Sharif gaber and Quran Much ado about nothing part-5 A

Note: I know that I'm supposed to finish him up with this part, but there is just too much nonsense to respond to that it took 5 parts and even with 5 parts it's not enough, I had to divide part 5 to A and B, B will be the final one where I address his arguments about how Quran was not preserved and his horrible research into the British library manuscript

Now we address sharif Gaber once and for all, this is the final part of my refutation to his video on Quran, and will be my final reply to sharif, as of all the lies and deception that I saw from him shouldn’t be bothered with again, now sharif, as usual, continues with the same gibresh that Quran took stories like the story of the people of the cave

@25:16 sharif state “Or the story of the people of the cave,That's an old story that was mentioned in Greek legends and has many versions with different details,But it's source was probably a Christian under the name of "The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus", In it there were 7 Christian men escaped from an emperor named "Decius" and hid in a cave, But the emperor discovered their place then closed the door of the cave on them, So that they could die inside, Those seven kept praying for Jesus so that he could save them, So Jesus made them sleep for 1 year and then woke them up, That story is not Islamic!,” now let’s address this, who said this story is Islamic? where does Quran state this is exclusive to Islam? infact not a single story mentioned in the Quran, where Quran state this is exclusive to Islam, where are these people coming up with this accusation from? anyways once again sharif uses Wikipedia as his source but let's read it again “The story of the Companions of the Cave is referred to in Surah 18 (verses 9-26).[13] According to Muslim scholars, God revealed these verses because the people of Mecca challenged Muhammad with questions that were passed on to them from the Jews of Medina in an effort to test his authenticity. They asked him about young men who disappeared in the past, about a man who traveled the earth from east to west, Zulqurnain, and about the soul. The story parallels the Christian version, recounting the story of a group of young believers who resisted the pressure from their people and/or king to worship others beside God, and took refuge in a cave, following which they fell asleep for a long time. When they woke up they thought that they had slept for only a day or so, and they sent one of them back to the city to buy food. His use of old silver coins revealed the presence of these youths to the town. Soon after their discovery, the People of the Cave (as the Qur'an calls them) died and the people of their town built a place of worship at the site of their burial (the cave). The Qur'an does not give their exact number. It mentions that some people would say that they were three, others would say five and some would say seven, in addition to one dog, and that they slept for 300 years, plus 9, which could mean 300 solar years or 309 lunar years (300 solar years are equal to 309 lunar years). (Note: A verse after states, "Say: Allah is best aware of how long they tarried. This is the Invisible of the heavens and the earth. How clear of sight is He and keen of hearing! They have no protecting friend beside Him, and He maketh none to share in His government. (26)". The number signifies that the exact amount of time they slept is not something fixed. Rather it is saying that could be 300 plus nine or some unfixed amount of time.)”1 so we see that his own source wikipedia doesn’t even say this is an islamic story, infact they explained that the jews asked muhammad in form of a challenge about three stories (I mentioned this issue before in my response to TMA) where he can bring three stories that only true prophets will know about, the seven sleepers where among these three stories, to summarize this was a test from the jews about muhammad knowledge in their stories and if he was a true prophet he will know about them a section under this wikipedia article also contained in wikipedia the commentary of scholars regarding the location of the cave I have no clue who told him or where he learned that islam and islamic scholars claim this story is an islamic discovery, infact if this was an islamic story originated by muslims, muhammad would not have meet the challenge of the jews, because they asked him about stories already known to them (no one claimed either they were legends or not, all they asked for is did he know about it) if muhammad invented that story the jews will certainly call him out on this and he would fail the challenge since they won’t be aware of the story nowhere does Wikipedia state this is Islamic stories according to Muslim scholars, infact the above section is the entire interpretation of the scholars regarding this, we don’t see anywhere does any of them claim that this is an Islamic story but let us deconstruct his argument here: Premises: 1-the seven sleepers is a legend 2-Quran cites the seven sleepers Conclusion: therefore the Quran is not the word of god now, how did he reach that conclusion? the argument is sound (premises are true) but the conclusion doesn’t follow rendering it invalid argument non sequitur fallacy another issue as noted by Dr.Sami ‘amiri in his video response to that part of Sharif Gaber video, the