உண்மையை உணர முயற்சிப்பவர்களுக்கு விவாதம் பயன்தரும். ஆனால் வெறும் விவாதங்களையே நோக்கமாகக் கொண்டவர்களுக்கு மென்மேலும் விவாதத்திற்கான கேள்வியை உருவாக்குவது ஒன்றும் சிரமமான காரியமில்லை. பதிலையே கேள்விகளாக்;கும் குழந்தைகள் போல.
இறைத்தூதர்கள் என்போர் யார் என்பதை சுவனப்ரியன் விளக்கிய பின்னர்
குர்ஆனுக்கு முன்னர் நான்கு பேர் தன்னை இறைத்தூதர் என்று வாதிட்டால் நாம் சரியானவரை எப்படியறிவது என்பதுதான் எழிலுடைய கேள்வி.
ஓவ்வொரு காலத்திலும் மிகைத்த அறிவையும் அற்புதங்களையும் கொண்டு இறைத்தூதர்களை இறைவன் பலப்படுத்துவான். நம் அறிவைக் கொண்டு மனமுரண்டில்லாமல் அந்த உண்மையின் நம்பகத்தன்மையை அறிந்து தெளிந்து அவர்களைப் பின்பற்ற வேண்டும். யார் அவர்களைத் தேர்ந்தெடுத்தானோ அத்தகைய உயர்ந்த இறைவன் உண்மையிலிருந்து பொய்யை பிரித்தறிவிப்பான். தன்னுடைய காரியங்களில் இறைவனே பொறுப்பேற்றுக் கொள்ளப் போதுமானவன்.
உண்மையில் நடந்த ஒன்றில் இறைவன் எப்படி வேறுபடுத்தினான் என்று கேட்டால் .... இப்படி என்று விளக்க முடியும்.
கற்பனையில் கேட்கப்பட்ட ஒன்றிற்கு கற்பனைக்கு சொந்தக்காரர்தான் இன்னின்ன காரணங்களால் வேறுபடுத்த முடியாது என்று நிறுவ வேண்டும். வெறும் கேள்விகளும், கிடைக்கின்ற பதிலில் இன்னொரு கேள்வியையும் உருவாக்குவது சிறுபிள்ளைத்தனமானது.
நபி மூஸாவுடைய காலத்தில் மந்திர தந்திரங்களில் மக்கள் உச்சத்திலிருந்தனர். அப்போது நபி மூஸாவை அந்த மந்திரவாதிகள் எல்லோரையும் மிகைக்க கூடிய மந்திர சக்தியைக் கொண்டு இறைவன் பலப்படுத்தினான். நபி மூஸாவுடைய சக்தி இறைவனிடமிருந்து வந்ததுதான் என்பதை அந்த மந்திரவாதிகள் அனைவரையும் உணரச்செய்து 'மாறுகால் மாறுகை வெட்டப்பட்டாலும்' அதுதான் உண்மை என்பதை கொடுங்கோலனான ஃபிர்அவ்ன் முன்பிலேயே அந்த மந்திரவாதிகளைக் கொண்டு கூறச்செய்தான். எழிலைப் போலவே ஃபிர்அவ்னும் உண்மையை உணர முடியாதவனாகினான்.
நபி ஈஸாவுடைய காலத்து மக்கள் தாங்கள் மருத்துவத்துறையில் உச்சத்திலிருப்பதாக நம்பினர். அப்போது இறந்தவர்களை இறைவனின் நாட்டத்தால் உயிர்ப்பித்ததன் மூலமும், இன்னபிற சான்றுகளின் மூலமும், அந்த நம்பிக்கையிலிருந்தவர்களை நபி ஈஸாவுடைய சக்தி இறைவனிடமிருந்து வந்ததுதான் என உணர வைக்க முடிந்தது. அப்போதும் எழிலைப்போல கேள்வி கேட்டு எள்ளியவர்கள் இல்லாமலில்லை.
இறுதி நபி முஹம்மதுவின் காலகட்டத்தில் இலக்கிய ஈடுபாடும் கவிதையுணர்வும் மேலோங்கி தம்மை மிகைப்பவரில்லை என்ற எண்ணம் அரபியர்களிடையே வேரூன்றியிருந்தது. இறுதி நபி முஹம்மதுக்கு கவிதையிலும் உரைநடையிலும் இலக்கிய நயத்திலும் ஒப்புவமையில்லாத குர்ஆன் எனும் அற்புத வேதத்தைக் கொடுத்து 'நீங்கள் உண்மையாளர்களாயிருந்தால் இது போன்ற ஒரிரு வசனங்களையாவது கொண்டு வாருங்கள் பார்க்கலாம் என சவால் விடச்செய்து' தம் வல்லமையைக் கொண்டு இறைவன் பலப்படுத்தினான். குர்ஆனைப் படித்தும் கேட்டும் அறிந்த அம்மக்கள் இது இறைவனிடமிருந்து வந்ததுதான் என உணர்ந்து அவர் தூதுத்துவத்தை ஏற்றனர். அப்போதும் எழிலைப்போன்ற முன் முடிவுகளோடு இருந்தவர்களுக்கு குதர்க்கமான வேறு கேள்விகள் தோன்றாமலில்லை.
எனவே எத்தனை பேர் தம்மை இறைத்தூதர் என்று சொல்லிக்கொண்டாலும் இறைவன் தான் தேர்ந்தெடுத்த உண்மையான தூதரை தம்மிடமிருந்து மறுக்கவியலாத அத்தாட்சிகளைக் கொண்டு பலப்படுத்துவான். காமாலைக் கண்ணர்களைத் தவிர மற்றவர்களுக்கு அது புரியவும் செய்யும். காமாலைக் கண்ணர்களுக்குப் புரிந்தாலும் புரியாத மாதிரி நடந்து கொள்வர். புரிய மறுப்பவர்களுக்குத்தான் மறுமையில் பேரிடரும் அழியமுடியாத் துன்பமும் என்று அவனே பிரகடனப்படுத்துகிறானே.
இன்னும் கேள்விகள் எழுந்தால் அது உணரமுடியாதவர்களின் குற்றமேயன்றி வேறென்னவாயிருக்கும்?. இவருக்காக நேரம் ஒதுக்கி சிறந்த பதிவுகள் இடும் சுவனப்ரியனும் இப்னுபசீரும் காலத்தை வீணடிக்க வேண்டாம் என்பதே என் வேண்டுகொள்.
ஒரு உதாரணத்தின் மூலம் இதை மேலும் விளக்குவோம்.
எழில் 'என் தந்தையார் எனக்கு சிறந்த அறிவுரைகள் கூறியிருக்கிறார். அவற்றை பின்பற்றுவதன் மூலம் வாழ்வில் என்னால் உயர முடிந்தது. இந்த நல்ல அறிவுரைகளை மற்றவர்களும் பின்பற்றுவதன் மூலம் அவர்களும் சிறந்தவராகலாம்' எனக்கூறுவதாகக் கொள்வோம்.
இப்போது திரு.எழிலிடம் 'நீங்கள் குறிப்பிடும் நபரை உங்கள் தந்தையென்று சொல்லாதீர்கள். உங்கள் தாய், உம்முடைய தந்தையாக உமக்கு அறிமுகப்படுத்திய நபர்' என்று சொல்லுங்கள் என்று சொன்னால் எழிலுக்கு கோபம் வரும். மரபணு சோதனை மூலம் அவரை என் தந்தையென்று நிரூபிக்க முடியும் என்று அவர் சொல்வார். அப்போது
'முற்காலத்தில் நான்கு நபர்கள் ஒருவரின் தந்தையென்று வாதிட்டனர். மரபணு சோதனைகளை அறியாத காலம். அப்போது தந்தையென்று எப்படி நிருவுவீர்கள். எனக்கு எந்த காழ்ப்புணர்வுமில்லை உண்மையறியும் ஆர்வம்தான்' என விதண்டாவாத கேள்விகள் கொண்டு வாதிட்டால் என்ன செய்வது.
இறைத்தூதர் குர்ஆனைக் கொண்டு சொல்பவற்றை விளக்கும்போது அவரை இறைத்தூதர் என்று சொல்லாதீர்கள் என்பதும், குர்ஆனின் அத்தாட்சிகளைக் கொண்டு அதை நிறுவ முற்படும்போது, (குர்ஆனின் சான்றுகளை எதனால் ஏற்க முடியாது என்ற காரணங்களைக் கூறுவதை விடுத்து) அதிலே மேற்கொண்டு விதண்டாவாதங்கள் புரிவதும் மேற்கூறப்பெற்ற நிலைதான்.
எனவே இனியும் இவ்விஷயத்தில் பதில் சொல்ல வேண்டாம். ஏனெனில் விதண்டாவாதங்களுக்கு பதில் சொல்லிப் பலனேதுமில்லை என நான் நம்புகிறேன்.
(நபி என்பதற்கு இறைத்தூதர் என்பது பொருளாகும்).
11 comments:
திரு. சுல்தான்,
தமிழிணையத்தில் இஸ்லாத்தின் மீது காழ்ப்பைக் கொட்டுபவர்களை வலைபூவுலகம் அறியும். எதிர்கேள்விகளுக்கு 'உள்வாங்க' ஓடி மறைபவர்கள் பதில் தெரியாத போது இப்படி புதுப் பெயர்களில் மீண்டும் தங்கள் காழ்ப்பைக் கொட்டுவதற்காகத் தான் இந்த நாடகமெல்லாம். இவர் காழ்ப்பில்லை என்கிறார் சரி நம்புவோம், அவர் அனுமதிக்கும் பின்னூட்டங்கள்?? வேஷம் கலைந்துவிட்டது..
