No music??

[Hawkeye]

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.

Well in the sense that God is all knowing then one might imagine that God knows the Bible. But there is no hint anywhere in the Bible as far as I know that it shall I say already existed as a book in heaven. Rather we regard it as the way God over millennia revealed his message. You in contrast claim something different. So in the Zaynab case sure it then meant that adoption carries no blood relation so obviously as soon as the law was given it was revoked since from then on one could not be an adopted son in the the same sense and Islamic law effectively substitutes adoption by what we might call guardianship. In any case it is hard to see why God could not just state the law without the necessity of destroying a marriage by causing a divorce and offending Arab sensibilities in the process unless God had no choice - presumably it is not necessary for your prophet to act out every law no matter what the consequences?*

My point about 'tiny minds' is that it is the way it is for all of us. Myself I confess that I cannot comprehend the meaning of eternal knowledge but somewhat surprised that you can. Interesting you talk of human choices and yet at the same time the Quran tells us that God leads people astray - perhaps you mean that God gives us a law and we can disobey it, is that the way God leads us astray through his laws? Can we really have it both ways.*

If you don't want I dialogue, fine but it's somewhat arrogant to imply you are reasonable and I am not though sadly this attidue from Muslims is common because only they, according to them have the truth.

[lumumba_s]

So our claims are subjective, when the Qur'an is the entire basis of the organization of the Arabic language, but not the opinions of European historians and philosphers, generally antagonistic to religion in general, whose chief aim was the superiority of Western European civilization over all others? Have a nice day.

[Al-Boriqi]

Typical Muslim response which is without logic and you obviously did not read my post, you just assume that everyone is ignorant but you.

quite ironic considering that the basis of shaad's question to you was on the subject of your stripping away the logic of billions of people for the last thousand years for they seems to be too stupid to miss what you miraculously came to the conclusion of. That was not a typical muslim response, that was putting your arrogance on check.

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.

you somehow believe that merely "referencing" somehow sanctions the veractiy of your view. Who care is you quoted him, or 5 other guys. What is known is that him, and anyone else you decide reference on your pedastal have actualized the fluidity and thematic structure of the Qur'an. So we can contrast them, who actually know what is being advocated, and you, who has to rely on their translations. Most ironic of all is the fact that all of these translators likewise admit that the cherry on top, the ecstaticness, the beauty of the Qur'an is lost in the inferior sublitites of other languages, particularly English.

[shaad_lko]

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?

Now that you finally admit that Haleem sees this apparently disjointed style as suitable, you should also admit that you were:

a) Misrepresenting his opinion by selectively quoting him to make it seem that he supports your notion of lack of coherence in the Quran
b) Since you knew what you were doing all along, your misrepresentation was done with malafide intent
c) The worst part was that you are nonchalant about your act of omission

Of course if you believe the rest of us here are duds, then there is no point in carrying on the pretense of an intellectual argument.

[shaad_lko]

So in the Zaynab case sure it then meant that adoption carries no blood relation so obviously as soon as the law was given it was revoked since from then on one could not be an adopted son in the the same sense and Islamic law effectively substitutes adoption by what we might call guardianship. In any case it is hard to see why God could not just state the law without the necessity of destroying a marriage by causing a divorce and offending Arab sensibilities in the process unless God had no choice - presumably it is not necessary for your prophet to act out every law no matter what the consequences?*

wow! we can only applaud your genius and scholarship of the Quran - you have uncovered a revocation of the law that has eluded Muslims for so many centuries..

[Hawkeye]

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.

One studies, if one is honest, from several sources so that ones get let's call it a fair picture. As to supremacist Christian sources I have no idea what you might mean - it's not Christians who wander around saying they are the best of all people or calling those of other faiths perverted transgressors and worse.