story of the Quran doesn’t follow all versions of the story, there are versions of the story that involves resurrection, which Quran doesn’t iterate, as stated by sharif own source, Wikipedia the legend is found in Jacobus de Varagine's Golden Legend. the fact that Quran even present it as a historical story should suggest that nowhere does Quran state this is Islamic invention if it was it would happen during the time of Islam and Muslims will be the first to contextualize it there are many differences between the legendary account and Quran, for once the legend as admitted by sharif state there is a door in the cave, Quran doesn’t make such an assumption, the Quranic narrative cites a dog, the legend doesn’t, the Quranic narrative doesn’t mention resurrection, the legend does as the sleepers were presumably dead (the link to the legend article will be provided in the footnote for comparison) that assuming that the story is indeed a legend, not to be confused with the title of the book golden legend, the book is a series hagiographies by Jacobus da Varagine infact Quran already admit the story existed {They will say there were three, the fourth of them being their dog; and they will say there were five, the sixth of them being their dog - guessing at the unseen; and they will say there were seven, and the eighth of them was their dog. Say, [O Muhammad], "My Lord is most knowing of their number. None knows them except a few. So do not argue about them except with an obvious argument and do not inquire about them among [the speculators] from anyone."} 18:22 their number isn’t even mentioned in precise details, the Quran goes far as to state the following {They will say there were three, the fourth of them being their dog; and they will say there were five, the sixth of them being their dog - guessing at the unseen; and they will say there were seven, and the eighth of them was their dog. Say, [O Muhammad], "My Lord is most knowing of their number.”} so we see not even the number is fixed, the Quran simply reference the story, and doesn’t even go far as to say they are seven so let’s compare the legendary version with quranic version2 Quran doesn’t specify any number, the legend says seven quran mentions the dog, the legend doesn’t there is a door in the cave, Quran doesn’t mention door the men in legend died and resurrected, Quran doesn’t say that quran state they remained for 300 years exceeded by 9, the legend state they woke up and lifted the stone after 372 (from their death) the sun rays when facing the direction of the cave in the Quranic version the cavemen move in accordance to avoid it, the legend has the cave barricaded with stones so nothing enters, solar lights aren’t even mentioned and so on @25:51 “Even the story of Youssef which a whole Sura in Quran is named after it, And some believe it's the best story anyone can ever write, That story was mentioned before in the Torah and bible with just a few changes, Meaning it was written before and was written many times, ” here sharif doesn’t even bother to cite a single source, nevertheless, again with the same old statement, “this is not an Islamic story” no one claimed it’s sharif, all Islamic prophets are told originally in the Bible, everyone knows Joseph (Youssef) is a biblical figure, we know this from primary school, Holy cow sharif, you learned this in primary school and now you question it as it was something hidden and new to learn? now I start to doubt that you actually came out first place in your college graduation class as you claimed in your so-called story when you were arrested, I still remember till this day all Islamic stories we were told and I still remember how were learned that all these prophets are biblical figures @26:04 “Or the story of Solomon and the King of Sabaa, The same story was mentioned in a Hebrew book titled "The book of Esther", The same story in the Quran was mentioned there except for a small detail, Instead of the hoopoe that was mentioned in the Quran, The story in the book has a rooster, So it seems whoever translated the book confused the rooster with a Hoopoe” sharif main source this time is the book titled above and Demonizing the Queen of Sheba: Boundaries of Gender and Culture in Postbiblical Judaism and Medieval Islam by Jacob Lassner But first it’s the Queen of Sheba not the king of Sabaa sharif, you can’t even cite your sources correctly and later you will tell us that Quran can’t be understood? the first problem is that this story is not found anywhere in The book of Esther, this story is not even there, where did you get this allegation from? but let’s take a look at his second source the problem here is that sharif so idiotically confused the book of Esther with Targum of Esther. “The targumim (singular: "Targum",) was spoken paraphrases, explanations, and expansions of the Jewish scriptures (also called the Tanakh) that a rabbi would give in the common language of the listeners, which was then often Aramaic. That had become necessary near the end of the 1st century BCE, as the common language was in transition and Hebrew was used for little more than schooling and worship”1 so Targum is basically an insertion and commentary to Jewish scriptures due to the fact that rabies has weakened their connection to Hebrew text, they started translating their scriptures to Aramaic, and from there we get Targums Targums have two types, first