No music??

[lumumba_s]

"As you understand it" being the determinant phrase. The mainstream, normative, Islamic position on the issue isn't much different than what you articulated above in response to my initial question. However, there are indications that if we got down to a more explicit pronouncement on the matter, we would part ways dramatically. For instance, the notion that God changed His mind about a decision and repented from His actions is patently absurd in our opinion.

To the point: Putting aside theological conclusions about the veracity of each text as a Divine revelation, the fundamental difference between the Bible and the Qur'an as pieces of literature that you are ignoring is that while the Bible is principally a historical text of the biographical persuasion, the Qur'an is a unique work of prose that does not fit any particular category? Why? Because by-and-large, the Qur'an is a conversation between God and His prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace), much of which was communicated in "response" to certain situations which were occurring when the revelation was being given. In that dynamic, to assert that having knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the revelation implies determinism is fatally flawed reasoning.

Likewise, your assertion that if something is prophesied, then determination is a non-issue, but that information being presented outright without that medium of prophethood is theologically problematic is the very sort of criticism that I am referring to. We also declare the sovereignty of God and the unimpaired responsibility of man. However, we additionally affirm the absoluteness and timelessness of God's knowledge, such that "changing His mind" and "repenting" are logically absurd. Consequently, His revelations regarding certain events prior to or concurrent with their occurrence in the earthly realm does not necessitate deterministic pre-destination. God does not become informed of events when they happen in time, so whether or not they were prophesied through a third-party or directly stated/implied/understood as they are in the Qur'an is besides the point when you affirm the timeless and absolute knowledge of the Divine.

But to appreciate this, you have to accept the Qur'an as the mode of literature that it is - and from my exposure to Christians, particularly those of the evangelical persuasion - that is not something you all are wont to do.

[Al-Boriqi]

ouch lumumba. Im glad I was not on the receiving end of that blazing meteor.

What really puts into question the integrity of this conversation was how exactly in the world was qadr and "determinism" tied into the basic normal human concept of understanding the words of people based on the intent of those people (in this case, understanding the Qur'an and the Sunnah based on what the prophet explained and meant)

asalamu alaykum

[Hawkeye]

"As you understand it" being the determinant phrase. The mainstream, normative, Islamic position on the issue isn't much different than what you articulated above in response to my initial question. However, there are indications that if we got down to a more explicit pronouncement on the matter, we would part ways dramatically. For instance, the notion that God changed His mind about a decision and repented from His actions is patently absurd in our opinion. ......

There may well be a mainstream Islamic position but it can only be an understanding unless you or others claim infallibility of interpretation or perhaps you claim your interpretation is divinely protected? Might I point out here that I explained the Christian position using professor Packer's book but all you have done is say the Islamic position is both the same and different plus a complaint about the way God acts. Now God's ways and thoughts are way above ours and it may be that when *we hear of God repenting or changing his mind the language is anthropomorphic otherwise we could get no grasp of what is going on. But if as you say this is all illogical to your tiny mind then one must ask for example what is the place for supplicatory or intercessory prayers. Indeed in Q2:255 intersession is mentioned and I have heard it said that on the day of judgement your prophet will intercede - so you can't have it all ways either God hears prayers and changes things or he does not and supplicatory/intercessory prayer is pointless.

There are probably millions of unique works of prose and the Quran like any other book has an identifiable style. To me it's an incoherent style. Haleem in his translation says "For instance in the midst of discussion about divorce and settlements it suspends the*introduction of regulations and instructs the believers to keep up prayer and stand in obedience to God (Q2:237-8) later to resume discussion of the divorce regulations While urging people to give to charity before the day comes when there will be no trade and no help from friends or intercessors it shifts to the Throne verse (Q2:255) to descrube the glory of God and refer to the time when no one can intercede for anyone else. Afterwards, having reminded people of Gods power it resumes its injunctions to give in charity."*

Many others have commented on this stylistic feature and it's open to interpretation. You may feel it is as good as it gets, to others its a*confused,*garbled and unconnected muddle, to yet others**it's an obvious sign of interpolation with little merit. One has to ask would a perfect God speak in such an illogical and*disjointed fashion?*There are of course dozens of other examples like this.