Now there is some value in your argument but it still seems incoherent. For example, I think I would agree with you that humans have responsibility not just to believe but to act out their faith. The trouble is when we run across the phrase "And He misleads not except the defiantly disobedient." here one might ask in what sense Allah can mislead those who are already disobedient? Similarly, your translation of Q2:286 is a little obscure and the verse surely points out that God will forgive whoever he likes and punish whoever he likes, which again sound somewhat whimsical as if there is no logic in how God behaves and whether I am responsible or not is immaterial. *I am not sure I claimed to prove anything, only illustrate a point about intersession about its purpose and whether God makes choices

With regard to the fly Hadith please point me to a peer reviewd medical journal that verifies this claim -such an article to have any worth must state the hypothesis, tests methods, sample size etc. I have searched but been unable to find any such journal article.

[Hawkeye]

So our claims are subjective, when the Qur'an is the entire basis of the organization of the Arabic language, but not the opinions of European historians and philosphers, generally antagonistic to religion in general, whose chief aim was the superiority of Western European civilization over all others? Have a nice day.

Well how can they be otherwise although perhaps you have not stated them in full yet. One has to wonder about this claim that the Quran is the basis for Arabic since one presumes that sufficient Arabic existed in order to write it in the first place. One might also note the vocabulary used in the Quran is tiny and about 85% of its content is covered by about 600 different words - the vocabulary of a 12 year old is about 30,000 words. People are not antagonistic towards religon in general only towards a religion that claims it and only it knows anything of value and only it has the best of anything.

[Hawkeye]

wow! we can only applaud your genius and scholarship of the Quran - you have uncovered a revocation of the law that has eluded Muslims for so many centuries..

Ok, then point me to a text that says adoption is legal in Islamic law, adoption in the sense of full legal rights equivalent to a natural son or daughter. Just to be clear, I am not saying that any Muslim family may not bestow on someone full rights because they often do - what I am asking is the formal legal ruling.

[Hawkeye]

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?

Interesting, so if the Quran is pre-existent and it says X will happen then that event is predetermined as far as time goes. I would see nothing wrong with Mohammed saying he was inspired in one direction or another but it's very hard to see from a pre existing Quran that he could have done anything different - ipso facto God must engineer the circumstances, no human could do it because the revelation has not yet cured,

[Hawkeye]

quite ironic considering that the basis of shaad's question to you was on the subject of your stripping away the logic of billions of people for the last thousand years for they seems to be too stupid to miss what you miraculously came to the conclusion of. That was not a typical muslim response, that was putting your arrogance on check.

Your logic would dictate the Christianity is right as well since billions for the last 2,000 years and a few thousand before that for Jews. No, youRp comment just confirms there is Muslim logic And there is normal logic. If adoption is legal in Islam, meaning full blood rights then show me where it says that. As I said elsewhere, I am not arguing that Muslim families may not grant full sonship what I am asking is what is the formal Islamic law.

You feign humility but any one I quote always knows less that you do.

[Hawkeye]

Sorry, pressed the wrong button

[Hawkeye]

Now that you finally admit that Haleem sees this apparently disjointed style as suitable, you should also admit that you were:

a) Misrepresenting his opinion by selectively quoting him to make it seem that he supports your notion of lack of coherence in the Quran
b) Since you knew what you were doing all along, your misrepresentation was done with malafide intent
c) The worst part was that you are nonchalant about your act of omission

Of course if you believe the rest of us here are duds, then there is no point in carrying on the pretense of an intellectual argument.

TRY not to invent things in this supremacist way. I quoted Hallem's example and said what the implications might be, one of which was that one might see the Quranic style as perfect which is Haleem's position. So I hid nothing. There is nothing stopping you looking up Hallem's work is there. If there is any dishonesty here it's your because you are happy to agree that Hallem's View of the suitability of the style but are silent on his view that nevertheless the style is disjointed.

[lumumba_s]

I did not mean to embroil you in an argument, nor did I mean to be offensive, so let this be my last post.

Well how can they be otherwise although perhaps you have not stated them in full yet. One has to wonder about this claim that the Quran is the basis for Arabic since one presumes that sufficient Arabic existed in order to write it in the first place. One might also note the vocabulary used in the Quran is tiny and about 85% of its content is covered by about 600 different words - the vocabulary of a 12 year old is about 30,000 words.