and second “The targumim of Psalms, Proverbs, and Job are generally treated as a unit, as is the Targum of the five scrolls (Esther has a longer "Second Targum" as well.) The Targum of Chronicles is quite late, possibly medieval, and is attributed to a Rabbi Joseph.”2 the most embarrassing issue here is that this book was Written after Islam, and is affected by Islam as Dr.Sami ‘amiri stated, good god sharif once again using TMA tactic here? citing a source that Quran actually predate claiming Quran plagiarize it while the opposite is true? “ TARGUM SHENI ( “Second Translation”), a collection of homilies in Aramaic on the Book of Esther (*Scroll of Esther). It is so extensive that despite its name it can hardly be regarded as a translation. Only about 75 of the verses have been translated literally, the remainder being an extensive midrashic paraphrase”3 what you are about to see is the real “irony” Sharif stated before “ Date Te date of the work cannot be determined exactly. Te view of S. Gelbhaus (see bibl.) that it belongs to the amoraic period, in the fourth century, is disproved by the fact that it contains later material. P. Cassel (see bibl.) dates it in the sixth century and explains its mention of Edom to be the rule of Justinian (527–565). However, this view of Edom can also apply to other periods. A basis for dating was also found among the accusations made by Haman: “They come to the synagogue … and curse our king and our ministers.” This statement is regarded as an allusion to the suspicion that Jews combine a curse with the prayer said in the synagogue for the welfare of the kingdom. Since this prayer is thought to have been composed in the eighth century it is conjectured that the Targum Sheni postdates that century. L. Munk (see bibl.) puts its date still later, in the 11t century, but he gives no proof. It seems that the most acceptable view is that which places its composition at the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century, a view that is strengthened by its relationship to the Pirkei de-R. Eliezer. Regarding its relationship to the Targum Rishon, there are features common to both Targums, but there are also many differences, and there are many aggadot in the Targum Rishon not included in the Targum Sheni. Te view of P. Churgin (see bibl.) may be accepted that they are two independent compositions.”4 the Quran borrow from a source written in the eighth or seventh century? at best hundred years after it? these atheists these days, claiming Quran borrows from sources that if investigated turned out that Quran predate it? @26:48 sharif state “-Is the Quran a good book from a literary point of view-, Now let's look at the Quran from a literary point of view, as a normal book, Let's remove all the enticement and intimidation, "You say that the Quran itself is okay to be criticized?!!", "This is blasphemy!", Let's take it as a normal book to be fair while judging it, In fact, the Quran from the literal point of view is a very poor book, For many reasons, like what?, Like the repeated overrated unusual amount of the enticement and intimidation in it, Almost in every page of the book you'll find either.., insults and threatens with death and hell, or promises of different rewards and heaven, Using the enticement and intimidation repeatedly is known to be a helpless way, used by someone who can't convince you to do something, So he has no choice but to threaten or reward you” so let’s break his argument down Premises: 1-the Quran contain poetic styles 2-Quran contain punishment of hell and rewards of paradise Conclusion: therefore Quran is very poor in poetic tone Non sequitur fallacy, the argument is sound, but the conclusion doesn’t follow, therefore the argument is invalid how did he reach from that to this? how is Quranic statements regarding hellfire can be merited as poor poetry infact there are poems specifically made for intimidation and bullying or rewards for example Dreams shocking truth by Houston Hararah honestly I don’t even know why I need to point this out, it’s obvious, you can have beautiful poetry filled with intimidation and warnings that strikes feelings to you, and the same can be said for rewards poetry if sharif is bothering himself with why would Quran use intimidation then if he thinks an idea if it’s correct as he foolishly states in his video about his imprisonment, then he is willfully ignorant about how the world work, every aspect of society works with intimidation, your parents tell you-you will fail if you don’t go to school, you go to jail if you steal, you fail in your school year if you don’t pass the exams, you stand in the wall of the classroom if you are disobedient to your teacher, and so on and so forth, why do i have to explain it? even good ideas come with intimidation, Sharif himself is guilty of this as he advocates for secularism, when he says if Arab countries don’t turn to secularism (as if they aren’t already) and leave religious extremism then they will fall behind, that is intimidation on its own school is based on intimidation, if you don’t pass if you don’t go to college, and so on and so forth claiming “if Islam is correct it doesn’t need intimidation” or “if Quran is the book of god it doesn’t need intimidation” is a willfully and pathetic ignorant comment that doesn’t face the reality of how stubborn human nature is, we apply the rule of intimidation on our