உங்களின் பதிவில் 'தந்தை அறிவதற்கான' உதாரணம் நச்! விதண்டாவாதிகளைச் சரியாக இனம் காட்டிவிட்டீர்கள்..
சுல்தான் அவர்களே,
எழில் அவர்கள் மிகுந்த தன்மையோடு பதிவுகளை எழுதி கேள்விகளை எழுப்பும்போதும், அதற்கு சுவனப்ரியன் முதலான மேன்மக்கள் அழகாக பதில் கொடுக்க விழையும்போதும், நீங்கள் அவரை தரக்குறைவாக பல வார்த்தைகளில் ஏசி எழுதி தங்களின் தகுதியை நிரூபித்துக்கொண்டிருக்கிறீர்கள்.
குரான் இறைவனிடமிருந்து வந்தது என்பதற்கு நீங்கள் சொல்லும் ஆதாரம் என்ன? அது கவிதை நயமும், இலக்கிய நயமும் மிகுந்தது என்பதா?
குரான் ஒரு தரமான இலக்கிய, கவிதை நயம் உள்ள நூல் இல்லை என்று அரபி வல்லுனர்கள் பலர் சொல்லியிருக்கிறார்களே? அதற்கு என்ன பதில் சொல்கிறீர்கள். கவிதை, இலக்கிய நயம் என்று யார் முடிவு செய்வது? நம்பினவனுக்கு அது கவிதை, இலக்கிய நயம். இல்லாதவனுக்கு இல்லை அப்படித்தானே?
குரான் வரிகளைப்போல யாரும் இயற்ற இயலாது என்று நீங்கள் சொல்லுகிறீர்களே? முகம்மதுவை ஏமாற்றி சைத்தான் வரிகளை ஏமாற்றி அருளவில்லையா? அப்படியென்றால், இறைவனல்லாத மற்றவர்கள் கூட குரானுக்கு இப்பான சுராக்களை படைக்க இயலும் என்றுதானே ஆகிறது?
குரானில் இலக்கண பிழைகளும், மொழிப்பிழைகளும் உள்ளன என்பதும் அரேபிய சில வல்லுனர்களின் கூற்று. நான் அரபியில் சிறிதளவே பரிச்சயமானவன் என்பதையும் இங்கு சொல்லிக்கொள்கிறேன். வேணுமென்றால் சுட்டிகள் தருகிறேன். குரானில் பொருளற்ற பல வார்த்தைகளும், தலைப்புகளும் உள்ளன. அவை எந்த மொழியிலும் எந்த பொருளிலும் ஆவது இல்லை. இதைப்பற்றி நீங்கள் அறிவீர்கள் என்று நினைக்கிறேன்.
இவை குரான் தேர்ந்த ஒரு மொழி நூல் இல்லை என்று நிரூபணங்கள்.
மேலும், இறைவன் தன் பல வார்த்தைகளை பிறகு மறுதலிப்பதும், அதை மாற்றிக்கொள்வதும் அவன் "இறுதிக்கட்டளைகள்" என்று சொல்லப்படும் குரானுக்கு கருத்தில் குறைகளை சுட்டுகின்றன. சில இடங்களில், சுராவின் ஆரம்பத்தில் சொன்ன வார்த்தைகளை இறைவன் அதன் இறுதியில் மறுதலிக்கிறான். இதை இஸ்லாமிய அறிஞர்களே ஒப்புகிறார்கள்.
இக்காரணங்களால், குரான் இறைவன் வழங்கியதா என்று சந்தேகம் ஃகாபிர்களுக்கு எழுவது நியாயம்தானே.
திரு சுல்தான் அவர்களே
நல்ல பதிவு செருப்பால் அடித்தது போல் சொல்லியிருக்கிறீர்கள் ஆனாலும் திருந்தமாட்டார்கள்
ஐயா ஏமறாதவன்
//எழில் அவர்கள் மிகுந்த தன்மையோடு பதிவுகளை எழுதி கேள்விகளை எழுப்பும்போதும்//
எது மிகுந்த தன்மை கன்னை மூடிக்கொண்டு வேண்டுமென்றே புழுதிவாரி இறைப்பாதா?அதுதான் உங்களின் மி(ருக)குந்ததன்மை என்று
அறிந்ததுதான்.
//குரான் இறைவனிடமிருந்து வந்தது என்பதற்கு நீங்கள் சொல்லும் ஆதாரம் என்ன? அது கவிதை நயமும், இலக்கிய நயமும் மிகுந்தது என்பதா?//
வாழ்க்கை நெறி என்பதால் மனிதகுலம் வாழ அருளப்பட்ட இறைசட்டம் என்பதால்
அல் குரான் இறைவனிடமிருந்து வரவில்லை என்பதற்க்கு என்ன சான்று வைதிருக்கிறீர்கள்? கூறமுடியுமா
இருந்தல் தானே என்கிறீர்களா?
//குரான் ஒரு தரமான இலக்கிய, கவிதை நயம் உள்ள நூல் இல்லை என்று அரபி வல்லுனர்கள் பலர் சொல்லியிருக்கிறார்களே? //
குரான் கவிடை புத்தகமோ அல்லது வரலாற்று புத்தமோ இல்லை என்று இறைவனே கூறியிருக்கிறான்
"நாம் எமது தூதருக்கு கவிடை இயற்ற கற்றுத்தரவில்லை." என்று கூறியுள்ளான்
ஆனால் நீங்கள் 'தரமான" என்ற வர்த்தையை உபயோகித்ததால் கீழ்கண்ட கேள்வியையிம் கேட்டவேண்டியதாகிறது. பதில் சொல்வீர்களா?
//தரமான இலக்கிய, கவிதை நயம் உள்ள நூல் இல்லை என்று அரபி வல்லுனர்கள் பலர் சொல்லியிருக்கிறார்களே?//
எந்த வல்லுனர் பெயர் சொல்ல முடியுமா?
//கவிதை, இலக்கிய நயம் என்று யார் முடிவு செய்வது//
அரபி மொழியறிவு பெற்றவர்கள் உம்மை போல் ஏமாராதன் என்று நாமம் வைத்துக் கொண்டு மற்ரவர்களை ஏமாற்றுபவர்கள் அல்ல
//நம்பினவனுக்கு அது கவிதை, இலக்கிய நயம்//
அல்ல அது நிச்சயமாக இறைவேதமே அதை மறுப்பீர்களானால் எங்கே அதைப்போல ஒரு வரியை எழுதிகன்பிய்யுங்களேன் 1427 வருடங்களாக இறைவனால் விடப்பட்ட இந்த சவால் எவராலும் முறியடிக்கப்பட்வில்லையே? நீங்கள் முயன்று பார்கலாமே. உலகில் உள்ள் அனைவரையும் அழைத்துக்கொள்ளுங்கள் துனைக்கு
// இல்லாதவனுக்கு இல்லை அப்படித்தானே?//
நம்பிக்கை இல்லை என்று பொருள்
//குரான் வரிகளைப் போல யாரும் இயற்ற இயலாது என்று நீங்கள் சொல்லுகிறீர்களே?//
தைரியம் இருந்தால் இறைவனின் சவலை ஏற்க்கத்தயாரா?
//முகம்மதுவை ஏமாற்றி சைத்தான் வரிகளை ஏமாற்றி அருளவில்லையா//
எந்த வரியை கொன்னான் என்று ஏமாராத உங்களால் கூரமுடியுமா?
//குரானில் இலக்கண பிழைகளும், மொழிப்பிழைகளும் உள்ளன என்பதும் அரேபிய சில வல்லுனர்களின் கூற்று//
எந்த வல்லுனர் விவரம் தரமுடியுமா? குறைந்தபட்சம் நீங்கள் எங்கிருந்து இந்த தகவலை பெற்றீர்கள் என்று கூர முடியுமா? இல்லை வாயில் வந்ததை உளர்கிறீர்களா?
// வேணுமென்றால் சுட்டிகள் தருகிறேன்//
ஆவலோடு இருக்கிறோம் ஆனால் RSS சுட்டிகள் கொடுத்து சிரிப்பு முட்டாமல் இருந்தால் சரி
//பல வார்த்தைகளும், தலைப்புகளும் உள்ளன. அவை எந்த மொழியிலும் எந்த பொருளிலும் ஆவது இல்லை. இதைப்பற்றி நீங்கள் அறிவீர்கள் என்று நினைக்கிறேன்.//
எந்த வார்த்தை எந்த தலைப்பு?
//இவை குரான் தேர்ந்த ஒரு மொழி நூல் இல்லை என்று நிரூபணங்கள்.//
இது வரை எந்த நிருபனத்தையும் வைக்கவில்லையே மறந்துவிட்டீர்களா
//மேலும், இறைவன் தன் பல வார்த்தைகளை பிறகு மறுதலிப்பதும், அதை மாற்றிக்கொள்வதும் அவன் "இறுதிக்கட்டளைகள்" என்று சொல்லப்படும் குரானுக்கு கருத்தில் குறைகளை சுட்டுகின்றன. சில இடங்களில், சுராவின் ஆரம்பத்தில் சொன்ன வார்த்தைகளை இறைவன்
அதன் இறுதியில் மறுதலிக்கிறான்//
எந்த அத்தியாயம் எந்த வசனம் இப்போதும் உங்களால் எந்த ஆதாரத்தையும் காட்டமுடியவில்லை.
//இதை இஸ்லாமிய அறிஞர்களே ஒப்புகிறார்கள்//
எந்த அறிஞ்ர்கள் தின்னையில் எழுதிவரும் குலாம் ரசூல்,சூபி முகம்மது என்று கூறி சிரிப்பு மூட்டக்கூடாது
இக்காரணங்களால், குரான் இறைவன் //வழங்கியதா என்று சந்தேகம் ஃகாபிர்களுக்கு எழுவது நியாயம்தானே//
நியாயம் தான் ஆனால் ஆதாரத்துடன் விளக்கியபின்பும் இஸ்லாத்தின் மீது வேண்டுமென்றே புழுதிவாரி இறைக்கும் உங்களை போன்றவர்களுக்கு வருவது சந்தேகம் என்று கூறுவது நம்பும் படியாக இல்லை.
