How we approach the Quran determines what we see there.
Categories: Quran
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
How we approach the Quran determines what we see there.
Categories: Quran
Blogging Theology 
I had heard a lot about this Hamza Yusuf guy, but the more I hear him speak, the more I wonder why he is held in such high regard.
He loses me right at the very beginning – no one knows what the beginning of the quran means, but it means something, therefore it proves the quran because it shows that there is “someone” who knows “more”?
This is one of the greatest proofs of the quran? Come on, you can’t really believe this stuff?
LikeLike
Dude you are one of those whose hearts is closed to the Quran. Argumentation will avail nothing
LikeLiked by 1 person
John John thinks he is wise, but those of us who have conversed with him know better.
LikeLike
Paul
I think that argumentation would avail me no end – if it was good argument. I am not sure what it means to have one’s heart closed to the quran, but I would agree that intellectually I find the book unpersuasive.
Hamza’s reasoning is circular. What rational person could possibly agree with what he said?
LikeLike
If a mans heart is closed to spiritual truth then argumentation is useless.
This is faith 101.
LikeLike
Paul
Well I think that if an argument was persuasive then it would persuade.
LikeLike
That is not how the human being works. We believe what we want to believe.
You are hostile to faith so you will not find arguments to the contrary convincing. And likewise I find atheist arguments unconvincing
LikeLike
“Well I think that if an argument was persuasive then it would persuade.”
Come on, you can’t really believe this stuff?
LikeLike
Paul
“That is not how the human being works. We believe what we want to believe.
You are hostile to faith so you will not find arguments to the contrary convincing. And likewise I find atheist arguments unconvincing”
I’m hostile to beliefs that could lead to me getting blown to smithereens so if I’m going to die in the name of your holy book, then at least have the decency to give me a persuasive argument in its favour.
As for Hamza – I see absolutely no rational basis for his presumption that his inability to understand the opening letters of his book implies divine origin. That is just so absurd that there may not have even come up with a name for that particular logical fallacy.
Burhanuddin1
“Come on, you can’t really believe this stuff?”
Yes, I do.
LikeLike
In your heart John do you believe in God or not?
LikeLike
Paul
My heart is incapable of forming thoughts and beliefs systems – as is yours.
But I don’t think that the chambers of my heart are important here – I think that you are copping out a bit. Hamza’s argument is that the incomprehensibility of the beginning of your book is one of the greatest proofs of its divine origin – he is making the claim and I presume you agree with him. You have the burden of proving your case – trying to claim some kind of deficiency on my part because Hamza made a poor argument is not persuasive.
I think you can surmise my position on the issue based on my interactions with your commenting crew.
LikeLike
I disagree. Our hearts have their reasons which predispose us to certain views – which come afterwards.
LikeLike
Paul
Can you point to some evidence that your heart is a center of consciousness that can form opinions and make decisions or form emotions?
I think that you are saying that Hamza’s argument doesn’t make sense to you either but you have to believe it for no other reason than it supports your worldview.
LikeLike
yes there are recent scientific studies that suggest the heart has its own intelligence independent of the brain’s intelligence.
LikeLike
Really useful video to pass on to our non-Muslim friends who are beginning to read the Quran.
LikeLiked by 1 person
says a man with a heart open to spiritual truth..
LikeLike
Paul
Hamza’s argument was that the first three letters of the quran are incomprehensible therefore the quran is truly of divine origin. It’s not a spiritual issue – it is a problem of logic, reason and perhaps even intelligence.
Hamza’s argument goes beyond silly and is simply dumb – the kind of argument that you expect of an “expert” who may not be used to having his authority challenged and doesn’t need to put too much effort into his thinking because his listeners won’t call him on his appalling reasoning since they are conditioned to follow the scholars uncritically because they cannot read the scriptures for themselves in the arabic dialect that seems so hard to translate.
If spiritual truth requires us to dumb ourselves down so much that we have to accept the kind of rubbish reasoning on display in this video, then I might argue that what you call spiritual truth may, in fact, be little more than gullibility.
LikeLike
John
Frankly I am not interested in having a debate with you. You have proven to have an aggressive anti-religious agenda, laced with contempt and arrogance.