life because if we don’t we collapse @27:39 “There's no order in telling events or stories, The Quran, at least compared to the Torah and Bible, Doesn't have an organized order in telling the stories or events, Many stories are mixed together, And you'll always find a cut or a part missing in almost every story in the Quran, For example in Quran 2:221–242. For seventeen straight verses, these passages discuss women, marriage, and divorce, but suddenly verses 238-239 interrupt the discussion to exhort the Muslims to maintain regular prayers, in war times, Then, just as suddenly, the passage returns to the subject of divorce, Those two intervening verses have nothing to do with what came either before or after, And they distract the reader in an unnecessary way, Now apply this to almost every page in the Quran, While reading it you'll always find yourself going from one subject to another and then get back to the first one, And there's no focus on one particular topic, That's not a good way to write that's like collecting parts from other sources and mixing them together., “ So let’s get this argument again Premises: 1-historical events in the Quran are not organized Conclusion: Quran is a poorly made poetic book Again nowhere does Quran state it’s a history book Unlike the bible which is a history book, Quran isn’t, plus the Quran we have today is organized based from large to small suras, not based on chronological order, ordering numbering and naming of Quranic verses/suras is ijtihadi, which means optional, it doesn’t harm nor does it invalidate quranic divinity, there are in total 6236 verses in Quran, with 114 suras, if I combine all verses of Quran of a sura into one verse making total 114 verses of Quran, does this mean 6122 verses of Quran are missing or out of order?order in poetry doesn’t matter what matter is the merit of the text Not to mention quranic verses are revealed based on reasons for revelation, within quranic verses that sharif cited that deals with women, But what is the connection you ask Sheikh altahir bin ‘ashor may god have mercy on his soul stated: The second cure: it’s an afterlife spiritual matter, and that it’s prayer that God prescribed in another verse that it eliminates immorality and bad conduct, so when it’s related to morality god insisted on it5 Meaning prayer is connected to morality which in turn connect it to the rest of the verse @28:36 “More than 90% of the sentences end with assonance, And they're only there to add a tone to the sentences, It's like someone copies and pastes a particular few words with assonance, and then puts them in every sentence he doesn't know how to end.,” So basically you are saying the Quran is throwing any word that matches the assonance at the end of any sentence? Here is the problem sharif, no clear authority was cited regarding the poetic style of Quran, and on top of that there are no proper words that can be used other than these words at the end of the sentences, even so far as if you remove any of them you ended up with a problem, how can you finish the sentence without harming the context and the sounding verses with different weight ? infact Dr.Haithm Tal’at in his response to sharif challenged him from the same screenshot he provided to provide a different word that fit the context of the sentence, for example 68:21 {Fatanadaw musbiheen} {And they called one another at morning,} does it really fit that we replace musbiheen with sarimin? Not only does musbiheen fit perfectly the sentence but also fits the weight and context But what comes next is most ignorant comments regarding the poetic style of Quran, Sharif confuses politics and war with poetry, I was scratching my head trying to find out how did he even connect the two completely different topics and deceive his audience at the same time @28:51 “There's too many unnecessary words and verbiage in the Quran, And if we removed it, neither the Quran will be affected, Nor the lives of those who won't read it will be affected, On the contrary, there are things in the Quran if we removed it.., a lot of negative things in the world will be decreased, Take terrorism as an example, which became a daily thing in our days, Now say "Terrorists don't understand the Quranic texts well", Or say "They don't represent Islam", Say what u want, what's important is that these verses that those terrorists use, to kill the innocent, Doesn't benefit anyone, except for the terrorist himself, That means, removing these violent verses is better than keeping it, It's disadvantaged are way higher than it's advantages, if there's actually any” Wait for what? How did you connect politics and terrorism to poetry sharif? These are two completely different topics, nothing have any connection to the other, never mind let’s address it again as if I didn’t already address the violent passages in my response to TMA regarding killing innocent civilians, the violent passages in Quran exist for self-defense either directly or offensively, but self-defense jihad and offensive jihad are considered defensive, self-defense jihad is for those who directly started attacking you, offensive jihad is to attack those who are oppressing you and your people or making a threat to you by eliminating the threat before it starts, if we remove all violent passages in Quran 50 of them, then the Quran will be a pacifist book, take this scenario, if burglar robs your