ஒளிந்து கொண்டு அடுத்தவர் தகுதியை பற்றி பேசும் நீங்கள் முதலில் உங்கள் தகுதியை பார்க்கத்தயாரா? அடுத்தவ்ரின் பின்னால் பார்க்கும் முன்பு தஙகளின் பின்னாலும் பார்க்க வேண்டும் சுத்தமாக இருக்கிறாதா என்று
இனியாவது ஆதாரத்துடன் ஆரோக்கியமான் விவாத்த்திற்க்கு வருவீர்கள் என்று நம்புகிறோம். அப்படி வந்தால் INSHA ALLAH நிச்சயமாக விளக்கம் தர தயாரகவே உள்ளோம் நீங்கள் ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளும் பட்சத்தில்.
திரு.சுல்தான் அவர்களே இவர்களின் நோக்கம் புதிதாக யாரையும் இஸ்லாத்தின் பக்கம் வரவிடாமல் தடுப்பாதாகும்.ராஜஸ்தானில் உயிர்பயத்தை காட்டியே தாழ்த்தபட்ட மக்களை இஸ்லாத்தின் பக்கம் வரவிடாமல் த்டுத்துக் கொண்டிருக்கிறார்கள். மேலும் சதி போன்ற கொடிய அரக்கத்தனத்தையும் அரங்கேற்றி வருகிறார்கள் இந்த பரிவரங்கள். இன்ஸா அல்லாஹ் இந்த நிலமை வெகுவிரைவிலேயே மாறும்.
அந்த மக்களுக்கு அல்லாஹ் அருள் புரிவானாக. ஆமீன்!
பதிவு போட மேட்டர் ஒன்னும் கிடைக்கவில்லை அதனால தான் இதுமாதிரி பதிவு போடுரீங்கனு எழில் பதிவில் பின்னுட்டம் இட்டேன்.
மனுசன் வெளியிடவே இல்லை..
இது ஆபாசமாவா இருக்கு பின்ன ஏன் வெளியிட வில்லை எழில்...???
நன்றி அட்றா சக்கை, இறையடியான்
ஏமாறாதவன் வருகைக்கு நன்றி. நான் தந்தையைப் பற்றி கூறியிருப்பது உங்களுக்கு வருத்தத்ததை தந்திருந்தால்.... உலக மக்கள் தொகையில் ஐந்திலொரு பாகத்துக்கு மேலுள்ள மக்கள் தங்களது பெற்றோரையும் விட உயர்வாகக் கருதும் இறைத்தூதரை 'இறைத்தூதர் என்று சொல்லாதீர்கள்' என்று கூறுபவரிடம் அவர் மொழியிலேயே கூறினால் விரைவில் புரியும் என்பதால்தான்.
மற்றபடி நீங்கள் குர்ஆனைப் பற்றி கூறும் குற்றச்சாட்டுகளுக்கு ஆதாரத்தைக் குறிப்பிட்டால் பதிலளிக்க இயலும்.மேலே இறையடியான் பதிலையும் பாருங்கள்.
சுல்தான் மற்றும் இறையடியான் அவர்களே,
நீங்கள் ஒருதலைப்பட்சமான சில இஸ்லாமிய வா(தி)தங்களை ட்டும் படித்துவிட்டு ஒன்றுமே தெரியாமல் பதிவு போடுகிறீர்கள் என்பது வெளிப்படை. என்ன ஆதாரம்? என்ன ஆதாரம் என்று நீங்கள் கேட்பதிலிருந்தே உங்களுக்கு நிரம்ப கிடைக்கும் ஆதாரங்களை தெரியாது என்று புரிகிறது. உங்கள் பதில்களில் உங்கள் எரிச்சலே தெரிகிறது.
இறைத்தூதர் என்று நீங்கள் வணங்குங்கள். நான் மறுக்கவில்லை. ஆனால், நம்பிக்கையற்றவர்களுக்கு அவர் இறைத்தூதர் என்பதற்கான ஆதாரம் இல்லை என்று கூட உணர இயலாமல் நீங்கள் இருக்கிறீர்கள். என் நம்பிக்கை நான் வணங்குகிறேன் என்று சொன்னால் மேல் பேச்சு இருக்காது. ஆனால், ஒன்றும் விளங்காமல் நீங்கள் வாதம் செய்வது நகைப்பாய் இருக்கிறது.
பல இஸ்லாமிய அறிஞர்களின் வாதங்களை இங்கே வைக்க இடமில்லை.
முதலில் பார்ப்போம். குரானில் மொழிப்பிரச்சனை, இலக்கண பிரச்சனை. இது இறைவன் அருளியதா? பதில் சொல்லுங்கள்.
Chapter Eight
Qur’anic Language and Grammatical Mistakes
Our Muslim brethren say that the eloquence of the Qur’an, the supremacy of its language and the beauty of its expression are conclusive evidence that the Qur’an is the Word of God because the inimitability of the Qur’an lies in its beautiful style of the Arabic language. We acknowledge that the Qur’an (in some of its parts and chapters) has been written in an eloquent style and impressive words. This fact is beyond any doubt and anyone who denies that does not have any taste for the Arabic language. Yet, on the other hand, we say that there are many clear language errors in other parts of the Qur’an pertaining to the simplest principles of style, literary expression and the well-known grammatical rules of the Arabic language and its expression.
We even find in the Qur’an many words which do not have any meaning and are not found in any language. There is also a great deal of vocabulary which no one can understand. Muhammad’s companions themselves have acknowledged that, as we will see, but before we examine all these issues, I would like to clarify two important points.
First, from a linguistic point of view, the eloquence of any book cannot be an evidence of the greatness of the book and proof that it was revealed by God, because what is important to God is not to manifest His power in the eloquence of style and the expressive forcefulness of the classical Arabic language, but rather to embody His power in the sublime spiritual meaning contained in that book which will lead the people to a high spiritual level which enables them to live together in peace and love. It helps them to enjoy an internal profound joy and spiritual, psychological fullness—abundant life. God does not care to teach the people of the Earth the rules and the principles of the Arabic language. God is not a teacher of a fading classical Arabic language, but the true living God is our spiritual leader in life of love and joy.
Is the content of the Qur’an properly fit to be ascribed to God? All that we intend to do here is to determine that eloquence of style is not always an evidence that the words uttered come from heaven or that the one who has spoken them is a prophet. The German poet Schiller is not a prophet, and the Iliad and the Odessa are not composed by a prophet but rather by a Greek poet. The masterpieces of Shakespeare’s poems and plays in English literature which are translated and published more than the Qur’an by ten fold have not compelled the British to say that the angel Gabriel is the one who revealed them to Shakespeare.
The second very significant point is that the eloquence of the Qur’an and the supremacy of the classical Arabic language in which the Qur’an is written have created difficulty in reading and understanding, even for the Arabs themselves. So what would we say about the non-Arabs even if they learn the Arabic language? The Qur’an will continue to be a problem for them because it is not sufficient for a person to learn the Arabic language to be able to read the Qur’an. He also has to study the literature of the Arabic language thoroughly. Thus, we find that the majority of Arabs themselves do not understand the classical language of the Qur’an which contains hundreds of words which confused Muhammad’s companions who mastered the language but failed to explain their meanings, along with many other words which even Muhammad’s companions could not comprehend.
Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti composed at least one hundred pages in part II of his famous book, "The Itqan", to explain the difficult words included in the chapters of the Qur’an, under the title "The Foreign words of the Qur’an". The vocabulary of the classical Arabic language and some of its expressions are not in use anymore among the Arabs. The language itself was so diversified that the Shafi’i was led to say, "No one can have a comprehensive knowledge of the language except a prophet" (Itqan II: p 106).
The question which imposes itself on us is: What advantage do the people of the world get out of the Book of God if it is written in a difficult language which makes it impossible for Arabs (even Muhammad’s companions and his relatives) to comprehend it? Does God write a book in which people do not comprehend the meaning of many words included in the text, especially when the scholars insist that the Qur’an must be read only in Arabic? In his book al-Itqan, Al Suyuti says,
"It is utterly inadmissible for the Qur’an to be read in languages other than Arabic, whether the reader masters the language or not, during the prayer time or at other times, lest the inimitability of the Qur’an is lost. On the authority of the Qaffal (one of the most famous scholars of jurisprudence, fundamentals and exposition), reading the Qur’an in Persian cannot be imagined. But it was said to him, ‘Then no one will be able to interpret the Qur’an.’ He said, ‘It is not so, because he will bring forth some of God’s purposes and will fail to reveal others, but if somebody wants to read it in Persian he will never bring forth (any) of God’s purposes."’
This is why non-Arabs repeat the Qur’anic text without understanding it, because they utter it in Arabic. The same words have been repeated in Dr. Shalabi’s book (p. 97), "The History of Islamic Law". He also adds,
"If the Qur’an is translated into a non-Arabic language, it will lose its eloquent inimitability. The inimitability is intended for itself. It is permissible to translate the meaning without being literal."
The same principle is followed by those who worked on the English authorized translation. They said (page iii),
"The Qur’an cannot be translated—that is the belief of traditional Sheikhs (religious leaders). The Arabic Qur’an is an inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy."
This is true. If the Qur’an were translated literally into English, for example, it would lose its linguistic beauty, and could not then be compared to any other book in English, French, or German literature. In addition, a person might wonder how the many incomprehensible Arabic words could be translated.