I have better things to do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Johnnie, you are in no position to talk about “rubbish reasoning” and “dumb[ing] ourselves down”. We have already seen the limits of your “reason” as well as multiple examples of you dumbing yourself down.
The video make some valid points which are confirmed in your own pathetic responses. A person as ignorant as you, if he ever bothers to even pick up a Quran, will go in from the beginning with this own idiotic prejudices. We’ve seen that in your laughable posts about Islam.
Now, regarding the letters that some chapters of the Quran begin with, I think what Hamza Yusuf said makes perfect spiritual sense. You completely missed the main point, which is that the Quran is teaching the reader that he/she does not know everything. We know this to be true, certainly with a person like you. LOL!
Moreover, if we think about it, if the Quran was not divine, but was rather the work of human hands, then why would the author deliberately put mysterious letters at the beginning of a chapter, if it would only serve to confuse the reader or make him/her question the relevance of these letters? We would probably expect a human author to make the text as clear to his target audience as possible, without any mysteries. To do otherwise would be to risk alienating his target audience.
LikeLike
Brother Paul, you can leave that to me! 😉
LikeLike
of course! Brother Faiz.
by the way Mr Williams any link on the research about the heart you mentioned earlier?
LikeLike
of course:
book written by Dr Gohar Mushtaq (PhD in biochemistry):
The Intelligent Heart, the Pure Heart: An Insight into the Heart Based on the Qur’an, Sunnah and Modern Science
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Intelligent-Heart-Pure-Insight/dp/1842000756
LikeLike
Faiz
“You completely missed the main point, which is that the Quran is teaching the reader that he/she does not know everything. We know this to be true, certainly with a person like you. LOL!”
Actually, I know that I don’t know everything – you are projecting your claims to have “special” silly truths onto me. My concern is that Hamza admits that he has no idea what on earth your god was trying to say with these three letters, but he knows what they are there for? That sounds like the kind of nonsense only the gullible would believe.
“Moreover, if we think about it, if the Quran was not divine, but was rather the work of human hands, then why would the author deliberately put mysterious letters at the beginning of a chapter, if it would only serve to confuse the reader or make him/her question the relevance of these letters?”
Is this another one of your questions that you won’t like my answer to and then claim I never answered it at all? If we truly think about it, Hamza has made an appallingly bad argument – one that most rational people would have been embarrassed to utter.
What’s mysterious about these letters? They have no meaning and are probably irrelevant and not some great superstitious revelation to remind us of something that most of us already know. Talk about expectation leading to disappointment!
There are several texts and writing systems from the past that are incomprehensible to us – it means that people wrote things in the past that we no longer understand. Your “mystery” might just be a form of expression that was forgotten over time and its meaning lost. No need for bad reasoning and appeals to divine mystery.
“We would probably expect a human author to make the text as clear to his target audience as possible, without any mysteries. ”
Oh. Bloody. Dear! Did you really just say this?
Doesn’t your god claim to have made his words clear so all could understand? Have you even read the quran? A human author might hope to appeal to gullible, superstitious people by making his work as esoteric and difficult to understand as possible such that only a handful of expert scholars can figure out what it means and talk down to the flock about it.
LikeLike
John John,
You missed the point again! Surely, you don’t think that a couple of LETTERS would make any difference regarding the meaning of WORDS in the rest of the Quran? Oh. Bloody. Dear! Did you really just say this?
LOL. You asked me if I have “even read the Quran”! Really, little John? What do you think?
Yes, I have read the Quran multiple times. I have also read different translations as well as multiple commentaries. How about you? Have you actually read the Quran rather than doing Google searches on it? I think I know the answer. 😉
There is nothing “esoteric and difficult to understand” about the Quran, besides a few letters and some references to the supernatural. Other than that, it provides clear guidelines on what is expected of a Muslim. That is its main purpose, which buffoons like you seem to be unable to pick up on.
So, once again, you failed to answer the question but rather tried to move the goal post. How typical. You seem to think that as long as you provide some asinine answer to a question, that question is answered and we should move on. Sorry, Johnnie! If your answer makes no sense or is devoid of any logic, then I will keep asking it until you give me a satisfactory answer. Don’t blame me for the utter foolishness in your answers! A foolish response will be rejected and the question will remain.