In terms of the Qur'an, the Qur'an served as the basis of Arabic transitioning from being a merely spoken to a written language. The entire disciplines of Arabic grammer, rhetoric and the like were reified, documented and developed as stand-alone academic knowledges precisely as a way of ensuring that the Arabic of which the Qur'an was revealed was not distorted and its message thereby lost. The Qur'an was the impetus of the Arabic language being unified and organized in a holistic fashion, where previously it was a localized phenomenon. Secondly, the fact that the vocabularly of the Qur'an is so small in comparison to the Arabic language at the time as a whole is apart of its rhetorical aspect and its direct appeal. Both the uncultured Bedouin and the sophisticated urban poet had an access to the Qur'an and understood its message - each at their level. The Qur'an is not at a loss for words and every word choice it uses is considered by the people of the language to be the most eloquent and rhetorically effective of all possible choices.

Furthermore, your criticism only highlights the problem with Orientalists criticism, who being non-native speakers of the Arabic language (if they could even speak Arabic at all), make cultural comparisons that are not appreciative of the nuances and intricacies of what they are criticizing. The vocabulary of a twelve year old in the English language may be 30,000 words, but unlike English, the eloquence is Arabic is not tied to vocabulary, but in the mode of expression which has very little to do with the complexity of vocabularly. Arabic is based on a tri-lateral root system, which means that 95% of the vocabulary in the Arabic language has the same level of grammatical complexity and the rhetorical effect of the words is their combination and the accurateness of the word choice. A single tri-lateral root, upon the 12 basic verb forms, can give a single "word" a plethora of meanings not possible in English. So to make a comparison between English and Arabic based on such superficial standards is to approach the Arabic language from a vantage point of cultural arrogance that does not accept the language for what it is. And this is the problem with Orientalists criticism of the Qur'an. They refuse to accept it as it is and because the narrative style does not fit that of European prose, they condemn it with the sorts of things they condemn it for. And if we all quoted nothing but Iraqi, Moroccan and Turkish critics of the Bible in classical times who were the scholarly class of a culture and an army at war with Christianity and its peoples in particular at the time and who knew very little Greek, would you not raise the same objections as we? You don't consult al-Razi to explain the linguistic nuance of the New Testament and neither do we consult German and French seminary trained secularists to analyze the grammatical and rhetorical dimensions of the Qur'an.

Furthermore, if you look at the period of time in which English was acknowledged to be its most eloquent, the most frequently cited and eloquent of Shakespeare's lines, they all comprise the vocabulary of an 8 year old. "To be or not to be? That is the question." "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages." "What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet." Would an 8 year old understand the same from this that a 30 year old would? Clearly, word length has very little to do with eloquence and linguistic sophistication.

People are not antagonistic towards religon in general only towards a religion that claims it and only it knows anything of value and only it has the best of anything.

Being that you have worked and lived in the Middle-East, I can only assume that you are not unfamiliar with Edward Said. So for you to claim that Western Europeans, who viewed the rest of the world as backwards, idol-worshipping, unsophisticated heathens and that not coloring their entire perception of the religion of Islam and its people is very disingenious. It is further disingenious for you to claim that Islam, as a religious and educational tradition, does not admit the value of other cultures. Islam most certainly does not claim that it and only it has anything of value. What Islam claims is an authentic and uncorrupted prophetic tradition in a world where corruption of religious tradition is the norm. Claiming that only it and its people have anything of value and only its people are sophisticated: that is Christianity. We did not burn our scientists at the stake nor did we refuse to learn and acknowledge the educational and civilizational accomplishments of previous communities. Neither did we spend all of our academic and intellectual energy justifying our xenophobic and racist domination of the rest of the world. People who live in glass houses should not throw bricks and launch cannon fodder.