The other question which confronts us is this, Does God belong to the Arabs only? If His book can only be in Arabic, then it is written only to the Arabs and it should not be read except in Arabic as the scholars claim as if God were an Arabic God. Thus, the scholars prohibit praying to God in any other language than Arabic in all mosques. It is also required that the call for prayers and the confession of faith which attests that the man is a Muslim must be uttered in Arabic because Muhammad (the prophet of Islam) said that Arabic is the language of paradise and the Arabs are the best nation created among peoples.
Among the famous prophetic traditions which Muhammad said to the Muslims is, "Love the Arabs for three (things): Because I am an Arab, the Qur’an is in Arabic and the language of the people of the paradise is Arabic" (refer to al-Mustadrak by the Hakim, and Fayd al-Ghadir).
Let us now examine the failure of the Arabic language in which the Qur’an is written, and limit ourselves to the following points:
The Original Qur’anic Text Was Without Diacritical Points, Vocalization, And Some Of Its Letters Are Omitted.
We will attempt to explain this problem to the English reader as plainly as possible. We hope he will find it exciting and interesting. The Arabic reader knows fairly well that the meanings of the words require the use of diacritical points above or below the letters, otherwise it becomes very difficult (if not impossible) to comprehend their meanings. Vocalization also is very significant in the field of desinential inflection, along with writing all the letters of the word without omitting any of them. Thus, the reader of the Arabic language cannot believe or imagine that the Qur’an was written originally without these significant requirements, but let us assure you that this is a historical fact, well-known and acknowledged by all Muslim scholars without any exception.
We will also see that there is a large number of words about which the scholars could not agree as to their meanings. One simple example helps us to visualize the nature of the problem. Let us take the Arabic letter "ba". By changing the diacritical points, we get three different letters—"ta", "ba", and "tha". So when these letters are written without the diacritical points, it becomes difficult for the reader to know the word that is intended.
Examine the following word. Look thoroughly at the diacritical points (I repent), (plant), (house), (girl) (abided). Another example (rich), (stupid), and so on. Without these diacritical points it is very hard to distinguish the words from each other. Thus, the meaning differs from one word to another depending on the place of these diacritical points. Many of the Arabic alphabets require the presence of the diacritical point to differentiate between one alphabet and another and hence between one word and another.
Now let us quote the Muslim scholars who have the final word in these matters.
1) In his famous book, "The History of Islamic Law" (p.43), Dr. Ahmad Shalabi, professor of Islamic history and civilization remarks,
"The Qur’an was written in the Kufi script without diacritical points, vocalization or literary productions. No distinction was made between such words as ‘slaves’, ‘a slave’, and ‘at’ or ‘to have’, or between ‘to trick’ and ‘to deceive each other’, or between ‘to investigate’ or ‘to make sure’. Because of the Arab skill in Arabic language their reading was precise. Later when non-Arabs embraced Islam, errors began to appear in the reading of the Qur’an when those non-Arabs and other Arabs whose language was corrupted, read it. The incorrect reading changed the meaning sometimes."
The same statement is made by Taha Husayn in "Taha Husayn" (p. 143), by Anwar al-Jundi.
Then Dr. Ahmad alluded to those who invented the vocalization and diacritical points and applied them to the Qur’anic text many years after Muhammad’s death such as Abu al-Aswad al Du’ali, Nasr ibn ’Asim and al-Khalil ibn Ahmad. He also added (on the same page) that "without these diacritical points, a man would believe that verse 3 of the chapter, ‘The Repentance’, would mean that God is done with the idolaters and His apostle— free from obligation to the idolaters and His apostle—while the real meaning of the verse is that God and His apostle are done with the idolaters—free from further obligation to the idolaters.
Now the question we would like to ask Dr. Ahmad and all those wise men: Why was not the Qur’an revealed to Muhammad in a perfect Arabic language complete with the literary indicators and the diacritical points lest a difference or change of meaning occur? If a student of Arabic writes an essay in Arabic without the diacritical points would the teacher give him more than zero? The answer is known to two hundred million Arabs.
The second question is: Did God inspire those who added the diacritical points and the vocalization through an angel, for example, to eliminate the different meanings on which the scholars disagree? Who instructed Nasr ibn ’Asim, Abu al-Aswad al Du’ali and Khalil ibn Ahmad to undertake this serious task and create the diacritical points and the vocalization for the Qur’anic text? Was it not more appropriate that Muhammad himself or some of his successors or companions like ibn ’Abbas and ibn Mas’ud should accomplish this work? Yet al-Suyuti himself tells us that ibn Mas’ud was not pleased with that (refer to "Itqan", part 2, p. 160), nor were other leading companions and scholars such as ibn Sirin and the Nakha’i.
2) Ibn Timiyya, Sheik of the Muslims (vol. XII, p. 101), tells us,
"The companions of Muhammad had never used the diacritical points or the vocalization for the Qur’an. For each word, there were two readings—either to use (for instance) ‘ya’ or ‘tah’ in such words as ‘they do’ or ‘you do’. The companion did not forbid one of the readings in favor of the other, then some successor of the companions began to use the diacritical points and vocalization for the Qur’an."
On pp. 576 and 586, he adds,
"The companions (Muhammad’s friends) did not vocalize or provide diacritical points for the letters of the Qur’anic copies which they wrote, but later during the last part of the companions’ era, when reading errors came into being, they began to provide diacritical points for the copies of the Qur’an and to vocalize them. This was admissible by the authority of the majority of the scholars, though some of them disliked it. The truth is, it should not be disliked because the situation necessitated it, and the diacritical points distinguish the letters from each other while vocalization explains the grammatical inflection."
There is a candid acknowledgment from ibn Timiyya that diacritical points are required, but did not God and His angel Gabriel along with Muhammad and his successors know about this problem? The simplest principles of sound Arabic language demand that words should have diacritical points and their letters should be written in complete form. Didn’t they know that disagreements among Muslim scholars would take place and that they would fight among themselves and that even death would result from the differences in reading the Qur’anic text? Didn’t they know also that the differences in meaning of the Qur’anic vocabulary would be decisive in the interpretation and judgments of Islamic law?
It is surprising that such things had not occurred to the mind of God, Gabriel, Muhammad, and the companions and the caliphs; then, three persons come later and insert these changes into the Qur’anic text. Yet, what is really more surprising is that when the companions discovered the differences in the readings of the Qur’anic text (as Ibn Timiyya says), they did not have any objection against any of the different readings and they did not prohibit either one. The justification for that was that Muhammad himself had acknowledged the presence of seven different readings, not just two readings as was clearly stated in the Sahih al-Bukhari, (vol. 6, p. 227). This fact is common knowledge among all the scholars.
3) Jalal-al-Din al-Suyuti
In his famous book, "al-Itqan Fi Ulum al-Qur’an" ("Adjusted Qur’anic Science"), al-Suyuti reiterates (part four, p. 160) the same words of ibn Timiyya which had been quoted by Dr. Ahmad Shalabi about those who invented the diacritical points and the vocalization of the words. He also said that some of the scholars detested that, as we mentioned before. There the Suyuti presents (part four, pp. 156,157) a list of words which could be read differently. One of them is the reading by which the Qur’an was written, though Muhammad himself had accepted and acknowledged both readings.
In part one, p. 226 of "The Itqan", the Suyuti makes an important declaration in which he says that the difference in reading has led to differences in Islamic law. He illustrated that by the following example: He indicated that some scholars demanded of the worshipper that he wash himself again (the ablution) before he prays if he shook hands with a woman. Yet other scholars require him to do so only in case of sexual intercourse and not just because he shook hands with her or touched her hand.
The reason for this disagreement is ascribed to one word found in the Chapter of Women (verse 43) and whether it has a long vowel a or not. The Jalalan (p. 70) and the Baydawi (p. 113) record for us that both ibn ’Umar and al-Shafi’i seriously disagree with ibn ’Abbas in the way they interpret this verse because ibn ’Abbas insisted that the meaning intended here is actual intercourse while the former said no, it is enough for a man to touch the skin of a woman or her hand to require having his ablution (washing) repeated.
In four full pages (226-229), the Suyuti stated that the many arguments and various interpretations pertaining to the above word have brought about different ordinances. When we read the commentary of the Jalalan or the Baydawi, we realize that whenever they come across certain words which could be read in more than one form they say: This word is read in two different forms.
Before conclude this part, let me call attention to the following everyday story: A man was asking about the place of two verses in the Qur’an. He was told that he could locate them in the Chapters of Resurrection and the Hypocrites. He made every effort to find these two chapters but in vain. Then he was told that the Chapter of Resurrection is number 75 and the chapter of the Hypocrites is number 63. He told them that chapter 75 is named "The Value" and chapter 63 is named or called "The Spenders". They told him you say so because you read them without the letter A (long vowel A) His logical answer was: "I have read them in exactly the form in which they were written without the long vowel A. Why should I add the long vowel A to the words of the Qur’an which would change the meaning?"
My dear English reader have you recognized the purpose of the above paragraph? Is the word "reply" the same as "replay"? There are dozens of words like that in the Qur’an, even some of the titles of the Qur’anic chapters have been written without the long vowel A. For example, the word "masajid" (mosques) is written "masjid" (a mosque), and "sadaqat" (charities) as "sadaqta" (you said the truth). The meaning (as you see) has been completely changed, as Dr. Ahmad Shalabi and Suyuti remarked.