LikeLike
Faiz
Your response makes absolutely no sense – it must be true!!!!!
“You missed the point again! Surely, you don’t think that a couple of LETTERS would make any difference regarding the meaning of WORDS in the rest of the Quran?”
I said nothing even remotely like that my sadly gullible friend. These letters are incomprehensible but hamza claims to know why they are there despite having no idea what they means. He has no idea what he is talking about.
“LOL. You asked me if I have “even read the Quran”! Really, little John? What do you think?”
I think you are gullible and will believe just about anything that an “authority” in your superstition tells you.
” You seem to think that as long as you provide some asinine answer to a question, that question is answered and we should move on.”
Well of course if a question has been answered then it has been answered – your silly opinion of it doesn’t change that.
I found some recent footage of brother Hamza that you will find compelling…
LikeLike
Faiz
“If your answer makes no sense or is devoid of any logic, then I will keep asking it until you give me a satisfactory answer.”
My answer makes no sense – it must be true!!!!
LikeLike
“Well I think that if an argument was persuasive then it would persuade.”
John, I don’t believe you. You seem way too emotionally overcharged to live up to that standard
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
That’s the spirit – be critical. Now apply that to the nonsense Hamza spouts in the video – the only reasonable conclusion that you can draw is that it doesn’t make sense to claim that incomprehensibility proves divine origin.
LikeLike
John the only reasonable conclusion I draw from you condescending waffle is that you try to present a humongous straw man as “critical thinking”
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
Please explain. What straw man are you talking about? Hamza says clearly that the incomprehensibility of these three letter is some of the best proof for the quran – they don’t make sense, therefore the quran is true. Please outline how that is a straw man.
LikeLike
“they don’t make sense, therefore the quran is true.” No, he does not say that. Maybe you should pay more attention to what he says.
Btw he goes on to say more things, and your comments actually show that he is right.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
“No, he does not say that. Maybe you should pay more attention to what he says.”
Actually that is what he says. You are simply unable to contradict what he says because he’s an authority and you are not.
LikeLike
John it is not unreasonable to point out our knowledge is limited. He says “You know very little so that is important to remember”.
It is not unreasonable to explain the possible meaning of the Muqattaʿat in that context.
To see them as signs of God in this context is not unreasonable at all.
Hamza clearly says he THINKS this is proof … He is giving his opinion.
You don’t have to agree with him.
But to caricature his opinion and turn it into a “problem of logic, reason and perhaps even intelligence” is not only a straw man. It’s unfair.
LikeLike
Another pathetic response by little John? Are you planning on making your get-away from this conversation too? What’s wrong? The embarrassment becoming too much to handle?
Speaking of “gullibility”, I noticed you didn’t answer my question whether you have read the Quran. What a shock! Yet ANOTHER question little John is unable to answer or is too embarrassed to answer…Of course, I suspect I know the answer. Your…ahem…”research” about Islam comes from Google searches of anti-Islamic websites which you believe due to your GULLIBILITY! Hmm, IRONY!!!
By the way, thank you for proving what an idiot you really are! A nonsensical answer to a question is not an answer. Picture this scenario:
Man: Hi.
Little John: Hello.
Man: What’s your name?
Little John: Yes.
Man: …OK…bye?
Now even though you “answered” the question, you didn’t actually answer the question, did you? Unfortunately, these are the kinds of “answers” you have given in your pathetic stint on this blog. It’s wonder you have run away from other conversations. I can think of no better response to most of your.,.cough…”answers” than this:
😉
LikeLike
The mysterious initials leading 29 surahs out of 114 surahs….thus more than a quarter of all surahs may refer to multiple issues but the most conforming to data is the miraculous 19 that is explicitly, emphatically, and repeatedly mentioned in Surah 74, verses 30-31.
But most Muslim scholars through the baby out with the bathwater when the discover of this miracle, Rashad Khalifa, got a big head and declared himself a prophet.
Regardless of Khalifa’s misguidance, most Muslims scholars fail to carefully look at the data at hand…and unfortunately are not skilled in technical knowledge such as statistics.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
“John it is not unreasonable to point out our knowledge is limited. He says “You know very little so that is important to remember”.