Christians and I think Jews see the Bible as having what we might call a double authorship. That is the scripture is neither the Word of God only nor the words of men only, but the word of God through the words of men. In some ways you appear to agree with this in saying the Quran is a record of a 'conversation' between your prophet and God. But getting back to the incomparable Bible and in the words of Professor Bruce "The writings themselves belong to great variety of literary types. They include history, law (civil, criminal, ethical, ritual, sanitary), religious poetry, public liturgy, devotional writings, laments and penitence, prayers,treatise, lyric poetry, parable and allegory, biography, personal correspondence, personal memoirs and diaries, in addition to the distinctively Biblical types of prophesy and apocalyptic. Even if we just look at the Psalms we find they reflect, mirror all the moods of our human experience - joy and sorrow, excitement and depression, confidence and doubt, triumph and defeat." So you are wrong in suggesting the Bible is just a historical text but an inimitable record of God speaking to man.

Finally, Biblically we have prophesies in the prediction sense of the word. We also have teaching and a record of historical events. Now if you are arguing the Quran pre-existed, that it was with God when time began we do seem to have some difficulty. Take the case of Zaynab which to me is weird in that God in the far reaches of eternity should consider a law that says you can marry your adopted sons ex wife. Then when your prophet did marry his adopted sons ex wife the same law is revoked. There are I think only two possible conclusions here: God must have engineered these circumstances otherwise the verse could not be revealed. The only other possibility is that it was simply opportunistic dabbling by your prophet.

But to appreciate this, you have to accept the Bible as the mode of literature that it is - and from my exposure to Muslims, particularly those of the orthodox*persuasion (principally my experience at Muslim private colleges in the Middle East) - that is not something they all are wont to do.

[lumumba_s]

Is your response to my affirmation of a theological position to claim a uniformity of Christian interpretation? Is your understanding not an understanding? Are you claiming your interpretation is Divinely protected? Or are you making such odd appeals to emotion because you identify with a defunct Islamic theological school hailing from pre-modern Iraq? For my references see Abu Jafar al-Tahawi, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ahmad Dardir, Ahmad Zarruq and Muhammad ibn Salih. Those are seven different people from seven different centuries. And if referencing is all that essential, where was your reference proving what you claimed to be the Islamic position minus the Mu`tazila??

Anthropomophic language is important because language has meaning. "Changing one's mind" and "repenting" are clearly indications that a mistake has been made and a particular party has been wronged by one's actions. Is this Divine? We are not talking about intercession or prayers being answered, but the this sort of crass anthropomorphization of God that "repentance" implies. If anthropomorphic language is understood to be a poetic license, that would be one thing. When that anthropomorphic language is taken to be characteristic of God's nature, that is another. And far far too often I have heard Christians say the most ridiculous things, both in the classroom and on the pulpit, that is directly correlated to this classic theological mistake. Far far too many times, I have heard that God "forgot what is was like to be man" and so He "had" manifest Himself in the person of Jesus Christ in order to understand the plight of humanity. Or that God is not responsible for tsunamis and earthquakes because such things go against the benevolent nature of God's love and mercy. Many other examples can be given.