Interesting, so if the Quran is pre-existent and it says X will happen then that event is predetermined as far as time goes. I would see nothing wrong with Mohammed saying he was inspired in one direction or another but it's very hard to see from a pre existing Quran that he could have done anything different - ipso facto God must engineer the circumstances, no human could do it because the revelation has not yet cured

But is it not hard to see when you consider the implications of eternal Divine knowledge in the matter - which you seem to be subtracting from the equation. It is sad, because there is so much in common that we have with one another, which is why there was mutual respect between Muslim and Christian theologians of old when they mutually left politics to the politicians. But that is another discussion. You said something very interesting in a previous post,

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.

In explaining how the knowledge and "experience" of God is different than our own, one of my teachers (who is also a Sufi shaykh - so what of your assumptions that I am ignorant simply because I do not agree with your "authorities" while you decry us as arrogant for the same?) in explaining this is fond of stating, "Past, future, present, it is all NOW with respect to God." How you can acknowledge that, but still walk away with the conclusion that you have is beyond me. Does God knowing from pre-eternity that I was going to eat Dulce de Leche and Earl Grey tea this morning mean that He forced me to eat it and I had no choice in the matter? It most certainly does not. Due to the implications of your criticisms, the question becomes whether or not you believe that God's knowledge is pre-eternal, absolute and uncontingent or whether or not you believe that God becomes informed of matters when they happen (which I believe was coincidently the Mu`tazila's position)? And to my point, language is useful and forget and repent imply certain things in the language and this goes back to the matter of interpretation and why anthropomorphism is an issue. If you say that God is All-Knowing, then His forgetting is impossible as the two are mutually exclusive. And if you say that God is All-Wise, His repenting is impossible as repenting implies regret over a decision/wronging someone else, which are mutually exclusive. Clearly then, God "forgetting" cannot be interpreted in a way that detracts from His Knowledge and His "repenting" cannot be interpreted in a way that detracts from His Wisdom. So while I do not propose to understand the mind of God, the purpose of revelation is God's communicating to us something of His nature and hence, why the central concern of Islamic theology (and spirituality) is not justification of a secondary salvationist program, but God Himself. And your claim that Islam focuses to much on the prophet is rooted entirely in your own disregard for the Law and the role that it has as a manifestation of Divine guidance and concern. When you do not keep God Himself and His Divine Nature as the core of your beliefs, you are that much more removed from His presence and liable to such illogical conclusions which have a direct affect upon your daily life in respect to your relationship with Him. Anthropomorphism is a problem because instead of viewing God as Divine, He is viewed as we view other human beings, which causes all sort of spiritual, doctrinal and practice sicknesses of the mind and heart to corrupt our experience as distance us from Him.

May God's mercy and guidance surround us both. Take care.

[Hawkeye]

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

I know nothing about Atharism so cannot tell from this comment whether you agree that Quranic interpretation is divinely protected or not which was my question. If it is protected one supposes that exegetes were infallible and by extension you are and that reinterpretation is not possible. Of course if reinterpretation is not possible it logically follows that infallibility occurred somewhere along the line.

If you have material that spans all of Christian recorded history you must have an absolutely stupendously, gigantic, enormous library. There are almost 2,000 translations of the Bible, it is said a book about Jesus is published once every few days, there are probably at least 10,000 bible commentaries and so on. Just one example, the Vatican library holds 75,000 manuscripts, 1.1 million books and 8,500 incunabula. There are of course thousands of such libraries. No, you do not have this material and your statement is silly if not dishonest. Even if you had access no one could absorb it all. Just another Muslim delusion.

I made no claim that anthropic language was necessary to understand the divine, only that it was a possibility. To be precise, I suggest anthropic language might help us get a glimpse of meaning on what are profound teachings. I have no idea what you mean when you say it's false from a prophetic point of view but one supposes that you mean prophets, and yours in particular had all knowledge. I disagree.

Well you can claim you have a full understanding of the Devine nature but I do not. You have decided on the one hand that God can do anything and on the other he cannot. But I ask again, is your God, a God who makes choices and if he does is that an imperfection because the very nature of choice implies weighing up alternatives.

