I do not care for your thinly veiled accusation that Robert has anything but contempt for Islam, with his objective, Muslim sourced, “Blogging the Qur’an” series, notwithstanding, and apparently ignored by you.

awake on July 21, 2008 at 11:06 PM

I guess I did not express myself well. This series by Robert Spencer is fantastic and I have recommended it to many. I am struck by the huge difference between what is said about islam publically and the details revealed by Robert.

Lately, I think to keep things calm after 911, our society is being informed by various ecumenical groups that Muslims, Jews and Christians ‘worship the same God’. I have heard the line ‘we are all people of the Book’ so many times but read Spencer once to get over that delusion

Those ecumenical outreach efforts emphasize similar moral values like rules against murder, stealing etc. That leads people to think someone following islamic doctrine will make decisions similar to someone following judeo-christian doctrine. This is being taught in many public schools now.

The Pope recently requested a dialogue with muslim religious leaders to establish that there is a common yearning in all humans for certain human rights, regardless of the faith they follow, especially the right to freedom of religion. According to a discussion I watched on EWTN the Catholic channel, the invitation was presented three times to muslim religious leaders, and three times he received a reply that they were willing to convene to discuss the truth that there is one god.

I believe the Pope worded his invitation carefully. Had they agreed to accept the premise of his invitation, it would be a good sign for the West that the ecumenicists were right. That they would not accept his premise was a good wake up for the West, if anyone was listening.

This Pope is quite an intellect. I am not a Catholic but I respect him. He made a discrete and careful step to document the chasm between the Western faiths and islam. He was also fishing for hope that we could get along

I am worried that if someone doesn’t start some kind of broader based effort, the Western world is going to fool itself out of existance.

No one wants to challenge the urban legend of shared values because we ‘worship the same god’ so the islamists increase their pressures on changing our society and they are making gains.

What if we just said no? Right now the only ones defining Judaism and Christianity are the politically correct. Except for the Pope, and people like Spencer making an effort to inform, it looks like most are going with the program.

People who do not equate themselves with islam do not get roundtable discussion programs on sunday morning cable. They do not have a voice. They could at least show their numbers.

muhammadsquran on July 22, 2008 at 3:55 PM

With all due respect, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously, over Spencer?

JUST WONDERING?>

This particular article can be found here:

Khatim al Anbiyya.

The Hebrew noun “chatimah” can mean signature, seal and end or finish, such as “chatinat perek”, the “end of a chapter”. The related verb “chatam” can mean to tie up, close or lock.

So saying that Mohamed was the “chatim(ah)” of the prophets (in Hebrew “chatimat ha’nevi’im) is in fact a figuratively acceptable way of saying he was the last one. So I think your article needs to be modified.

Not that it makes Mohamed any more impressive to us anyway. ;)

Shy Guy on July 21, 2008 at 10:22 AM

With all due respect, KHATIMA means INSCRIBED/AUTHENTICATED/SIGNIATURE BUT NOT LAST!!!

Please visit my website and click on the letter K and scroll to find the COMPLETE analysis and THEN please comment your opinion

Regards
Ben

entagor on July 21, 2008 at 5:26 PM

Christians do not in any way, shape or form, accept Islam as anything but a false ideology, borne of an anti-Christian, sociopathic mindset, founded by Muhammad, (who in reality, despised the Jews exponentially more than the Christians). READ BOSTOM ON THIS.

In absolute reality, Christ and Muhammad are diametric opposites.

Islam is simply, a vehicle for Arab supremacy. It always was Muhammad’s supremacy specifically. Darfur should have taught you that, rather quickly in my estimation, but some are slower learners than others.

I do not care for your thinly veiled accusation that Robert has anything but contempt for Islam, with his objective, Muslim sourced, “Blogging the Qur’an” series, notwithstanding, and apparently ignored by you.

What do you think would happen if our world did a 180 and started a movement to tell the world we do not share the Book? The opposite is now being promoted as ecumenical, but how can ecumenicism be based upon a lie? Would there be fatwas against Westerners who state we do not share the same Book, or would islam back down from the aggressive insistance on more and more changes in Western behaviour?

No one who knows anything about Islam actually claims that we “share the same book.” The New Testament is bound with the Old, and it’s the same Hebrew Scriptures as are used by the Jews. But the Qur’an is never bound with the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. This simple fact in itself is enough, or should be, to establish that Muslims consider the earlier Scriptures to be corrupted.

many religious leaders in the West insist we share the Book with Islam, that implying the same God. Islam describes people of the Book as better than pagans which also implies a shared understanding

You might find these short videos from fellow HA membermuhammadsquran informative:

Quran vs Bible Contradictions Part 23

Biblical Corruption Allegations Part 37

They started to make the corruption charges in 1064 to explain the differences with the Bible.

As I’ve explained in previous Qur’an blogs, the Islamic idea is that the Biblical prophets — Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc., as well as Jesus — were all Muslims who taught Islam. It was their followers who perverted their teachings to create Judaism and Christianity. So in the eyes of the Qur’an, the true Jews and Christians are essentially…Muslims.