In terms of the Qur'an and the Bible, I've purposely not indulged in a chest thumping match and have no desire to. While you have no respect for the Qur'an and the prophet to whom it was revealed (God bless him and give him peace), I nonetheless have respect for the Bible and the prophets who penned it (may the blessings of God be upon them all). However, your criticism only reinforces my contention. Because you demand that the revelation fit a particular mode, such claims as what your uttered above are thrust at its feet. The Qur'an switches themes from one series of verses to the next and yet it is not gibberish. There is a rhyming scheme, rhetorical force and organization to its style that brought the Arabs to their knees and has caused the Qur'an to remain the most eloquent expression of Arabic 1,400 years later. (If I recall, Shaad_Lko already referred you to a work that has this as its central theme and I would refer you to Nouman Ali Khan's oral tafsir that eloquently explains the rhetorical power of the Qur'anic structure.) So while you refuse to acknowledge the status of the Qur'an in the world, its status amongst both religious and non-religious literature is undeniable. There are millions of unique works of prose, but religious poetry, lyric poetry, panygeric poetry, dramatic poetry and the like are all still poetry and they follow clearly defined rules. The Qur'an is its own genre of literature and there are many benefits to the manner of its structure - including signification of its Divine origin, but that is something for you to grapple with. Taken as the genre of literature it is, the Qur'an most certainly cannot be accused of being incoherent. The Qur'an simply is not the Bible, which at its core is a historical narrative. And I did not say that the Bible was "just a historical text", but that it principally is a historical biography (i.e., chronological narrative) in its basic form and structure. That is not a criticism and that is not an attempt to put it down. If you cannot even acknowledge that, there is no point in any discussion over the Qur'anic literary style and structure.

In terms of the pre-existence of Scripture, are you saying that God did not become aware of the Bible until it was penned by men? Surely that is not your claim. And if your analysis of the circumstances regarding the marriage of Zaynab to the Prophet (God bless him and give him peace) is an indication of your familiarity and depth of critique of the Qur'an, you have some studying to do. Only two possible conclusions? There is in fact a third and that is that God - in establishing Law - was establishing the supremacy of the Law over social convention and thus publicly asserted the notion that adoption does not establish blood-relations by means of the Prophet's example and thus marrying one's adopted son's ex-wife was not sinful. An adopted son is not a son. Zaynab desired to marry the Prophet initially, the Prophet (God bless him and give him peace) wanted his beloved Companion Zayd married off and was willing to use his own household to break the racism, tribalism and class-ism that existed amongst people at the time. That very important fact is routinely ignored by Christian critics. The Prophet has his plan and God had his. Zaynab could have been married to the Prophet from the beginning. But yet you have managed to turn an embarassing moment in the Prophet's personal life into proof of interpolation? Who would willingly embarrasses themselves for all eternity in such a manner? And the law the most certainty was not revoked after the marriage occurred. So while you decry my "tiny little mind" for objecting to the declaration that God makes mistakes and repents over His decisions, you do not have the basic facts correct and do not seem to understand the implications of eternal Knowledge and how a revelation can be given regarding choices that human beings themselves make. Did God become informed of the Bible only after it was penned by the prophets and scribes? That is the key question for you to reflect upon. The Qur'anic narrative does not necessitate determinism.

I really had no intention on debating with you. I was curious for a dialog and you seemed like you would be a reasonable fellow once religious affiliations were out of the way. Perhaps I was wrong. Have a nice day.

[Al-Boriqi]

There may well be a mainstream Islamic position but it can only be an understanding unless you or others claim infallibility of interpretation or perhaps you claim your interpretation is divinely protected?

Yes, we do have that. It is called "Atharism" or what the schools of theosophical dialectics use to identify as "the religion of old ladies"

Might I point out here that I explained the Christian position using professor Packer's book but all you have done is say the Islamic position is both the same and different plus a complaint about the way God acts.

the material we have on the subject alone (barring all else) spans acros all of christian recorded history altogether.

Now God's ways and thoughts are way above ours and it may be that when *we hear of God repenting or changing his mind the language is anthropomorphic otherwise we could get no grasp of what is going on.

This is based on the supposition that anthropomorphism is almost a requirement for human understanding of the Divine, which is patently false from the prophetic point of view (based on the religion of all the prophets).

According to the relgion of the prophet's as expressed and embedded in the doctrine of Islam, Allah Himself is attributed with Attributes of Sublime Perfection which entails the absolute negation of any spec of imperfection. Part of the modes of imperfection is to attribute to Him things that are understood through the human experience to be mistakes. A "changing of mind" entails that a form of regret for past actions is present, which is a nullifying feature of Divinity. Likewise "repenting" entails another nullifying feature of Divinity.