Meaningless Qur’anic words
All Muslim scholars acknowledge that the Qur’an contains words which even Muhammad’s relatives and companions have failed to understand. In his book, "The Itqan" (part 2, p. 4), the Suyuti states clearly,
"Muhammad’s companions, who are genuine Arabs, eloquent in language, in whose dialect the Qur’an was given to them, have stopped short in front of some words and failed to know their meanings, thus they said nothing about them. When Abu Bakr was asked about the Qur’anic statement ‘and fruits and fodder’ (8:31), he said, ‘What sky would cover me or what land would carry me if I say what I do not know about the book of God?’ ’Umar ibn al-Khattab read the same text from the rostrum, then he said, ‘This fruit we know, but what is fodder?’ Sa’id ibn Jubair was asked about the Qur’anic text in chapter 13 of Mary. He said, ‘I asked ibn ’Abbas about it, but he kept silent."’
Then the Suyuti indicated that ibn ’Abbas said that he does not know the meanings of some of the Qur’anic verses (like these in Chapter 69:36, 9:114 and 18:9).
I have quoted the Suyuti’s text word for word, and stated the confession of ibn ’Abbas who is interpreter of the Qur’an and legal jurist of the caliphs for whom Muhammad pleaded with God to enlighten his mind to comprehend the meaning of the Qur’an. Also, who was closer to Muhammad, my dear Muslim, than Abu Bakr and Umar, the first two caliphs along with ibn ’Abbas? All of them failed to comprehend many of the Qur’anic verses. Therefore, the Suyuti warns that anyone who attempts to conceive the meanings of these words will suffer complete failure. Then he mentions that the caliphs and ibn ’Abbas, themselves, did not know their meanings.
Of course, he was right, because if those great leaders had failed to know their meanings, who would? Certainly, those intimate companions of Muhammad asked him about the meanings of those obscure words, but it is clear enough that Muhammad himself failed to know their meanings, otherwise he would have explained them to his companions as he did on several other occasions.
In addition to these ambiguous words there are at least 14 other words or symbols which are recorded at the introductory part of 29 Qur’anic chapter. These codes are entirely ambiguous. Also four of these codes are titles for four chapters; therefore, four Qur’anic chapters have meaningless titles. These chapters are chapter Taha, ya sin, Sad, and Qaf. When the Jalalan attempted to expound the meanings of these 14 obscure words and the titles of these chapters, they said, "God alone knows His own intention."
I am stating these words for the benefit of the reader as they are recorded in the authorized English translation of the Qur’an. "Aim-Alr-Almus-Hm" means nothing in any language! Is it a characteristic of Arabic eloquence to have meaningless words and titles of complete chapters which no body can comprehend?
The Qur’an says woe to anyone who asks for the meaning!
The Qur’an acknowledges that there are meaningless words. In chapter of Family of ’Umran: 7, it indicates that there are allegorical verses which "no one knoweth how to explain save God." The Qur’an does not tell us why these words have been recorded in the Qur’an if no one knows their meaning. In his book, "The Itqan" (part 3, p. 3), the Suyuti refers to the above verse, then he remarks,
"The Qur’an is divided into sound, intelligible (verses) and obscure, unintelligible (verses). The obscure (verses) are only known to God such as the detached alphabets at the beginning of the chapters."
On pp. 5 and 6, the Suyuti asserts that the majority of the companions and the successors of the companions, especially the Sunnis (among them ibn ’Abbas himself) affirm that there are words of which no one knows the interpretation save God only.
It is worthwhile mentioning here that anyone who attempted to comprehend the meaning of those words or any of the obscured verses was severely punished. On pp. 7 and 8 (part 3 of "The Itqan"), the Suyuti records for us a moving episode about a person called Sabigh who wanted to inquire about these same Qur’anic interpretations ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab severely punished him on successive days until he was almost killed due to head injuries. This is "the just ’Umar", as they call him.
The Qur’an Gives The Antonym (opposite) Meaning Of Words And Phrases
This fact is well-known to all scholars. It clearly reveals that the Arabic language of the Qur’an is not always sound as some believe. In the second part of "The Itqan", the Suyuti speaks explicitly about things which no one expected to find in the Qur’an. Actually, these defects are not supposed to occur in any standard Arabic book which complies with the rules and characteristics of the Arabic language. On page 135, the Suyuti says,
"The word ‘after’ has been mentioned twice in the Qur’an so as to mean ‘before’, as in this saying, ‘We have written in the psalms (the scripture) "after the reminder" (21:105) while He meant "before."’ Also in this saying, ‘The earth "after" that He has extended (79:30) while he meant "before" and not "after" because the earth was created first "before" and not "after" He created the heavens,’ as Abu Musa indicated."
These are the actual words of Suyuti. The question now is: Does this linguistic defect conform to any language in the world? Does this comply with the characteristics of writing and the artistic, eloquent style of Arabic language? Is it proper, in the Qur’anic style to write "after" when you mean "before"? How can the reader know the correct meaning since it is common knowledge that "after" and "before" are opposite words? Is it sensible that the angel Gabriel meant to say "before" but he instructed Muhammad to write "after"? It is difficult for us to believe that.
This problem is not confined to one word because the Suyuti provides us with eight pages (Itqan, part 2, pp. 132-139) full of similar examples found in the Qur’an in which, according to the interpreters of the texts, the Qur’an meant the opposite meaning than the literal meaning of the expression. There is no connection between the literal meaning and the meaning intended by the Qur’an.
Let us examine together some of the examples the Suyuti presented to us in his book, the Itqan, part 2,
(A) "The Qur’an means, ‘Do not those who believe know that had Allah willed, He could have guided all mankind’, but he said, ‘Do not those who believe despair!’ instead of writing ‘know’ as he meant" (see Thunder: 31). Is "despair" the same as "know"?
(B) "The Qur’an says in chapter 2:23, ‘... your martyrs’, but it means here, ‘ ... your partners’ (p. 133). After the Suyuti made this remark, he commented,
"The martyr is supposed to be the person who is killed, or the one who testifies concerning people’s matters, but here it means ‘your partners."’
(C) "In chapter Joseph: 20 the word ‘Bakhs’ (too little) is meant to be ‘haram’ (forbidden, sacred) contrary to the usual meaning" (p. 132).
(D) "In chapter Mariam (Mary):46 the phrase, ‘I certainly will stone you’ is interpreted to mean, ‘I certainly will curse you’, and not, ‘I certainly will kill you’ as its literal meaning suggests" (p. 133).
Let the reader decide for himself as he examines these illustrations.
Why the Qur’an did not say: "Do not know those who believe.. " instead of "do not the believers give up all hope..." Is "despair" the same as knowledge? And if the Qur’an intended to say, "Did not ... know" would it be recorded as to mean "to give up all hope?" The same thing could be said about "too little" and "martyrs " Does not each word have a different meaning than the meaning indicated by the Qur’an? Is it one of the prerogatives of the language to use a word which has a different connotation than the intended meaning?
Let us state another illustration from "The Itqan" (part 3, p. 251) where the Suyuti says,
"In chapter the (Rahman):6, The Qur’an says: ‘The "Nagm" stars and the trees bow themselves.’ Here the Qur’an does not mean by ‘the stars’ the heavenly stars but the plants which do not have trunk. This is the far-fetched intended meaning."
We would like to state here that there is no one who would imagine or expect this meaning. Even the Saudi scholars who translated the Qur’an into English (p. 590) understood the word ‘Nagm’ ("star") to mean a heavenly star—and stated it as such. Thus, even the Saudi translators of the Qur’an could not imagine that the Qur’an has meant by the word "Nagm" ("star"), the plants which do not have trunks.
I, myself had some doubts about the Suyuti’s explanation and thought maybe it was the Suyuti’s fault and not the Qur’an’s, or the Saudi scholars. Why should we attack the Qur’an and blame it for the Suyuti’s error? Therefore, as a candid researcher, I decided to examine the interpretations of the former Muslim scholars to be sure of the proper interpretation. I referred to the Baydawi’s commentary (p. 705) and found him in full harmony with the Suyuti’s interpretation who stressed that this word alludes to the plants which sprang from the earth without a trunk. The same interpretation is found in the Jalalan (p. 450). In Al-Kash-shaf (part 4, p. 443), the Zamakh-Shari agreed with the mentioned scholars and remarks,
"And the ‘star’ which is a plant which springs from the earth without a trunk such as the herbs, for the trees do have trunks."
Thus, let the Saudi scholars correct the translation errors of the Qur’an, along with another error (as the Suyuti comprehended it) though they are right in their interpretation of it: The word "amid most" (chapter 2:143) means - according to Suyuti - righteous or just people (p. 251 also refer to the Baydawi p. 29 and Tabari 24). Thus Suyuti says,
"The conspicuous meaning of the word suggests the (idea) of intermediary, while the intended meaning is ‘righteous’ and this is the far-fetched meaning."
Another example in which the English translator was proper.
The Qur’an says in chapter 57:29: "Lest the people of the book may know." This is the literal translation of the phrase. The word means (in both Arabic and English) "lest" while the intended meaning is that they may know (refer to the commentary of Jalalan p. 459). The translators of the Qur’an correctly translated it as "that they may know" which is opposite to the literal meaning of the word in Arabic.
Yet, before we conclude the discussion of this point, I would like to share with the readers another strange phrase which illustrates the above mentioned point even more clearly.
In chapters 75: 1,2 and 90:1, the Qur’an repeats the phrase: "I do not swear..." This is the literal translation of the phrase, but the interpreters and the translators of the Qur’an insist that the meaning is: "I do call...," or "No, I swear" indicating that the word "do not" is redundant, and when He said, "I do not swear", he meant, "I swear" (refer to the Jalalan, p. 493, 511; Al-Kash-shaf, part 4, p. 658, 753; and Baydawi, pp. 772, 799). The Qur’an says,
"I do not swear by the Day of Resurrection"
"I do not swear by the reproachful soul"
"I do not swear by this city"
While he meant (according to all Muslim scholars) that He does swear by the above three things. The Zamakhshari noted that some had objected to that, and they have the right to object to this confusion, but others said that the pre-Islamic, great poet Emro Al-Qays used to do so.