house, and threaten to rape your wife and daughter and you are Muslim what will you do when you have this pacifist version of Quran? You do nothing because sharif and Quran tell you to do nothing, and the burglar proceed to violate your house and your family because some idiot on youtube who changed Quran tell you not to do anything, the verses of jihad are necessary for any scenario on self-defense, the most offensive verse in Quran 9:5 was already explained by Tabari in my response to the Moroccan infidel, many scholars I cited clearly say including ibn Taymiyyah that fighting is for those who fight us, directly or indirectly, I don’t need to repeat myself, read my response to TMA where I clear up the rule of the violent passages in Quran @29:28 “The Quran is full of unnecessary repetition, Not only in the words, sentences or even the assonance, But also in the stories, For example, the story of the prophet "Lot" was mentioned 8 times, The story of "Noah" was mentioned 11 times, "Ibrahim" was mentioned 69 times "Pharaoh" was mentioned 74 times, "Mosa" was mentioned 136 times and his story was mentioned 7 times, Why?!, What did we gain from you telling us that Mosa turned his stick into a snake, or split the sea into two or made his hand glow, What did we gain?, Especially when these stories are not only not logical, have no evidence to support them, and were repeated many times in the same book, But because they're copied from other legends and religions that came before Islam itself, And even after they were mentioned all these times no one actually benefited from them, And even if there was a small benefit to gain from them, it doesn't deserve to be mentioned that many times, “ Hold a second, so your logic is that if a name is mentioned many many times that is evidence of poor poetry? How ? just how did you reach that conclusion? Who taught you this logic? If I wrote a book of history in 7th-century Arabia and cited Muhammad 112 times, does this mean my book has no benefit nor does it have any merits based on your logic? If I wrote a book about Jesus and mentioned him in the book 50 times does that mean my book has no benefit? On top of that sharif give us no evidence no sources for his claims of repetition Second of all the repetition is not the same, we saw that in Sharif example where he tried to associate Muhammad as Jesus but citing two identical verses, but if we read them completely they do have difference, one verse state if Muhammad died you turn on each other, the other doesn’t, when stories are repeated there is a difference between each other to differentiate, they are not identical copy paste Let's take a look at a lot for example, and how many times God says he saved him (8 times) and let’s see if they are identical to each other 7:83 {So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; she was of those who remained [with the evildoers].} 21:74 {And to Lot We gave judgment and knowledge, and We saved him from the city that was committing wicked deeds. Indeed, they were a people of evil, defiantly disobedient.} 21:71 {And We delivered him and Lot to the land which We had blessed for the worlds.} 26:170 {So We saved him and his family, all,} 27:57 {So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; We destined her to be of those who remained behind.} 29:32 {[Abraham] said, "Indeed, within it is Lot." They said, "We are more knowing of who is within it. We will surely save him and his family, except his wife. She is to be of those who remain behind."} 37:134 {[So mention] when We saved him and his family, all,} 54:34 {Indeed, We sent upon them a storm of stones, except the family of Lot - We saved them before dawn} Does any of the above apart from 37:134 and 26:170 (without counting context) sound identical? No Every time Quran repeat a story it does so with the addition @30:28 “But also in repeating whole topics, Like for example, the prohibition of eating pork. That was repeated 4 times, 2 times of them were typical in words!, Why ?! Why do you have to repeat the same command 4 times ?!, Haven't you say it once? and your message was received? then u don't have to say it again., Didn't the prophet say: "Good brevity makes sense"?, You delivered your message, then u should remove all these repetitions, In short, and like the orientalist Payoneer Theodor Noldeke said:, "Muhammad is not in any sense a master of style". Really? Let’s see the verses 5:3 {Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah, and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.} 6:145 {Say, "I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine - for indeed, it is impure - or it be [that slaughtered in] disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful."} 16:115 {He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit] - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.} 2:173 {He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.