Robert Spencer on July 20, 2008 at 6:07 PM

Robert, throughout your series there is so much documentation of the huge differences between Christianity and Judaism, on one hand and Islam on the other. Between Christians and Jews the schism formed when some few Jews decided Jesus was the Messiah. That being decided, they formed many new doctrines, but the base is shared including the text of the Old Testament and concepts from the Old Testament, expounded by Jesus, such as free will.

However you have presented so well how Islam rejects the documentation shared by Judaism and Christianity as ‘misprints’ of the real story. Yet, in what is called an ecumenical outreach, many religious leaders in the West insist we share the Book with Islam, that implying the same God. Islam describes people of the Book as better than pagans which also implies a shared understanding.

To me it is obvious we do not share the same Book. I am eternally grateful for the Book(s) preserved by the Jews, but I do not have any gratitude for ‘the Book’ published by the isalmists.

What do you think would happen if our world did a 180 and started a movement to tell the world we do not share the Book? The opposite is now being promoted as ecumenical, but how can ecumenicism be based upon a lie? Would there be fatwas against Westerners who state we do not share the same Book, or would islam back down from the aggressive insistance on more and more changes in Western behaviour?

The lie has been rolling unimpeded because no one will stand up and say anything

Purely intentional on Allah’s part, I am sure. It’s his book and his well-documented state of unfetteredness allows for him to change his mind, which apparently, he does quite often.

awake on July 21, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Sura 2:106 If memory serves.

It is noteworthy that a text that advertises itself as containing only “pure Arabic” (Qur’an 16:103) contains loan words from many other languages used in Arabia at the time of Muhammad, and in the surrounding areas.

Purely intentional on Allah’s part, I am sure. It’s his book and his well-documented state of unfetteredness allows for him to change his mind, which apparently, he does quite often.

Yes, it could be possible, but there does seem to be some question as to whether many of these loan words were indeed in accepted use in Arabic in Muhammad’s time. The works of Ibn Warraq on the origins of the Qur’an contain some essays that go into this in depth.

Maybe ‘pure Arabic’ doesn’t mean that Arabic does not contain words originating from other languages. It may simply mean that the words used are part of the accepted Arabic language and no transliterated words from other languages are used which had not, at the time of the Qur’an’s compilation, been accepted in use in Arabic.

Could that be possible?

It is noteworthy that a text that advertises itself as containing only “pure Arabic” (Qur’an 16:103) contains loan words from many other languages used in Arabia at the time of Muhammad, and in the surrounding areas.

After all the Arabs had a perfectly acceptable word for “last.”

TheBigOldDog on July 21, 2008 at 10:56 AM

So does Hebrew, “acharon”, a completely different word.

I’m not a language expert but my simpleton opinion is that the claims here are inconclusive.

Am I correct in assuming that the primary method of learning and teaching the Qu`ran for centuries was orally and that would have prevented any radically different readings of the text among the believers?

The primary way of learning and teaching the Qur’an is still orally: young Muslims memorize all or large portions of the text, without necessarily knowing what it means. They do this in Arabic, whether or not they speak Arabic. One Pakistani Muslim once told me that he was very proud of his religion, and had memorized almost all of the Qur’an, and that he one day intended to get hold of a translation and find out what it meant. The task of interpreting the text is now and always has been the province not of the individual believer, but of the various theological authorities: the schools of jurisprudence, the ulema of various countries, etc.

Shy Guy on July 21, 2008 at 10:22 AM

His analysis might be clearer if you listen to the complete analysis. Here’s a link to the video version on Youtube:

Muhammad Last Prophet? Part 28

The issue, as I understand it, is how Arabs used the word, not acceptable Hebrew interpretations of the word. After all the Arabs had a perfectly acceptable word for “last.” But, they lacked a word for “seal” meaning “authenticator” and hence adopted the Hebrew word and he shows when and why Muhammad adopted the word. He goes on to show how every time it is used in the Qu`ran it means the same thing, “seal.”

Am I correct in assuming that the primary method of learning and teaching the Qu`ran for centuries was orally and that would have prevented any radically different readings of the text among the believers?

Jetboy
The Muhammadan exgetes – as usual with their methodology – DELIBERATELY mistranslated a HEBREW LOAN word to Arabic to mean LAST when in fact it meant INSCRIBED

We have a WHOLE chapter on it on our website if you are interested

muhammadsquran on July 21, 2008 at 5:14 AM

This particular article can be found here:

Khatim al Anbiyya.

The Hebrew noun “chatimah” can mean signature, seal and end or finish, such as “chatinat perek”, the “end of a chapter”. The related verb “chatam” can mean to tie up, close or lock.

So saying that Mohamed was the “chatim(ah)” of the prophets (in Hebrew “chatimat ha’nevi’im) is in fact a figuratively acceptable way of saying he was the last one. So I think your article needs to be modified.