In the Qur’an There Are Omitted Words, Incomplete Phrases, and Errors In The Structure Of Sentences
This is strange and unjustifiable. Why should many words or even completed phrases be omitted confusing the meaning? In his book, "The Itqan", the Suyuti has discussed this matter and pointed to many omitted letters or words and sentences. He devoted ten pages of part 3, (pp. 181-192) to listing ample examples of which I quote but a few of them.
A) "We read in chapter (Surah) 22:32:
‘It is from the piety of hearts.’
The Suyuti says it should have been written this way,
‘Its glorification comes from the deeds of those of piety of hearts."’
B) "Also, in chapter 20:96, the Qur’an says,
‘So I took a handful (of dust) from the footprint of the apostle.’
The Suyuti says: It is supposed to be written as such:
‘...from the footprint of the hoof of the apostle’s mare"’ (refer to p. 191)
C) Among the many striking examples of the omission of various sentences is what we read in chapter 8:45,46. The Suyuti comments in p. 192,
"The verse: ‘Send ye me oh righteous Joseph...’ means, ‘Send ye me to Joseph to ask him for the interpretation of the dream.’ So he did. He came to him and said, ‘O, righteous Joseph...."’
In the Qur’an just two words at the beginning are written and two words at the end and all the words in-between are omitted!
Let the reader decide for himself if it is possible to comprehend the intended meaning, having all these words omitted from the verse until it becomes entirely meaningless.
Other Language Errors In Sentence Structure
It is appropriate to refer to Muslim scholars when a person wants to study and comprehend the Qur’an. They are well acquainted with the principles of the Arabic language and the Qur’an. There is none better than the Suyuti, Baydawi, Tabari, Jalalan, and Zamakh-Shari who are great, recognized scholars and linguists quoted by the Azhar scholars in Egypt as well as the Saudi scholars. The American, European and Orientalist, with all due respect, do not understand the Qur’anic language like those great Muslim scholars. The Suyuti (part 3, p. 33), quoting several great Muslim scholars, says,
"The Qur’anic verse: ‘Let not their wealth nor their children astonish thee! Allah purposeth only to punish them in the world’ (chapter 9:85). It actually means: ‘Let not their properties and children astonish you on this Earth because God purposes to torment them in eternity."’
Let the reader notice that there is no mention of eternity in the verse. In pp. 34 and 35, the Suyuti remarks:
"The intended original word order of (the Qur’anic) text: ‘Have you seen the one who made his God (the object of) his compassion?’ (25:34) is to be read, ‘... who made his compassion his God’ and not, ‘... his God (the object of) his compassion’, because ‘who made his God (the object) of his compassion’ is not blame- worthy."
In page 328, the Suyuti says that,
"There are many verses in the Qur’an which were revealed without any connection to the verses which proceeded or preceded them, such as what we read in chapter 75:13-19 because the entire chapter talks about the states of resurrection. But these verses were revealed because Muhammad used to hastily move his tongue when dictating the Qur’anic revelation. Some Muslims said that part of the chapter has been dropped, because these verses are not relevant to this chapter at all."
We conclude our discussion of this part by pointing to the boring repetition of certain phrases by which the Qur’an is characterized. The phrase, "O which of your Lord’s bounties will you deny?" is repeated thirty-one times in a chapter in which there are no more than 78 verses (chapter 75). The story of Noah is repeated in 12 chapters. Abraham’s story is repeated in 8 chapters along with the episode of Lot. Moses’ story is repeated in 7 chapters, Adam’s in 4 chapters, and John’s in 4 chapters. Moses’ conversation with pharaoh is repeated in 12 chapters. Certainly these stories differ drastically from the stories recorded in the Old Testament.
There are approximately 15-20 grammatical errors found in the Qur’an which cannot be denied by those who master Arabic grammar This has created a heated argument because these grammatical errors are not expected in a book which Muslims claim is dictated by God and its inimitability lies in its perfect Arabic language. Thus, how can the Qur’an include grammatical mistakes which a junior high school student who has a basic background in Arabic would not make? If anyone of the Arab readers wishes to expand his knowledge of these errors, we would like to refer him to the following Qur’anic verses: Chapters 2:177; 3:39; 4:162; 5:69; 7:16; 20:63; 21:3; 22:19; 49:9 and 63:10. As an illustration, we refer to one example which is found in chapter 20:63. The Qur’an says,
"These two are certainly magicians"—Inna Hazan Sahiran. The correct grammar must say, Inna Hazyn Sahiran.
According to Arabic grammar, these two must be in the accusative case after "Inna", but they are stated in the nominative case which is completely wrong.
மேலும் பல வழங்குவேன். ஆனால், நீங்கள் இதற்கு முதலில் பதில் சொல்லவும்.
நன்றி
சுல்தான் அவர்களே,
குரானின் பல முரண்பாடுகள் என்ற சந்தேங்களே இங்கே வழங்கியிருக்கிறேன்.
தங்கள் பதிலை எதிர்பார்க்கிறேன்.
Who suffers loss if Muhammad was wrong? Sura 34:50 commands Muhammad to say, "If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss," which is a severe factual error in the Qur'an as well as contradicting the teaching of the Qur'an in a number of other verses.
Allah, Adam, and the Angels. There are a great number of problems and inconsistencies between the several accounts of Adam's creation, Allah's command to prostrate before Adam, Satans refusal, etc.
Who Was the First Muslim? Muhammad [6:14, 163], Moses [7:143], some Egyptians [26:51], or Abraham [2:127-133, 3:67] or Adam, the first man who also received inspiration from Allah [2:37]?
Can Allah be seen and did Muhammad see his Lord? Yes [S. 53:1-18, 81:15-29], No [6:102-103, 42:51].
Were Warners Sent to All Mankind Before Muhammad? Allah had supposedly sent warners to every people [10:47, 16:35-36, 35:24], Abraham and Ishmael are specifically claimed to have visited Mecca and built the Kaaba [2:125-129]. Yet, Muhammad supposedly is sent to a people who never had a messenger before [28:46, 32:3, 34:44, 36:2-6]. This article also raises other issues: What about Hud and Salih who supposedly were sent to the Arabs? What about the Book that was supposedly given to Ishmael? Etc.
What will be the food for the people in Hell? The food for the people in Hell will be only "Dhari" [Sura 88:6], or only foul pus from the washing of wounds [S. 69:36], or will they also get to eat from the tree of Zaqqum [S. 37:66]? Together, these verses constitute three contradictions.
Can Angels Cause the Death of People? The Qur'an attacks those who worship anyone besides God (e.g. angels or prophets) because those can neither create, nor give life, nor cause anyone to die. Yet, the Qur'an explicitly states that one angel or several angels are causing certain people to die [Sura 4:97, 16:28, 32, 32:11].
Confusion Concerning Identity of the Spirit and Gabriel (a long discussion of dozens of references)
'Iddah rules for divorced and widowed women appear to be arbitrary and inconsistent.
To Marry or Not to Marry? The Qur'an forbids believers to marry idolatrous women [Sura 2:221], and calls Christians idolaters and unbelievers [9:28-33], but still allows Muslims to marry Christian women [5:5].
Will it be accepted of them or not?
Will Allah reward the good deeds of Unbelievers? S. 9:17 and 9:69 clearly say no. However, S. 99:7 implies yes. Moreover, S. 2:62 promises Christians reward for their good deeds. But S. 9:28-33; 5:17, 72-73 calls Christians idolaters, and S. 9:17 is very clear that idolaters will have no reward.
Should Muslims Accept Peace or Not?
Can They Disbelieve in the Last Day and be Safe?
How many mothers does a Muslim have? Only one [58:2, the woman who gave birth and none else], or two [4:23, including the mother who nursed him], or at least ten [33:6]?
And it just doesn't add up: Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 state the Qur'anic inheritance law. When a man dies, and is leaving behind three daughters, his two parents and his wife, they will receive the respective shares of 2/3 for the 3 daughters together, 1/3 for the parents together [both according to verse 4:11] and 1/8 for the wife [4:12] which adds up to more than the available estate. A second example: A man leaves only his mother, his wife and two sisters, then they receive 1/3 [mother, 4:11], 1/4 [wife, 4:12] and 2/3 [the two sisters, 4:176], which again adds up to 15/12 of the available property.
How many angels were talking to Mary? When the Qur'an speaks about the announciation of the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary, Sura 3:42,45 speaks about (several) angels while it is only one in Sura 19:17-21.
Further numerical discrepancies Does Allah's day equal to 1,000 human years (Sura 22:47, 32:5) or 50,000 human years (Sura 70:4)? --- According to Sura 56:7 there will be THREE distinct groups of people at the Last Judgement, but 90:18-19, 99:6-8, etc. mention only TWO groups. --- There are conflicting views on who takes the souls at death: THE Angel of Death [32:11], THE angels (plural) [47:27] but also "It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death." [39:42] Angels have 2, 3, or 4 pairs of wings [35:1]; but Gabriel had 600 wings. [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455]
How many days did Allah need to destroy the people of Aad? One day [54:19] or several days [41:16; 69:6,7]
Six or eight days of creation? Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. But in 41:9-12 the detailed description of the creation procedure adds up to eight days.
Quick or Slow Creation? Allah creates the heavens and the earth in six days [7:54] and many Muslims want to be modern and scientific, and make that six eons, but then again, He creates instantaneously [2:117], "Be! And it is".
Heavens or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven [2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30].
Calling together or ripping apart? In the process of creation heaven and earth were first apart and are called to come together [41:11], while 21:30 states that they were originally one piece and then ripped apart.