It is not unreasonable to explain the possible meaning of the Muqattaʿat in that context.
To see them as signs of God in this context is not unreasonable at all.”
It really is unreasonable to see nonsensical letter arrangements as signs of god. As I pointed out to the especially gullible Faiz, there are plenty of ancient texts and inscriptions that we may never know the meanings of – should we presume that these too are “signs of god”? We don’t know what they means but anybody can make up some cock and bull story about why they exist – for example some people might have the bizarre opinion that these ancient texts are relics left behind by aliens.
Hamza’s thinking on the subject has as much logical weight as ancient alien theorists who believe that anything we can’t understand from the past must have been the work of advanced aliens. Given this ancient alien theory context, why shouldn’t we presume that aliens inserted these non-sensical letters into the quran to teach people not to listen to superstition? Maybe they wanted to remind us that if the first letters of some chapters in a holy book are incomprehensible and nonsensical, then what might that tell us about the rest of the book? Or maybe they just did it for the LOLZ?
The context that you find reasonable goes like this; Hamza admits that he has no idea what these letters mean, but he thinks he knows why they are there. He has no evidence for this conclusion, just the presumption that the quran is true therefore these nonsensical letters must have meaning. That is circular and you guys allow your experts to do this nonsense without calling them on it. It makes you all look really silly.
“Hamza clearly says he THINKS this is proof … He is giving his opinion.
You don’t have to agree with him.
But to caricature his opinion and turn it into a “problem of logic, reason and perhaps even intelligence” is not only a straw man. It’s unfair.”
What isn’t fair is that muslims have to dumb themselves down and not challenge experts who make embarrassingly bad arguments to prove their religion is true. Hamza’s “opinion”, and “thoughts” on the subject are simply nonsense.
And surely you cannot be saying that Hamza offered his thoughts and opinions without regard to logic, reason and intelligence? If you think that then you agree with me – Hamza’s point fails on all three levels.
Faiz
“Speaking of “gullibility”, I noticed you didn’t answer my question whether you have read the Quran.”
What does gullibility have to do with answering your cultish questioning? And what do my points on this article have to do with whether I have read the quran or not? One need not have read the quran to notice Hamza’s catastrophically bad reasoning – that is obvious regardless of the superstition contained within the book he discusses.
“Now even though you “answered” the question, you didn’t actually answer the question, did you?”
Your cultish double-think will make your scholars proud. They have taught you well – don’t challenge their logical inadequacies and you too get to sound like an ancient alien theorist. What a deal!!!
But seriously, have you read your holy book and if you don’t understand classical arabic, how do you know what is in your particular translation is true?
LikeLike
LOL Johnnie…Did you not read my response? I asked whether you read the Quran or not. I said that I suspected that I knew the answer and that as a GULLIBLE moron, you have simply done your “research” by Googling anti-Islamic websites. I’m right, am I not? 😉
So answer my question, you cultish moron. Have you read the Quran?
I see you didn’t refute my point about not answering the question. Instead, in typical fashion, you talk babble nonsense. What a deal!!!
Speaking of cultish repetition, you want to know again whether I have read the Quran? I already answered that question, silly boy. I said that I have read the Quran multiple times and I have read different translations. Obviously, if there was any doubt as to what the “classical Arabic” (whatever that means) is saying, reading multiple translations will clear up them up.
Now, if you could answer my questions…there is a laundry list of them! LOL!
LikeLike
Faiz
“So answer my question, you cultish moron. Have you read the Quran?”
You just don’t get it, my gullible friend. There’s no point in any of us who don’t comprehend classical arabic – that includes you – in reading the quran. None of us have any idea that what is contained within our particular translation is what is actually written in the original. No doubt anyone who has doubts or questions will be told by apologists, that such problems disappear when you read the original classical arabic versions. Sadly, some of the oldest quranic texts actually have thousands of textual differences not found in modern versions.
That is why gullible folks like yourself have to ignore the obvious nonsensical logic of your experts and defend their absurd arguments – they are the keepers of the knowledge who tell you what to think.
Hamza’s reasoning is on the same level as ancient alien theorists and even South park’s Chewbacca defense makes more sense.
