Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 11:40 PM

Blasphemy Case of Junaid...
Today at 04:21 PM

The Cult of Social Justic...
Today at 03:50 PM

The Battle for British Is...
Yesterday at 06:28 PM

Muslim heritage?
Yesterday at 06:04 PM

Scientists and .............
by akay
Yesterday at 06:22 AM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
September 16, 2019, 04:53 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
September 16, 2019, 10:07 AM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
September 15, 2019, 02:53 PM

Kashmir endgame
September 15, 2019, 01:51 PM

Islamic Humanism
September 15, 2019, 12:01 PM

Beard outbreak in Uzbekis...
September 15, 2019, 09:22 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: I am reverting back to Islam

 (Read 10405 times)
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     OP - August 26, 2014, 12:55 PM

    Kafirs, sluts and countrymen. I am announcing my revertioning to Islam following groundbreaking researching by the iERA foundation. I suppose I've been delaying the inevitable and the fact that my whole life has been based upon the 'testimony' of others just shows me that the only testimony I should base my whole weltenschaaungufstehen upon is that of 'laillahaillalahu'. I hope after reading the following masterpiece that others follow suit and refrain from shirk of worshipping CEMB mods, aliens or unicorns. Not to mention the fact that so many scholars are marvelling at the fact that the Qur'an Majid is a a miraculous text is softening to the heart. Only the most stubborn and vile of creatures can resist the Truth.

    I am happy to say that I am leaving the darkness and decadence of CEMB for good.

    http://www.iera.org/research/essays-articles/gods-testimony-inimitability-divine-authorship-quran

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #1 - August 26, 2014, 01:00 PM


    thank you for that link Jedi., It is worth writing some thing on that

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #2 - August 26, 2014, 01:19 PM

    Quote
    To reject the conclusions made in this essay, I would argue is epistemically equivalent in rejecting the roundness of the Earth and the conclusions of qualified medical staff.


    Yes, rejecting that the Quran is the literal word of god as transmitted to Muhammad is EXACTLY the same as denying that the earth is round.

    High functioning cretinism is the best way to describe this.

    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #3 - August 26, 2014, 04:44 PM

    ^

    Billy I don't know how you manage to have the patience to read through the entire article.   

    At this point I'm so bored with religious apologetics that I can't even be bothered to spend a minute on stuff like that.

     

    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #4 - August 26, 2014, 04:47 PM

    I didn't read it all, just the conclusion, a couple of paragraphs , that's all thats needed to get a taste of Tzortzis lunacy

    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #5 - August 26, 2014, 04:55 PM

    The Qu'ran is about as inimitable as Shakespeare. Of course you cannot write a work like Shakespeare but that doesn't mean the work you write is bad or lesser, just different otherwise Shakespeare in Love would be a work of Shakespeare.

  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #6 - August 26, 2014, 05:24 PM

    the main gist of this is that its not stupid to accept testimony.
    the testimony says the quran is inimitable.
    then, we conclude that it couldnt come from an arab (because they tried and failed), nor a non arab (because they suck at arabic), nor muhammed (because he was an arab)

    90% of it is irrelevant. I think he is simply trying to prove that he has actually read something, so is including detail even if it is useless.
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #7 - August 26, 2014, 05:28 PM

    Except for the fact that in legal cases testimony is not hugely useful without corroborating evidence like bank statements and other forensic types.
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #8 - August 26, 2014, 05:43 PM

    it depends on the claim, how plausible it is, whether it even means anything, whether it matters, whether its possible to know, whether there is motivation to lie etc.
    We all accept  testimony. I accept that he is Greek. He might not be, I don't know. He says he is, and thats good enough for me.
    If he says he is from Jupiter, thats a completely different type of claim, and his testimony won't suffice. The quran being authored by Mr. God is not an ordinary claim.


  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #9 - August 26, 2014, 05:44 PM

    True, true! There is motive to lie or be liberal with the truth in this case though cause by being a preacher or a man in Islam gives you power.
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #10 - August 26, 2014, 05:55 PM

    ^Reminds me of this post of mine

    Quote
    Why do we believe in things? While this process varies from person to person, you must agree that it generally involves a process of perceiving and interpreting external evidence through our own internal filters, emotions, knowledge, experiences, and judgments. The matter is not as simple as “choosing” to believe or disbelieve.

    So, for example, if we take your example of Socrates, most of us in the Western world will have been exposed to at least some sort of evidence regarding his existence. When we hear his name, perhaps it conjures up images of busts carved in marble of his figure or perhaps we are familiar with excerpts of quotations attributed to him. Those more interested in the subject may be able to quote pieces from Plato and Aristotle that lend credence to the idea that he actually existed. Given this evidence, as shallow as it may be, most of us do not have a problem interpreting it to mean that someone named Socrates did in fact exist and that he did in fact contribute to his field what the history books say he contributed.