What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]
Fully Detailed Or Incomplete? The Qur'an claims for itself to be (fully) detailed, that nothing is left out of the book [6:38, 6:114, 12:111, 16:89 etc.]. However there are plenty of important issues which are left unclear in the Qur'an. This article discusses the confusion found in the quranic statements on wine.
Worshiping the Same or a Different God? Muhammad is commanded to speak to the disbelievers: ... nor do you worship what I worship [109:3]. However, other verses in the Qur'an state clearly that those disbelieving his message are in fact worshiping the same God, Allah.
To Intercede or Not To Intercede? - That is the Question! The Qur'an makes contradictory statements whether on the Day of Judgment intercession will be possible. No: [2:122-123, 254; 6:51; 82:18-19; etc.]. Yes: [20:109; 34:23; 43:86; 53:26; etc.]. Each position can be further supported by ahadith.
Where is Allah and his throne? Allah is nearer than the jugular vein [50:16], but he is also on the throne [57:4] which is upon the water [11:7], and at the same time so far away, that it takes between 1,000 and 50,000 years to reach him [32:5, 70:4].
The origin of calamity? Is the evil in our life from Satan [38:41], Ourselves [4:79], or Allah [4:78]?
How merciful is Allah's mercy? He has prescribed mercy for himself [6:12], yet he does not guide some, even though he could [6:35, 14:4].
Does Allah command to do evil? No [7:28, 16:90]. Yes [17:16, ]. Two examples are also given, where Allah clearly commanded or permitted indecent actions [2:229-230, 2:187].
Should Muhammad Get Paid Or Shouldn’t He?
Will there be inquiry in Paradise? "neither will they question one another" [23:101] but nevertheless they will be "engaging in mutual inquiry" [52:25], "and they will ... question one another" [37:27].
Are angels protectors? "NO protector besides Allah" [2:107, 29:22]. But in Sura 41:31 the angels themselves say: "We are your protectors in this life and the Hereafter." And also in other suras is their role described as guarding [13:11, 50:17-18] and protecting [82:10].
Is Allah the only Wali? On the one hand, Allah is supposedly the only wali (protector, helper, friend) [9:116, 17:111, 32:4, 42:28], on the other hand, the messenger and the believers are walis [5:55, 9:71], Allah has walis [10:62], and he raises walis [4:75].
Are all obedient and prostrating to Allah? That is the claim in 16:49 and 30:26, but dozens of verses speak of the proud disobedience of Satan [7:11, 15:28-31, 17:61, 20:116, 38:71-74, 18:50] as well of many different human beings who reject His commands and His revelations.
Does Allah forgive shirk? Shirk is considered the worst of all sins, but the author of the Qur'an seems unable to decide if Allah will ever forgive it or not. No [4:48, 116], Yes [4:153, 25:68-71]. Abraham committed this sin of polytheism as he takes moon, sun, stars to be his Lord [6:76-78], yet Muslims believe that all prophets are without any sin.
The event of worship of the golden calf: The Israelites repented about worshipping the golden calf BEFORE Moses returned from the mountain [7:149], yet they refused to repent but rather continued to worship the calf until Moses came back [20:91]. Does Aaron share in their guilt? No [20:85-90], yes [20:92, 7:151].
Was Jonah cast on the desert shore or was he not? "Then We cast him on a desert shore while he was sick" [37:145] "Had not Grace from his Lord reached him, he would indeed have been cast off on the naked shore while he was reprobate." [68:49]
Moses and the Injil? Jesus is born more than 1,000 years after Moses, but in 7:157 Allah speaks to Moses about what is written in the Injil [the book given to Jesus].
Can slander of chaste women be forgiven? Yes [24:5], No [24:23].
How do we receive the record on Judgment Day? On Judgement day the lost people are given the Record (of their bad deeds): Behind their back [84:10], or in their left hand [69:25].
Can angels disobey? No angel is arrogant, they all obey Allah [16:49-50], but: "And behold, we said to the ANGELS: 'Bow down to Adam'. And THEY bowed down, EXCEPT Iblis. He refused and was haughty." [2:34].
Is Satan an angel or a jinn?
Three contradictions in 2:97 and 16:101-103 Who brings the revelation from Allah to Muhammad? The ANGEL Gabriel [2:97], or the Holy Spirit [16:102]? The new revelation confirms the old [2:97] or substitutes it [16:101]? The Qur'an is PURE Arabic [16:103] but there are numerous foreign, non-Arabic words in it.
Do not say, "Three"!? It is impossible to recite Sura 4:171 without transgressing the command contained in it.
The infinite loop problem Sura 26:192,195,196: "It (the Qur'an) is indeed a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds, ... in clear Arabic speech and indeed IT (the Qur'an) is in the writings of the earlier (prophets)." Now, the 'earlier writings' are the Torah and the Injil for example, written in Hebrew and Greek. HOW can an ARABIC Qur'an be contained in books of other languages? Furthermore, it would have to contain this very passage of the Qur'an since the Qur'an is properly contained in them. Hence these earlier writings have to be contained in yet other earlier writings and we are in an infinite loop, which is absurd.
Is the Torah like the Qur'an, or is it not? The Muslim claim of the corruption of the Bible leads to a contradiction between S. 2:24 and 17:88 on the one hand, and 28:49 and 46:10 on the other.
Should Jews and Christians follow the Bible or the Quran?
"An old woman" and God's character About the story of Lot: "So we delivered him and his family, - all exept an old woman who lingered behind." [Sura 26:170-171] And again: "But we saved him and his family, exept his wife: she was of those who lagged behind. [Sura 7:83]. Either this is a contradiction or if indeed Lot's wife is derogatorily called "an old woman" then this does not show much respect for her as a wife of a prophet.
More problems with the story of Lot "And his people gave NO answer but this: They said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!" [Sura 7:82 & 27:56]. Yet: "But his people gave NO answer but this: They said: "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth." [Sura 29:29]. Obviously these answers are different.
The "pleasure" of Allah? Is God's action of punishment or mercy and guidance or misguidance arbitrary?
Did Abraham smash the idols? The accounts of Abraham, Suras 19:41-49, 6:74-83 differ quite a bit from Sura 21:51-59. While in Sura 21 Abraham confronts his people strongly, and even destroys the idols, in Sura 19 Abraham shuts up after his father threatens him to stone him for speaking out against the idols. And he seems not only to become silent, but even to leave the area ("turning away from them all").
What about Noah's son? According to Sura 21:76, Noah and his family is saved from the flood, and Sura 37:77 confirms that his seed survived. But Sura 11:42-43 reports that Noah's son drowns.
Was Noah driven out? "Before them *the people of Noah* rejected (their messenger): They rejected Our servant and said, 'Here is One possessed!' And he was driven out." [Sura 54:9] Now, if he is driven out [expelled from their country] how come they can scoff at him while he is building the ark since we read "Forthwith he (starts) constructing the Ark: Every time that the Chiefs of *his people* passed by him, they threw ridicule on him." [Sura 11:38] He cannot be both: Driven out and near enough that they can regularly pass by.
Pharaoh's Magicians: Muslims or Rejectors of Faith? Did the Magicians of Pharaoh, Egyptians, become believers in the God of Moses [7:103-126; 20:56-73; S. 26:29-51] or did only Israelites believe in Moses [10:83]?
Pharaoh's repentance in the face of death? According to Sura 10:90-92, Pharaoh repented "in the sight of death" and was saved. But Sura 4:18 says that such a thing can't happen.
Abrogation? "The words of the Lord are perfect in truth and justice; there is NONE who can change His words." [Sura 6:115] Also see 6:34 and 10:64. But then Allah (Muhammad?) sees the need to exchange some of them for "better ones" [Sura 2:106, 16:101]. And it is not for ignorant people to question Allah because of such practices!
Guiding to truth? "Say: 'God - He guides to the truth; and which is worthier to be followed ...?" [Sura 10:35] But how much is left over of this worthiness when we also read: "Allah leads astray whom he pleases, and he guides whom He pleases, ..." [Sura 14:4]. And how do we know in which of Allah's categories of pleasure we fall? How sure can a Muslim be that he is one of those guided right and not one of those led astray?
What is the punishment for adultery? Flogging with a 100 stripes (men and women) [24:2], "confine them to houses until death do claim them (lifelong house arrest - for the women) [4:15]. For men: "If they repent and amend, leave them alone" [4:16]. 24:2 contradicts both the procedure for women and men in Sura 4. And why is the punishment for women and men equal in Sura 24 but different in Sura 4?
Who suffers the consequence of sins? The Qur'an declares that everyone will be held responsible only for his own sins [S. 17:13-15, 53:38-42]. Yet, the Qur'an accuses the Jews of Muhammad's day for the sins committed some 2000 years earlier by other Jews, e.g. worshipping the Golden Calf idol.
Will Christians enter Paradise or go to Hell? Sura 2:62 and 5:69 say "Yes", Sura 5:72 (just 3 verses later) and 3:85 say "No".
God alone or also men? Clear or incomprehensible? The Qur'an is "clear Arabic speech." [16:103] Yet "NONE knows its interpretation, save only Allah." [3:7]. Actually, "men of understanding do grasp it." [3:7]
Was Pharaoh Drowned or Saved when chasing Moses and the Israelites? Saved [10:92], drowned [28:40, 17:103, 43:55].
When Commanded Pharaoh the Killing of the Sons? When Moses was a Prophet and spoke God's truth to Pharaoh [40:23-25] or when he was still an infant [20:38-39]?