But if as you say this is all illogical to your tiny mind then one must ask for example what is the place for supplicatory or intercessory prayers.

1. please do not confuse two things.
Islam (i.e. the message of the prophets commissioned by God) came with
محارات العقول
maharat al ‘uqool (what bewilders\puzzles the mind)

but did NOT come with

محالات العقول
mahalat al ‘uqool (what is impossible in the mind;unfeasible)

The things you impugne the Lord God Allah Subhaanahu with are things that fall into the second category. Things, theories, cocnepts, or attributes that fall into the second category are things that cannot be attributed to Allah in no sense of understanding.

2. A wonderful case of apples and oranges.
The place of such prayers is that they are recommended prayers that Allah hears and responds to them IN THE WAY HE WISHES just as He has revealed in the Qur'an
"Fa'aalul-limaa yureed" i.e. "He Does whatever He Wills".

Indeed in Q2:255 intersession is mentioned and I have heard it said that on the day of judgement your prophet will intercede - so you can't have it all ways either God hears prayers and changes things or he does not and supplicatory/intercessory prayer is pointless.

Allah Subhaanahu is not "quarintined" to act on your binary viewpoint, rather God does what He pleases point blank. He can choose to respond to your supplication or not, of if He responds, He can respond in the way He sees fit, either at the moment, in the future, or substitute it for something you may need more importantly in the future.

Furthermore, according to atheists, all prayer is pointless. What you are performing here is utilizing a miniature form of the atheist argument. Allah is NOT BOUND to respond to anything you may supplicate.

There are probably millions of unique works of prose and the Quran like any other book has an identifiable style. To me it's an incoherent style. Haleem in his translation says "For instance in the midst of discussion about divorce and settlements it suspends the*introduction of regulations and instructs the believers to keep up prayer and stand in obedience to God (Q2:237-8) later to resume discussion of the divorce regulations While urging people to give to charity before the day comes when there will be no trade and no help from friends or intercessors it shifts to the Throne verse (Q2:255) to descrube the glory of God and refer to the time when no one can intercede for anyone else. Afterwards, having reminded people of Gods power it resumes its injunctions to give in charity."*

this is a pointless theme of discussion. do you know arabic or not?

Many others have commented on this stylistic feature and it's open to interpretation. You may feel it is as good as it gets, to others its a*confused,*garbled and unconnected muddle, to yet others**it's an obvious sign of interpolation with little merit. One has to ask would a perfect God speak in such an illogical and*disjointed fashion?*There are of course dozens of other examples like this.

I was of the same opinion in in your boat long ago. I was fortunate enough to transcend this understanding. Others clearly do not get the same opportunity.

Christians and I think Jews see the Bible as having what we might call a double authorship. That is the scripture is neither the Word of God only nor the words of men only, but the word of God through the words of men. In some ways you appear to agree with this in saying the Quran is a record of a 'conversation' between your prophet and God. But getting back to the incomparable Bible and in the words of Professor Bruce "The writings themselves belong to great variety of literary types. They include history, law (civil, criminal, ethical, ritual, sanitary), religious poetry, public liturgy, devotional writings, laments and penitence, prayers,treatise, lyric poetry, parable and allegory, biography, personal correspondence, personal memoirs and diaries, in addition to the distinctively Biblical types of prophesy and apocalyptic. Even if we just look at the Psalms we find they reflect, mirror all the moods of our human experience - joy and sorrow, excitement and depression, confidence and doubt, triumph and defeat." So you are wrong in suggesting the Bible is just a historical text but an inimitable record of God speaking to man.