And your cursing is not a good advert for your god – does he bless those who curse like you? What do your experts tell you to think about it?
LikeLike
Little John said:
“You just don’t get it, my gullible friend. There’s no point in any of us who don’t comprehend classical arabic – that includes you – in reading the quran. None of us have any idea that what is contained within our particular translation is what is actually written in the original. No doubt anyone who has doubts or questions will be told by apologists, that such problems disappear when you read the original classical arabic versions. Sadly, some of the oldest quranic texts actually have thousands of textual differences not found in modern versions.”
LOL, it’s hard to believe that someone can be so willfully ignorant and not see the irony of his own statements! Case in point: you claim that “some of the oldest Quranic texts actually have thousands of textual differences not found in modern versions”, yet you also claimed that “there’s no point in any of us who don’t comprehend classical Arabic…in reading the Quran”! Me thinks I see an inconsistency! How do you know that there are “thousands of textual differences”, yet admit that “there’s no point…in reading the Quran” since you don’t know “classical” Arabic? Hmmm…
What’s even more hilarious is that you have, on occasion, tried to quote (or MISquote, to be more precise) the Quran when peddling your Google-inspired rants about it. Hmmm…IRONY!
Irregardless of your fallacious claims, the fact is that the Quran has been translated by many scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim, and it is not at all that difficult to see what the “classical” Arabic says because these translations are all pretty consistent. Someone who actually spends the time to do research – which excludes you – would have no trouble “comprehending classical Arabic”. You seem to be trying to excuse your own laziness. Nice try, but it won’t work!
P.S.
We find more examples of irony from you little John. For a guy who has cursed profusely, using such colorful words as “d***s”, and “bulls**t”, to be pointing to someone else’s “cursing” is pretty ironic! In any case, calling you a “moron” or “idiot” is not the same as referring to people’s “d***s”. A “moron”, i.e. YOU, is simply a very stupid person. We have seen numerous examples of your stupidity. So don’t blame me for telling it like it is. Don’t be a sore lose, little John.
LikeLike
Faiz
“How do you know that there are “thousands of textual differences”, yet admit that “there’s no point…in reading the Quran” since you don’t know “classical” Arabic? Hmmm…”
Your emperor without clothes Hamza Yusuf admits that the classical arabic is different from what is translated and that you must read classical arabic to actually know the “true” meanings. This is echoed by many muslim apologists. Don’t point the finger at me because your experts are inconsistent and change their minds as the need arises.
I know that there are textual differences between your present day qurans and the earliest scriptures because textual differences occur over time when copying – I accept this as a given because people make mistakes or add things to support their beliefs.
You are the guys who believe that magic happened during copying of your holy book and that no mistakes were made. Sorry, but you can’t magically conjure up inconsistency on my part the way you can pull superstitious beliefs out of your behind.
LikeLike
LOL, the contradictions in Little John’s rants are getting more desperate. You have tried to establish that we shouldn’t “blindly” follow the opinions of scholars, yet here you are referring to these same scholars! Hmmm…IRONY!
if you weren’t such a lazy idiot, you would do some research. Start by picking up a book. I recommend Dr. M.M. Al-Azami’s book “The History of The Qur’anic Text: From Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments”.
Regarding “textual differences”, so you just assume that there are differences, without actually doing any research? Thanks again for proving that you are a lazy idiot. It’s one thing to be ignorant because you can’t help it, but quite another to be willfully ignorant!
Textual differences can certainly occur during the process of copying. But these are mostly orthographic mistakes, such as in spelling. That does not change the text. It is mostly these kinds of “differences” that we find in the Quranic manuscripts. Moreover, you forget that Muslims have been memorizing the Quran since the beginning of Islam. Therefore, it stands to reason that any deliberate attempt to change the text would be immediately caught and corrected. In fact, this has been the best defense in protecting the Quran from any changes being made.
What we find is that the earliest manuscripts of the Quran are by and large exactly the same as the Quran we have today. Besides minor spelling mistakes and dialectical differences, there are not any major differences. You would know that if you did some real research, instead of your typical lazy Google research.
LikeLike
Faiz
“Regarding “textual differences”, so you just assume that there are differences, without actually doing any research?”