For a Christian God is someone who can be known by everyone from the least to the greatest, from the uneducated to the scholar or prophets - and that knowing is not limited to a select few or in it's scope. Knowing God is about confessing our sins, humility and submission effected through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus - Jeremiah in the Old Testament described our sins using four metaphors: like an irremovable stain, as unchangeable as our skin colour, as an etching that cannot be erased and finally like an incurable disease. The essence of this teaching is that we cannot do anything about it and God though Jesus must purify our hearts, we must take on his righteousness through faith. * **

I have no idea what you mean by a 'recommended prayer' or where we might get one from. Bit if God does whatever he wills then there is no point in a recommended or any prayer. Prayer for the Christian is a dialogue with God, it's about acknowledging that we are in his presence and are deeply aware of his power and covenant love. So prayer consists of adoration, confession, thanksgiving and supplication with a consciousness that God can act, can change things and may change things in response to our prayers. Of course God can see more than we can so his answers may baffle us or he may be silent but we say like Job 'though he slay me, yet will I believe in him.'

No I don't know Arabic but is God's message therefor barred to me? Thus I can only report what others have said or base my comments on English translation. If this last point is disallowed then the Quran is not much of a miracle if it can't be translated. I feel rather sad to hear you say 'you transcend...'. There was a time when I was without God, Paul in the Bible speaks about his former life and so do many others. But I would never say I was fortunate or my understanding transcended and instead it's about thankfulness and humility that a guilty sinner has found grace, there is no boasting of our achievements as if somehow we are the ones who deserve salvation. No, if we boast at all it boasting about God.

It was interesting to read your points of difference. Certainly, the Bible is about our relationship with God and we see this in teaching and in the lives of the Biblical characters. However, the focus is always on the message not the messenger and this is where we greatly differ. As you know I am sure, Biblical figures such as Moses, Abraham or David are shown to have sinned and often in major ways. In this respect Moses is an example for he became annoyed and said 'we have...' instead of what was true, that it was all of God. So it seems to me you are giving Mohammed equality with God - we simply do not find the equivalent of 'and his prophet' in the Bible so the very idea is anathema. The afterlife is important and in faith we think of it as a better place and the thought of separation as the other alternative is fearful.

The Bible is the whole message of God, no Christian regards it just as history because we always ask what is God intending to teach us from this or that event. That is the message is what is important. So we don't see that the problem of life as being caused by a lack of guidance, instead we see it as being caused by sin and hence the need for salvation and a new life. As I am sure you know the Bible says the whole law is summed up by loving your neighbour as yourself and indeed it goes further by saying love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you. This to me is much more satisfying than looking up a rule about my beard or which foot to put out first or what seem to me meaningless rituals surrounding Muslim prayer - I am not exactly against rules but they don't really seem to work, they point out sin but offer no cure for it.*

I am somewhat surprised at your attitude to prophesies when one considers what we find in Islam - take the night journey itself which to be is often so absurd that it's beyond ambiguity. Now if it is simply symbolic then I would have less trouble but if it is literal then its beyond belief for me. *

[lumumba_s]

Sorry... One last post, since you all have been debating for so long and keep jumping around from topic to topic, there are bound to be some issues that are glossed over in the seemingly unending replies:

As I am sure you know the Bible says the whole law is summed up by loving your neighbour as yourself and indeed it goes further by saying love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you. This to me is much more satisfying than looking up a rule about my beard or which foot to put out first or what seem to me meaningless rituals surrounding Muslim prayer - I am not exactly against rules but they don't really seem to work, they point out sin but offer no cure for it.