Not that it makes Mohamed any more impressive to us anyway. ;)

But doesn’t Allah do that himself at his will? That question above from your email has plagued me as well. Although you’ve answered it, I still feel confused (not your fault!) about all this predestination in Islam vs. Faith.

Ultimately, this is an unresolved paradox.

I find it interesting as well that, much like various Christian bibles, the Koran also has differing translations. Is there any particular one translation that is most widely used? And are the main differences because of the translation difficulty re: vowels, or does it represent differences between Sunni/Shia understandings?

No, this is not what I meant. I was discussing some scholarly investigations that have been undertaken by only a very few people. The pointing is not at all disputed among Muslims themselves. There is a standard way in which the Qur’an is pointed, and an Arabic text that is official and standard. For Muslims, only the Arabic Qur’an is the Qur’an (in accordance with its own words), and any translation is simply a summary of the meanings of the Qur’an, not the Qur’an itself. Muslims the world over, whether they understand Arabic or not, must recite the Qur’an in Arabic in Islamic prayers. To recite it in any other language would not be to recite the Qur’an at all.

As for the Shi’ites, they do have a few extra chapters of the Qur’an, although some Shi’ites deny this. It is not clear whether or not their denial is an example of taqiyya or not. But those extra chapters (which you can find online fairly easily) have nothing to do with the pointing of the Qur’anic text.

The punishments of Allah can be executed by means of the Muslims.

But doesn’t Allah do that himself at his will? That question above from your email has plagued me as well. Although you’ve answered it, I still feel confused (not your fault!) about all this predestination in Islam vs. Faith.

The Muhammadan exgetes – as usual with their methodology – DELIBERATELY mistranslated a HEBREW LOAN word to Arabic to mean LAST when in fact it meant INSCRIBED

The word in Arabic used is KHATIM al Anbiyyaa from the Hebrew Khatima

We have a WHOLE chapter on it on our website if you are interested

muhammadsquran on July 21, 2008 at 5:14 AM

Interesting website…thanks for sharing. I’ll delve into it more.

That is, for those of you who are unfamiliar with Arabic, the original Qur’anic text lacks not only vowels but the points that allow one Arabic letter to be distinguished from another: many Arabic letters are ONLY distinguishable from other ones by means of these points.

Robert Spencer on July 21, 2008 at 7:49 AM

This I didn’t know. I find it interesting as well that, much like various Christian bibles, the Koran also has differing translations. Is there any particular one translation that is most widely used? And are the main differences because of the translation difficulty re: vowels, or does it represent differences between Sunni/Shia understandings?

Why not encourage HotAir to open up their discussion list?

I have no control over this, but consider them duly encouraged.

My question: If Allah has all these negative plans for non-believers, why do living Muslims feel obliged to preempt Allah and carry out what they think Allah will do, long before Allah has an opportunity to inflict his own punishment of non-believers. Frankly, I don’t think muslims really have that much faith in Allah if they have to do his work for him, maybe they think Allah might actually NOT do all that stuff claimed in the miracle publication then cite to prove the existence of Allah, namely the Koran.

The Qur’an tells Muslims to kill various groups of people: renegades who have rejected Islam (4:89), idolators (9:5), etc. Thus they are only doing what they’re told. The punishments of Allah can be executed by means of the Muslims.

The Muhammadan exgetes – as usual with their methodology – DELIBERATELY mistranslated a HEBREW LOAN word to Arabic to mean LAST when in fact it meant INSCRIBED

This is a fascinating area of study: Christoph Luxenberg and my friends Hans Jansen and Ibn Warraq have done notable work in this area, and I thank you for yours also.

In the Blogging the Qur’an series I am explaining only the mainstream understanding of the Qur’an among Muslims. I thus haven’t gotten into and don’t intend to get into (although you are welcome to do so in the comments) the problems with the Arabic text, but since the original Qur’anic text is not pointed, there are many.

That is, for those of you who are unfamiliar with Arabic, the original Qur’anic text lacks not only vowels but the points that allow one Arabic letter to be distinguished from another: many Arabic letters are ONLY distinguishable from other ones by means of these points. Accordingly, several courageous modern scholars are exploring the origins of the Qur’an by positing that the thing has been pointed incorrectly. Once I had an unforgettable dinner with Hans Jansen during which he took a Qur’anic phrase about the virgins of Paradise and explained how, if differently pointed, it became a standard Christian hymn of the early Byzantine era.

How do you keep sane? Assuming that you continue to be sane, that is.

There are many people who would give you some very interesting answers on this!

Paging Ms. Malkin!! Ms. Malkin, please come to the reception area!!! At your earliest convenience, please ask Mr. Spencer to continue.

I didn’t mean to give the impression that I was stopping. Certainly I had hoped for more of a response, but we’ve been through that. I am going to go on through to Qur’an 114 unless I am expressly asked to stop, in which case I will continue on to the end at Jihad Watch.