That’s called a hypothesis derived from previous observation of ancient, man-made documents – it is one of the most significant steps in the scientific process that has given us the ability to discover and extract the oil that existed under the feet of your god experts for centuries without anyone realizing it despite claims that your god is all knowing.
You forget that you are the one claiming a divine revelation – you agree that nonsensical gibberish that begins your book is the greatest proof of its divine origin. To the rest of us, that seems like absolute rubbish superstition. You have a burden to positively prove your claims – and silly arguments like Hamza’s fall way too short.
It is only irrational and unreasonable to listen to experts if their claims are irrational, illogical, or unreasonable. Your expert claims that incomprehensibility is one of the greatest proofs of the quran – logic and past experience teaches us that incomprehensibility in texts usually means that the text is incomprehensible and not the revelation of an all-powerful all-knowing god.
Your experts try to prove that a book containing silly claims of resurrection by steak is god-revealed – mine ask for proof. Given that it is almost certainly untrue that steak can resurrect people, why should I believe that other claims of your god experts – such as there being no meaningful textual differences in your book – are true? Past observation of other ancient texts has shown that texts get changed over time both through simple copying errors and deliberate alteration.
Just abiding by this simple established fact makes my claims rational.
LikeLike
John “It really is unreasonable to see nonsensical letter arrangements as signs of god.”
They are Signs (ayat) of God by definition. Try to get the very basics right before you embarrass yourself
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
“They are Signs (ayat) of God by definition. Try to get the very basics right before you embarrass yourself”
I have the basics right – the basics are that you guys believe something that you have proof for. Just because you decide something is a “sign of god” does not mean it is a sign of god – if you believe this then you exhibit gullibility.
One of your “best proofs for the quran” is an absurd claim that incomprehensibility proves divine origin. I’m not the one who should be embarrassed.
LikeLike
John “Hamza’s “opinion”, and “thoughts” on the subject are simply nonsense.”
It seems you are ignorant of difference between proof and explanation. Try to get the very basics right before you embarrass yourself
LikeLike
John “One of your “best proofs for the quran” is an absurd claim that incomprehensibility proves divine origin.”
Stop repeating this straw man. It’s embarrassing
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
“It seems you are ignorant of difference between proof and explanation. Try to get the very basics right before you embarrass yourself”
This just shows me how much you have to dumb yourself down to hold on to your particular superstition. Hamza himself calls it a “proof” in the video – “one of the greatest proofs” to be precise. Try to get the very basics right before you embarrass yourself.
“Stop repeating this straw man. It’s embarrassing”
Stop repeating words like “strawman” which are associated with systems of thought, reason and logic if you are not going to apply these principles to your beliefs. It’s embarrassing.
Besides, it is an accurate description of Hamza’s statement – your not liking it doesn’t make it a strawman.
LikeLike
Little John said:
“That’s called a hypothesis derived from previous observation of ancient, man-made documents – it is one of the most significant steps in the scientific process that has given us the ability to discover and extract the oil that existed under the feet of your god experts for centuries without anyone realizing it despite claims that your god is all knowing.”
LOL! Little John is trying so hard to act like a “rational” observer, but is obviously very confused about how the scientific method works. And of course, we know that the scientific method was pioneered by a Muslim scientist. You see John, once you make a hypothesis, the next step is to actually test it. You just seem to stop half-way! That’s why I suggested that you pick up a book, you lamebrain! If you were actually not so lazy, you would test your own hypothesis by doing the relevant research. Or are you just afraid that your asinine “hypothesis” will be proven wrong?
Moreover, I frankly doubt that you have done “previous observation of ancient, man-made documents”. LOL! Also, even if these other documents showed the traits you claim can be found in Quranic manuscripts, your “hypothesis” is simply a non sequitur and is just an assumption based on a comparison between different documents. That is why direct research is needed for every individual document, not a lazy all-encompassing theory that applies to all of them. Stop pretending like you are a “rational” person. We’re not impressed with your masquerade. 😉
By the way, did you hear that Dubai is now planning to build an even bigger building than the Burj Khalifa?
LikeLike
John “One of your “best proofs for the quran” is an absurd claim that incomprehensibility proves divine origin.”
This just shows me how much you have to dumb yourself down to deny reality.
LikeLike