there is one point of difference in not only my view, but for many. While the Qur'an contains history, law (all forms), worhsip, poerty, spirituality, curses and prophecies, prayers, parables, allegory, biography, signs of the future and the afterlife just like the book known as the bible. The problem here is that the theme of the two drastically differs. The theme of the Qur'an entirely is a theme structured on three
1. Tawheed (and one's relationship with Him through worship, dealing with others through the observance of His ordainances, and the fulfillment of His rights for which He will fulfill our rights)
2. Risaalah (the message of the Prophet and his guidance through which we can fulfill our relationship with God in the mode that God is pleased with, how to live in this world)
3. Aakhirah (the afterlife and al lthe spiritual links that come iwth its territory to bring forth moderateness. The knowledge of threats and hopes comes to the end result of balance and a discouragement from vice and the encouragement of good)

Unlike this, the bible, while containing all of those same subject matters centers on the theme of
1. history

thats it. its a history book. Had I been stripped from Islam (wa iyaadhu billah) and found lets say "the art of war by Sun Tzu, his book is more divinely oriented than what is inherent in the bible. It had greater purpose and guidelines even to life itself. Now, of course me beiing a MUslim, I am obligated and I accept that the bible is of greater rank than all of these other books, but the errors and lack of guidance it contains is corrected and made perfect in the Qur'an.

Finally, Biblically we have prophesies in the prediction sense of the word. We also have teaching and a record of historical events.

the problem with biblical prophecies is the magnitude of its ambiguity. I mean things that are normally understand as allegory dwarf in comparison to the magnitude of the allegoricalness of these prophecies.

Now if you are arguing the Quran pre-existed, that it was with God when time began we do seem to have some difficulty. Take the case of Zaynab which to me is weird in that God in the far reaches of eternity should consider a law that says you can marry your adopted sons ex wife. Then when your prophet did marry his adopted sons ex wife the same law is revoked. There are I think only two possible conclusions here: God must have engineered these circumstances otherwise the verse could not be revealed. The only other possibility is that it was simply opportunistic dabbling by your prophet.

1. Among the Attributes of God is the attribute of "Hilm", Hilm is the concept of caring with concerning and affection to the creatures. In other words, the one who has hilm is concerned and has full regard accompanied with the sense of attending to the situation of the one whom you have hilm for. Since Allah's Attribute of Hilm is of the utmost perfection of this attribute, He extends the application of this attribute to the creation and among mankind. So while you in your arrogant theories decide to presume on what is important to God or not, on the other Hand God determines what is important and responding to the aid of His creatures is among those things of importance.

2. The prophet did not act on his own until he received information of its allowance. the nature of his mission been the result of "opportunistic dabbling", he would have done so instantaneously.

But to appreciate this, you have to accept the Bible as the mode of literature that it is - and from my exposure to Muslims, particularly those of the orthodox*persuasion (principally my experience at Muslim private colleges in the Middle East) - that is not something they all are wont to do.

that was a terrible bite.

[theman09]

"For instance in the midst of discussion about divorce and settlements it suspends the*introduction of regulations and instructs the believers to keep up prayer and stand in obedience to God (Q2:237-8) later to resume discussion of the divorce regulations While urging people to give to charity before the day comes when there will be no trade and no help from friends or intercessors it shifts to the Throne verse (Q2:255) to descrube the glory of God and refer to the time when no one can intercede for anyone else. Afterwards, having reminded people of Gods power it resumes its injunctions to give in charity."*

Many others have commented on this stylistic feature and it's open to interpretation. You may feel it is as good as it gets, to others its a*confused,*garbled and unconnected muddle, to yet others**it's an obvious sign of interpolation with little merit. One has to ask would a perfect God speak in such an illogical and*disjointed fashion?*There are of course dozens of other examples like this.

did not asim mehmood address this in the past?

[Hawkeye]

Is your response to my affirmation of a theological position to claim a uniformity of Christian interpretation? Is your understanding not an understanding? Are you claiming your interpretation is Divinely protected? Or are you making such odd appeals to emotion because you identify with a defunct Islamic theological school hailing from pre-modern Iraq? For my references see Abu Jafar al-Tahawi, ?....