When/how are the fates determined? "The night of power is better than a thousand months. The angels and spirit descend therein, by the permission of their Lord, with all decrees." [97:3,4] "Lo! We revealed it on a blessed night." [44:3] To Muslims, the "Night of Power" is a blessed night on which fates are settled and on which everything relating to life, death, etc., which occurs throughout the year is decreed. It is said to be the night on which Allah's decrees for the year are brought down to the earthly plane. In other words, matters of creation are decreed a year at a time. Contradicting this, Sura 57:22 says, "No affliction befalls in the earth or in your selves, but it is in a Book before we create it." This means it is written in the Preserved Tablet, being totally fixed in Allah's knowledge before anyone was created. All of the above is contradicted by "And every man's fate We have fastened to his own neck." This says that man alone is responsible for what he does and what happens to him. [17:13]
Wine: Good or bad? Strong drink and ... are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. [5:90, also 2:219]. Yet on the other hand in Paradise are rivers of wine [47:15, also 83:22,25]. How does Satan's handiwork get into Paradise?
Good News of Painful Torture? Obviously, announcing torment and suffering to anyone is bad news, not good news. However, the Qur'an announces the good news of painful torment [3:21, 4:138, 9:3, 9:34, 31:7, 45:8, and 84:24].
Jinns and men created for worship or for Hell? Created only to serve God [Sura 51:56], many of them made for Hell [Sura 7:179].
Will all Muslims go to Hell? According to Sura 19:71 every Muslim will go to Hell (for at least some time), while another passage states that those who die in Jihad will go to Paradise immediately.
Will Allah disgrace Muslims? On the day of judgment Allah will not humiliate or disgrace the Prophet and those who believe in him [S. 66:8]. However, 19:71 says that everyone will enter Hell, and 3:192 states that whomsoever Allah sends to Hell, is disgraced thereby.
Will Jesus burn in Hell? Jesus is raised to Allah, [Sura 4:158], near stationed with him [Sura 3:45], worshiped by millions of Christians, yet Sura 21:98 says, that all that are worshiped by men besides Allah will burn in Hell together with those who worship them.
Is Jesus God or Not? In Sura 16:17, 20-21 and S. 25:3 we find a criterion to distinguish the true God from false gods. Yet, according to S. 3:49, 55, 4:157-158, 5:110, 6:2, and 38:71-72 Jesus satisfies the definition and should be considered true Deity.
Can there be a son without a consort? Allah cannot have a son without a consort [Sura 6:101], but Mary can have a son without a consort because that is easy for Allah [Sura 19:21].
Who is the father of Jesus? A more involved argument that is difficult to summarize in one sentence.
Begetting and Self-sufficiency A self-contradiction on account of confused terminology.
Could Allah have a son? Sura 39:4 affirms and Sura 6:101 denies this possibility.
Did Jesus Die already? Sura 3:144 states that all messengers died before Muhammad. But 4:158 claims that Jesus was raised to God (alive?).
One Creator or many? The Qur'an uses twice the phrase that Allah is "the best of creators" [23:14, 37:125]. What other creators are in mind? On the other hand, many verses make clear that Allah alone is "the creator of all things" [e.g. 39:62]. There is nothing left for others to be a creator of.
From among all nations or from Abraham's seed? Sura 29:27 states that all prophets came Abraham's seed. But 16:36 claims that Allah raised messengers from among every people.
Marrying the wives of adopted sons? It is important that Muslims can marry the divorced wives of adopted sons [Sura 33:37], yet it is forbidden to adopt sons [Sura 33:4-5].
Messengers were never sent to other than their own people? So it is claimed in Sura 14:4 and 30:47. However, the Bible and the Qur'an, and the Muslim traditions confirm that Jonah was sent to a different nation.
Messengers Amongst the Jinns and Angels? Allah sent only men as messengers [Suras 12:109, 21:7-8, 25:20-21] but there seemingly are messengers from Jinns and Angels [6:130; 11:69,77; 22:75; etc., see article for details].
Do all of God's messengers eat food?
A Messenger from among the beasts? Allah sent only men as messengers [Suras 12:109, 21:7-8, 25:20-21]. Yet, the Qur'an also speaks about a beast that is a messenger from Allah to men [S. 27:82].
Another eleven contradictions...
இவை http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Contra/ என்ற இணைய தளத்திலிருந்து நான் எடுத்தவை. மேலும் விவரங்களுக்கு நீங்கள் அங்கு பார்க்கலாம். ஒருவேளை, துபாயில் தடை செய்யப்பட்டிருக்குமோ என்பதால் இங்கே மீண்டும் அவற்றை காட்டியிருக்கிறேன்.
நேரான பதில் வருமா?
ஏமாறாதவன் மற்றவர்களை ஏமாற்றாதவனாகவும் இருப்பது நல்லது.
கேள்வியே இவ்வளவு பெரிதாக இருந்தால்.....
பதில் எழுதுவதால் (இது எனக்கு முழுநேரப் பணியில்லை) நானும்
கேட்டதால் (ஒரு வேளை) நீங்களும் படிக்க முடியும். வேறு யாருக்காவது உபயோகமா?
நிறைய கேள்விகள் இருந்தால் நேருக்கு நேர் சந்தித்து விவாதிப்போம் தெளிவு பெறுவொம். வர இயலாவிட்டால் நீங்கள் இருக்கும் பகுதியில் யார் பதில் சொல்வார்கள் எனத் தெரிந்து சொல்கிறேன்.
அல்லது இரண்டு மூன்றாக கேள்விகளை வைத்தால் விவாதம் சுவாரசியமாக இருக்கும். மற்றவர்களுக்கும் பயன்படும்.
நாங்கள் 'ஒரு தலை பட்சமாக சொல்வதாக' சொல்லும் உங்கள் பார்வை ஒரு தலைபட்சமாக இருக்கிறது.அது உண்மையை உணர மறுக்கிறது என்பது தெரியவில்லை.
நபி முஹம்மதை நீங்கள் ஏற்றுக் கொண்டால் முஸ்லீம். நீங்கள் ஏற்றுக் கொள்ளாததால்தான் கேள்வியே வருகிறது. அதற்கு அவரை 'இறைத்தூதர் என்று சொல்லாதீர்கள்' என்று சொல்லாமல் 'இறைத்தூதர் தவறான கருத்துக்களை சொல்ல மாட்டார் என்று அடிப்படையில் அவரது எந்தெந்த கருத்துகள் தவறானவை என்று சொல்லி மற்றவர்களையும் புரிய வைக்கலாம். உரியவர்களிடம் விளக்கம் பெறலாம். அதுதானே சரியானது.
யாரும் அவரவர்களுடைய கோட்பாட்டை அல்லது புரிதலை மற்றவர்கள் மேல் திணிக்க முயற்சிக்க வேண்டாமே. சொல்வதை சொல்வோம் யாருக்கு இறைவன் நாடியிருக்கிறானோ அத்தகைய புரிபவர்களுக்கு மட்டும் புரியட்டுமே!
மற்றவர்கள் சொல்வதை காப்பியடித்து ஒரு கோட்பாட்டை இகழ்வதை விட்டு விட்டு நேரடியாக முயற்சிப்போம். அப்போது ஏற்படும் சந்தேகங்களை நிவர்த்தி செய்து கொள்வோம். இறைவன் நமக்கு அளித்துள்ள இந்த சிறந்த வாய்ப்பை நல்ல முறையில் பயன்படுத்த முயற்சிப்போமே.
நேராகச் சொன்னால் புரியாதவர்களுக்கு இருக்கவேயிருக்கிறது கேள்வியின் பாணியிலேயே ஆன பதில்.
வாருங்கள் வரவேற்க காத்திருக்கிறோம். நான் மட்டுமில்லை இணையத்தில் உலாவும் அத்தனை முஸ்லீம்களும். இல்லையில்லை உலகிலுள்ள பெரும்பான்மை முஸ்லீம்களும்.
இருந்தாலும் நீங்கள் காப்பி பேஸ்ட் செய்துள்ளவற்றை படித்து ஒவ்வொன்றாக பதிலளிக்க முயற்சிக்கிறேன்.
ஏமாறதவன் என்பவர் கேட்கும் எல்லா கேள்விகளுக்குமான பதில்கள் இந்த இணையத்தளத்தில் இருக்கின்றன.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac3.htm#links
இப்படி காப்பி பேஸ்ட் செய்வதை தவிர்த்து ஏமாறாதவனின் சுயசிந்தனையில் ஏதாவது கேள்விகள் தோன்றினால் அதை கேட்கலாமே!
நன்றி.அபுல் பைஸ்.
ஏமாறாதவன் அவர்களே!, தங்கள் கடைசி பின்னூட்டத்தை நிறுத்தி விட்டேன். வீண் விவாதத்துக்கெல்லாம்
என்னிடம் நேரமில்லை.
உங்களிடம் நேரமிருந்தால் அபுல் பைஸ் கொடுத்த சுட்டிக்கு சென்று பார்த்து விட்டு கேள்வியில் ஏதும் பாக்கியிருந்தால் ஓரிரண்டாக கேளுங்கள். விளக்க முயற்சிப்போம்.
கேள்வி கேட்பவர்களுக்கு அறிய வேண்டிய ஆர்வம் வேண்டும். யாரையாவது தூற்றுவதுதான் நோக்கமென்றால்... அதற்கெல்லாம் எதுவும் செய்ய முடியாது.
நன்றி இறையடியான். தங்களது கடைசி பின்னூட்டமும் நிறுத்தி விடுகிறேன். நாம் கூறுவது போல சுயமாக சிந்தித்து கேள்விகள் கேட்கட்டும். தெளிவான பதிலை நிறைவாகத் தருவொம். நீங்கள் வருந்தமாட்டீர்கள் என நம்புகிறேன்.
அறிந்து கொள்ள விழைபவர்களுக்கு பதில் சொன்னால் உபயோகமாக இருக்கும். புழுதிவாரி இறைப்பதையே நோக்கமாகக் கொண்டவர்களுக்கு எத்தனை முறை திரும்பத் திரும்ப பதில் கூறினாலும் புரியவா போகிறது.
Post a Comment