} Now the two verses Sharif talked about are 16:115 and 2:173 However, if you read the Arabic text, the English translation especially the simplified Sahih doesn’t suffice let’ see the difference And Notice the difference in the placement of the word بِهِ on 2:173 it’s placed before Allah, and on 16:115 it’s placed after it, which the English translation doesn’t touch (another reason as to why we tell you-you to need to read Quran in Arabic) now one might ask what is the point? Why place it before and after? What signifies the difference? First, let’s see what scholars say about this Let’s see what Tabari said regarding this قيل: وجه تكراره ذلك وإن كان تحريم ذلك إذا مات من الأسباب التي هو بها موصوف6 Translation: It was said: the reason for the repetition the reason for making it forbidden, if it died for other cause other than what it’s described to كرر سبحانه وتعالى ذكر هذه المحرمات في البقرة والمائدة والأنعام والنحل قطعا للأعذار وإزالة للشبهة، ثم ذكر الرخصة في جواز تناولها عند الضرورة.7 Translation: God almighty repeated these forbidden things in Baqara and Maida and An’am and Nahil strictly to cut excuses and remove doubt and mentioned that it’s allowed to eat them when it’s absolutely necessary So repetition was there to enforce the verses to prevent doubt But let’s go back to these two verses The reason why Bihi is placed before Allah in 2:173 the reason as to why it’s before Allah is linguistically it’s there to signify that who ever slaughter one to just eat it without mentioning god then it was dedicated to them other than Allah And the reason to why 16:115 mention it after Allah is that if it was dedicated to something other than Allah, for example, an idol8 So let’s recap the reason why these verses (or any verse for that matter) can be repeated is to make a firm jurisdiction and to remove doubt, and 16:115 address those who will sacrifice a dead meet for anyone other than Allah, and 2:173 address those who will sacrifice it for themselves But let’s read the part by there noldeke, is he looking at Quran from unbias point of view? “characterized by epic repose. Indispensable links, both in expression and in the sequence of events, are often omitted so that to understand these histories is sometimes far easier for us than for those who heard them first because we know most of them from better sources. Along with this, there is a great deal of superfluous verbiage ; and nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration. Contrast, in these respects, "the most beautiful tale/' the history of Joseph (xii.), and its glaring improprieties, with the story in Genesis, so admirably conceived and so admirably executed in spite of some slight discrepancies. Similar faults are found in the non-narrative portions of the Koran. The connection of ideas is extremely loose, and even the syntax betrays great awkwardness. Anacolutha are of frequent occurrence, and cannot be explained as conscious literary devices. Many sentences begin with a " when " or " on the day when," which seems to hover in the air, so that the commentators are driven to supply a " think of this " or some such ellipsis. Again, there is no great literary skill evinced in the frequent and needless harping on the same words and phrases ; in xviii., for example, "till that" (hattd idkti) occurs no fewer than eight times. Mohammed, in short, is not in any sense a master of style. This opinion will be endorsed by any European who reads through the book with an impartial spirit and some knowledge of the language, without taking into account the tiresome effect of its endless iterations. But in the ears of every pious Moslem such a judgment will sound almost as shocking as downright atheism or polytheism. Among the Moslems, the Koran has always been looked on as the most perfect model of style and language. This feature of it is in their dogmatic the greatest of all miracles, the incontestable proof of its divine origin. Such a view on the part of men who knew Arabic infinitely better than the most accomplished European Arabist will ever do, may well “9 So let’s get anacolutha (a sentence or construction in which the expected grammatical sequence is absent, for example, while in the garden, the door banged shut.) First issue thedor provided no example at all, you would think that since he provided an example of hard idkti but we do have examples of it Second, if Muhammad used this word no less than 8 times in the Quran, therefore Muhammad is not a master of style? The conclusion doesn’t follow But his main objection is highlighted above For example, he says “The connection of ideas is extremely loose, and even the syntax betrays great awkwardness” But what example does he have? And what does he mean by awkwardness? The second is that he accused Quran of using lots of anacolutha but provided no example Infact this 306 pages book doesn’t contain a single mention of Anacolutha other than the paragraph above Infact Anacolutha is not a necessarily a grammatical error, Shakespeare uses it even in his plays10 Anacolutha are not strictly and exclusively grammatical errors, they can be errors and they can be used directly Theodor seams to think Quran is not using it directly like how Shakespeare does if that is his argument then where are his evidence? End of Part-5 A ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sleepers#Islamic_interpretation 2. http://siue.edu/~ejoy/TheSevenSleepers.htm#_ftn81 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targum 4. ibid 5. Encyclopaedia Judaica vol.19 page.513 6. Ibid page.514 7. Tahrir wa altanwir vol.2 page.466 8. Tafsir Tabari quran 5:3 9. Fatih Alqadir by Imam Shawkani vol.⅕ page .205 10. http://www.alro7.net/ayaq.php?langg=arabic&aya=115&sourid=16 11. https://archive.org/stream/sketchesfromeast032348mbp/sketchesfromeast032348mbp_djvu.txt 12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacoluthon#Examples