This is just so much nonsense and please don't lecture me on referencing since it is quite an effort to find any citations in any of your posts anywhere in this board. However, there is a good description and discussion of the Mu'tazila position in*THE CLOSING OF THE MUSLIM MIND by ROBERT R. REILLY. However, the web contains numerous essays and almost every book on Islamic Science talks about them so I am surprised you know so little. But some points:

1. If its just a question of listing scholars who agree then that is easily done but does not seem to prove who is right. You simply list scholars who you agree with and disregard any others, a practice that breeds ignorance and is essentially dishonest. Why don't you try professor F.F. Bruce or professor William Barclay or Dr John Stott or Augustin, or.....

2. Presumably you have never heard of Sunni, Shia, Sufism, Kharijite, Ahmadiyya, Quranism to say nothing of the myriad subdivision as well as the smaller sects. Are you arguing that all these sects agree on all aspects of Islam? I mentioned these two points in an earlier post - why did you ignore them - are you afraid to say what you believe? I worked for long spells in the Middle East and the Muslims I encountered spent far more time disagreeing, sometime violently, with each other than they ever did with me. If you have been following the current Egyptian saga you would know that it's becoming almost impossible to find two people agreeing let alone whole communities.*

3. It is I think Islamic dogma that the Quran and Hadith are divinely protected but you seem to be of the opinion that interpretation of these documents is similarly protected. If so of course you are wrong.

[shaad_lko]

One has to ask would a perfect God speak in such an illogical and*disjointed fashion?*There are of course dozens of other examples like this.

Besides the relevant question raised by Al-Boriqi about whether you know Arabic or not to be in a position to comment on the style of the Quran, one has to also ask why is this supposed lack of logic and disjointed fashion not discovered by any Muslim? Or you are naive enough to believe that all of them are buffoons and automatons programmed by Islam - if this is the case, there is little you can do to wake us all up..

You can take a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.. (fits either way).

[Hawkeye]

Besides the relevant question raised by Al-Boriqi about whether you know Arabic or not to be in a position to comment on the style of the Quran, one has to also ask why is this supposed lack of logic and disjointed fashion not discovered by any Muslim? Or you are naive enough to believe that all of them are buffoons and automatons programmed by Islam - if this is the case, there is little you can do to wake us all up..

You can take a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.. (fits either way).

Typical Muslim response which is without logic and you obviously did not read my post, you just assume that everyone is ignorant but you. If you bother to read my post where style is mentioned you will see that I took if from Haleem's translation produced by Oxford University Press' 2004 edition of the Koran in English. So the comments on style are not mine but M A S Abdel Haleem who is as far as I know a Muslim and knows Arabic very well. If you deny that the stylistic description is wrong then take it up with you Muslim brothers because Halleem is not by any means the first to notce it and even in English it is easly evident. If you disagree then I seriously doubt you have ever read the Quran in Arabic or
English.

[shaad_lko]

Typical Muslim response which is without logic and you obviously did not read my post, you just assume that everyone is ignorant but you. If you bother to read my post where style is mentioned you will see that I took if from Haleem's translation produced by Oxford University Press' 2004 edition of the Koran in English. So the comments on style are not mine but M A S Abdel Haleem who is as far as I know a Muslim and knows Arabic very well. If you deny that the stylistic description is wrong then take it up with you Muslim brothers because Halleem is not by any means the first to notce it and even in English it is easly evident. If you disagree then I seriously doubt you have ever read the Quran in Arabic or
English.

Typical evangelist blabbering reeking of Dark Age ignorance..You selectively parsed Haleem's quote. If you disagree then I seriously doubt you have ever read the Quran in Arabic or
English.

[lumumba_s]

This is just so much nonsense and please don't lecture me on referencing since it is quite an effort to find any citations in any of your posts anywhere in this board. However, there is a good description and discussion of the Mu'tazila position in*THE CLOSING OF THE MUSLIM MIND by ROBERT R. REILLY. However, the web contains numerous essays and almost every book on Islamic Science talks about them so I am surprised you know so little. But some points:

1. If its just a question of listing scholars who agree then that is easily done but does not seem to prove who is right. You simply list scholars who you agree with and disregard any others, a practice that breeds ignorance and is essentially dishonest. Why don't you try professor F.F. Bruce or professor William Barclay or Dr John Stott or Augustin, or.....

