialect most widely spoken becuase of the use of the Koran was used in the Koran???

no , he based on the dialect which revealed to mohammed (pbuh)

Show that the other Korans were in different dialects.

we already know the 7 dialects of quran

 

[Montalban]

i already gave you examples , here is another

some Arabs used to have a dialect which originated from Yemen, where they would add "an" at the end of a noun. Take for instance the popular word of today "Taliban", as in the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Taliban" is the same as the Arabic word "Talib" which means "Student".

That doesn't make one more 'proper'

yes

no , they all have the smae grammer , the differes in the pronounce

So it's not about differences in grammer. I can write the word lieutenant and an American will pronounce it loo-ten-ant and I will pronounce it lef-ten-ant. The differences in pronouciation have nothing to do with grammar. Grammar is in the end about the structure of sentences

Grammer might come into play in English where Americans will say "I'll write you", which for a British English person means that someone is saying "I'll write 'you'" that is, someone's just going to write the word 'you'. But for Americans it means "I'll write you (a letter)". However even these slight differences doesn't make one more proper than the other.

You've not shown why one form of Arabic is more proper, other than it is; because one was adopted by the majority after the Koran was kept in that lanuage above the others... so it was chosen because it was chosen. You said yourself grammar hadn't been set down.

What you have is a 'just-so' statement.

 

[ApplePie7]

So we're back to your OP now? You've decided to drop your own off-topic side-thread?

I've addressed this too.

So much for you demanding that people engage you in debate. I have and you ignore it.

And by the way, I don't have to offer a 'defence of the ayahs'. It's you with the premise we're debating.

Now...directly address the ayah in question.

Please show us exactly where you would like to put "periods" and give us your detailed classic grammatical reasons why...

يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله​

إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله​

وكلمته ألقيها إلى مريم وروح منه فءامنوا بالله​

ورسله ولا تقولوا ثلثة انتهوا خيرا لكم إنما الله​

إله وحد سبحنه أن يكون له ولد له ما في ​

السموت وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا ​

 

[ApplePie7]

But it wasn't a divinely inspired copy?

No.

That claim is never made.

The authors just claim to have copied the previous divinely inspired Jewish and Christian scriptures...