Islam acknowledges that the Divine can be found in the mundane and that outward forms have inward meanings in the same way as the body has a spirit. The hand teaches the heart and the heart teaches the hand. So while the Law regarding the beard and the effect that it has can be explained, the Law is also about being good to one's neighbor, loving for others what you love for yourself, not harming others with your tongue or your hand, forgiving others for their mistakes, etc. Stains are not irremovable. Rather, they are removed through God's mercy by ultimately repentance and re-orientation - which is the most Beloved act of God; but also by prayer, which at its core is a dialog with God, ; remembrance of Him, as remembrances makes us more and more aware of His imminent presence and His presence is more powerful than any sin we may commit; charity, as remembering our own weakness and having compassion for others softens the heart; by removing thorns from the road and the various other acts and "rituals" He informs us of that comprises the "Law". "The Law" in its proper context is not just prayer or fasting or hajj or wudu or ritual slaughter. That is a Christian understanding of the "Law". The "Law" in the Qur'anic understanding is all of those things, and forgiving debts when the debtor is struggling and establishing a social space that is conducive to the remembrance of God and healthy psyche of its members and that willful disobedience of God blackens the heart and skews our persepective and that the Creator of man knows best how to guide him to his full potential.

If rituals are meaningless, then you have to answer why God forced them upon the Jews prior to Jesus' arrival? What sort of God asks something from someone that He knows is ineffectual? What sort of God deprives a people of truth for 2,000 years, and instead keeps them busy with meaningless acts which amount to nothing and "don't seem to work."

And what al-Boriqi is referring to when he speaks to scholars and their role, even though he uses technical language that you have no affection towards, is that the Qur'an addresses all people simultaenously, but at their level. So while the bulk of people who read the Qur'an, derive moral benefits and that is sufficient for them, there are others who will read it with a lawyers mind and guide the community in that fashion, others will read it with the eye of a theologian and explicate to people its creed and yet others who will read it with the eye of a linguist and appreciate the Qur'an at that particular level. And it is the fact that the Qur'an is able to address all these people is why it has had such a profound affect upon civilizations. And that is why the Qur'an is at the heart of the Muslim pscyhe and the Qur'an, like other revelations, is the purest expression of God, about God, by God to His creation.

No I don't know Arabic but is God's message therefor barred to me? Thus I can only report what others have said or base my comments on English translation. If this last point is disallowed then the Quran is not much of a miracle if it can't be translated.

The Arabic language, like its Hebrew cousin, has its own flavor. To suggest that because something is lost in translation because the language of translation is not equipped to convey what the original conveys, is again to refuse to take the Qur'an at its OWN terms and cast blame upon it because of your stubbornness. And such a stubbornness is indeed odd when you boast of the number of Biblical commentaries and translations which are in existence. Why are so many needed? Are you seriously claiming that the Bible is no more rhetorically, spiritually and generally expressive in Hebrew and Greek than it is in its English, Russian and German translations? Or do you believe that the translations themselves are Divinely inspired and hence are on par with the original? No, the Qur'an cannot be perfectly translated into the original and something will also be lost in translation. And perhaps because it is easier to convey a narrative story than rhetorically effective, yet profound spiritual and cosmological truths, that you and your chosen references refuse to understand the significant of the language of choice. After all, Christianity has become so divorced from its origins that to find a Protestant pastor who even knows the basic of Greek and Hebrew language is a rare find. The fact that the Qur'an cannot be adequately translated is precisely proof that it is a miracle. Otherwise, you are implying that God's usage of language is no more profound that any old schmo with a Masters in English literature.

The Bible is the whole message of God, no Christian regards it just as history because we always ask what is God intending to teach us from this or that event.

And what is that but guidance? Speaking of translation, guidance is a very poor translation of hidaya in Arabic, which conveys not only guidance, but an intimate concern and active nourishment of another. But guidance is unfortunately the closest thing to it in the English language.

I am somewhat surprised at your attitude to prophesies when one considers what we find in Islam - take the night journey itself which to be is often so absurd that it's beyond ambiguity.

The night journey, you have a problem with? But not Jacob wrestling for hours on end with God, who could not overpower him?

This takes far far too much of my time. Let us mutually pray for each others guidance and spiritual nourishment at the Hand of the Absolutely Real. Take care.