2. Presumably you have never heard of Sunni, Shia, Sufism, Kharijite, Ahmadiyya, Quranism to say nothing of the myriad subdivision as well as the smaller sects. Are you arguing that all these sects agree on all aspects of Islam? I mentioned these two points in an earlier post - why did you ignore them - are you afraid to say what you believe? I worked for long spells in the Middle East and the Muslims I encountered spent far more time disagreeing, sometime violently, with each other than they ever did with me. If you have been following the current Egyptian saga you would know that it's becoming almost impossible to find two people agreeing let alone whole communities.*

3. It is I think Islamic dogma that the Quran and Hadith are divinely protected but you seem to be of the opinion that interpretation of these documents is similarly protected. If so of course you are wrong.

We were discussing your [ill]logical leap that declared that the belief in pre-eternality of the Qur'an necessitated determinism and this is where we end up? Hawkeye, champion of the Mu`tazila and verifier of Islamic theological opinion! Who woulda thunk? This is what you chose to respond to?

[Hawkeye]

Typical evangelist blabbering reeking of Dark Age ignorance..You selectively parsed Haleem's quote. If you disagree then I seriously doubt you have ever read the Quran in Arabic or
English.

Insults are never far from you mind are they but i suppose they are fir you a comforting substitute for truth. Fine, get the translation and find the quote then we shall see. But to the point, do you deny that the style is as Haleem describes. He in fact sees it as eminently suitable though I do not. Would you like me to quote further exampls?

[Hawkeye]

Anthropomorphic language is important because language has meaning. "Changing one's mind" and "repenting" are clearly indications that a mistake has been made and a particular party has been wronged by one's actions. Is this Divine? We are not talking about intercession or prayers being answered, but the this sort of crass anthropomorphization of God that "repentance" implies. If anthropomorphic language is understood to be a poetic license, that would be one thing. When that anthropomorphic language is taken to be characteristic of God's nature, that is another. And far far too often I have heard Christians say the most ridiculous things, both in the classroom and on the pulpit, that is directly correlated to this classic theological mistake. Far far too many times, I have heard that God "forgot what is was like to be man" and so He "had" manifest Himself in the person of Jesus Christ in order to understand the plight of humanity. Or that God is not responsible for tsunamis and earthquakes because such things go against the benevolent nature of God's love and mercy. Many other examples can be given.

This really makes no sense. Does God for you make choices and if he does then he can decide to go one way or another or even do nothing. Well we know that in Islam God does make choices for we read in Q2:26-27 ..'Through He makes many go astray and leads many to the right path ....' unless God has no logic or sense of fairness in the choices even if it is all predetermined. So if you say intersession is a manifestation of Allah's favour then Allah has made a choice surely or else his nature is totally whimsical. Frankly, you are just avoiding the issue or perhaps for you everything is preordained though how that avoids choices I can't say. Now I don't pretend to understand the mind of God and it maybe that every moment for God is now and terms like past and future, forget and repent are just for our benefit to give us a glimpse of God's ways.

Of course Christians, just like Muslims and everyone else says ridiculous things so you point has no value but to illustrate the typical supremacist Muslim attitude. If one is looking for the silly then examine the Hadith that tell us one wing of a fly has the disease and the other the cure. Or the story where Mohammed's heart is removed and washed with snow - so are these two literal or figurative?*

[lumumba_s]

Such conclusions are reached when you "study" Islam from supremacist Christian sources. If I am not mistaken, Shaad and Ihsan have already discussed the meaning of God "misleading" individuals. People are self-deluded and God leaves them in their self-delusion. "And He misleads not except the defiantly disobedient." It is rather ironic that you cited 2:26 as proof of your misunderstanding. A little later, in the same chapter we read: "Allah tasketh not a soul beyond its scope. For it (is only) that which it hath earned, and against it (only) that which it hath deserved." 2:286

Imam Nasafi, in his creed, states: "And to His creatures belong actions of choice, for which they are rewarded or punished, and the good in these is by the good pleasure of God and the vile in them is not by His good pleasure. And the ability to do the action goes along with the action and is the essence of the power by which the action takes place, and this word "ability" means the soundness of the causes and instruments and limbs. And the validity of the imposition of the task/responsibility is based upon this ability, and the creature has not a task imposed upon him that is not in his power."

You claims are logically flawed and not supported by scholarship. The Mu`tazila were upon an extreme spectrum of belief whose conclusions were rejected by the mainstream and who became an extinct philosophical school among the Sunnis by virture of peer-review. At the opposite end of the Mu`tazila were the Jabariyya and in between was the main body of Muslims: Athari, Ash'ari, Maturidi and Hanbali included. The fact that the Qur'an is pre-eternal does not necessitate that everything has been pre-determined. Your logic is simply flawed. Have a nice day.

P.S. You might not want to bring up that fly hadith as evidence against Islam, particularly when it was affirmed by modern science 1,300 years after it was uttered.

[Hawkeye]

In terms of the Qur'an and the Bible, I've purposely not indulged in a chest thumping match and have no desire to. While you have no respect for the Qur'an and the prophet to whom it was revealed (God bless him and give him peace), I nonetheless have respect for the Bible and the prophets who penned it (may the blessings of God be upon them all). However, your criticism only reinforces my contention. Because you demand that the revelation fit a particular mode, such claims as what your uttered above are thrust at its feet. The Qur'an switches themes from one series of verses to the next and yet it is not gibberish. There is a rhyming scheme, rhetorical force and organization to its style that brought the Arabs to their knees and has caused the Qur'an to remain the most eloquent expression of Arabic 1,400 years later. (If I recall, Shaad_Lko already referred you to a work that has this as its central theme and I would refer you to Nouman Ali Khan's oral tafsir that eloquently explains the rhetorical power of the Qur'anic structure.) So while you refuse to acknowledge the status of the Qur'an in the world, its status amongst both religious and non-religious literature is undeniable. There are millions of unique works of prose, but religious poetry, lyric poetry, panygeric poetry, dramatic poetry and the like are all still poetry and they follow clearly defined rules. The Qur'an is its own genre of literature and there are many benefits to the manner of its structure - including signification of its Divine origin, but that is something for you to grapple with. Taken as the genre of literature it is, the Qur'an most certainly cannot be accused of being incoherent. The Qur'an simply is not the Bible, which at its core is a historical narrative. And I did not say that the Bible was "just a historical text", but that it principally is a historical biography (i.e., chronological narrative) in its basic form and structure. That is not a criticism and that is not an attempt to put it down. If you cannot even acknowledge that, there is no point in any discussion over the Qur'anic literary style and structure.

Nowhere in my post have I demanded that the revelation fit a particular category, indeed I was at pains to show the Bible has many styles. In the same way I pointed out that the Quran also has a style so you are inventing things. You of course may decide that the Quran is the most eloquent expression in Arabic but such a claim can only be subjective. Sure the Quran throws out the challenge to surpass it but nowhere gives us objective rules for making the decision, in any case who is to decide - you, Muslim scholars, Robert Spencer, Bernard Lewis, Ibn Warraq, who? Indeed you claim is deniable. Gibbon described it as an "incoherent rhapsody of fable", Carlyle as "Insupportable stupidity" and the German scholar Salomon Reinach thought "From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and millions of men are still wasting their time absorbing it" Perhaps we can discuss how it signifies it's divine origin, in fact I have already said that structurally to me it is anything but divine but there may be other elements to consider.

Of course I do not deny the Bible records history and it clearly is one of its many styles and usually sections are chronological and undeniably that is a coherent style.