    It’s not difficult to believe that.

    Now, those of us familiar with the historical figure of Socrates know that most of the information we have regarding his life comes to us through third-party sources. So, suppose an archeologist were to emerge today claiming to have found the exact spot of Socrates’s home and the very utensils he used to feed and groom himself. Many in the field of study would be rightfully and healthily skeptical. Now, let’s say that our said archeologist produces a toothbrush, a plate, and a silver fork that all have “Property of Socrates” engraved on them.

    Provided that the dates, characteristics, and locations all made sense, some people may be persuaded to believe the authenticity of his claims. Others may remain skeptical. Either way, it would be silly to punish or reward the general public for believing or disbelieving the claim that Socrates’ house had been found.

    After the toothbrush discovery, let’s say that a Greek politician claimed to have extracted DNA from the alleged “Socrates toothbrush” that matched his own, and that he was 100% certain that he was a direct descendent of Socrates. We would probably argue that the presence of reasonable doubt had increased significantly here, and while the politician would be free to believe whatever he would, most of us would take his claims with a grain of salt—particularly when we consider what motives he might have for making such a claim.

    Now, let’s say further that someone was then to assert that Socrates was also a messenger of Vishnu, and that the Angel Moroni brought him revelations that had been preserved on eternally sacred, dried brontosaurus skins. Further, they claim, Socrates used to travel to Manhattan in a single night on a winged crocodile who galloped at the speed of light, and that he would lead the Native Americans in prayer at the site of the Empire State Building.

    At this point, some may say that a very strong element of reasonable doubt had been introduced into the Socrates narrative. For anyone to suggest that the act of merely doubting the story should warrant torture would be absurd.

    “But Vishnu is able to do all things!” Some may protest, “Of course he could carry Socrates across the ocean in a single night on a winged Alligator! (Or was it a crocodile?)

    But as hard as you might try, it is highly unlikely that you yourself, Ahmed, would ever be able to really believe it. If it became law that you had to believe that, you still wouldn’t. If people threatened you with eternal torture for not believing it, you still wouldn’t. You simply would not be able to choose to believe something that your internal processes find unbelievable. Indeed, anyone who would torture you ETERNALLY or reward you ETERNALLY for not being able to believe such a tale could never be considered just or merciful.


    @OP: These guys are really grasping at straws. If this is really indicative of the way his mind works, as opposed to just another scheme aimed at keeping his crabs down in his bucket, then it’s really sad.
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #11 - August 26, 2014, 06:03 PM

    Quote
    The 7th century Arabs were socialised into being a people who were the best at expressing themselves in their native tongue. They would celebrate when a poet rose amongst them and all they knew was poetry. They would start with poetry and end in poetry. The cultivation of poetic skills and linguistic mastery was everything for them. It was their oxygen and life blood; they could not live or function without the perfection of their linguistic abilities. However, when the Qur’an was recited to them they lost their breath, they were dumbfounded, incapacitated, and stunned by the silence of their greatest experts. They could not produce anything like the Qur’anic discourse. It got worse. The Qur’an challenged these linguists par excellence to imitate its unique literary and linguistic features. They failed. So they resorted to boycott, war, murder, torture and a campaign of misinformation. In fact, throughout the centuries there have been experts who have acquired the tools to challenge the Qur’an and they too have testified that the Qur’an is inimitable, and appreciate why the best linguists have failed.


     mysmilie_977

    أشهد أن لا إله
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #12 - August 26, 2014, 06:08 PM

    Repeat a lie long enough and people believe it.
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #13 - August 26, 2014, 06:22 PM

    What is really strange about the doctrine of inimitability is how it could be reconciled with the existence of different Qira'at, not to mention variant texts and the different codices.

    Here is allegedly the most perfect Arabic text, inimitable.  Except that you can read it many different ways, with many different words.  Only some of which are canonical.  At least one of the orthodox readings being in a caseless variant of Arabic.  Also, the text is chock full of terms which nobody understands, botched grammar, interpolations, disjunctions, and errors.  Admittedly that is hard to imitate, because it's difficult to write as though you were misunderstanding your own speech.

    Are all the seven orthodox Qira'at inimitable?  What about non-canonical readings?  How are we to characterize such a gelatinous, ambiguous text?  It's not as though the Qur'an comes in just one version.

    What about the variant Qur'ans such as the Sanaa 1 lower palimpsest?  Also inimitable?

    What about the variant Qur'anic inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock?  Didn't somebody explain to them that the Qur'an is inimitable?  What about the other earliest Qur'anic inscriptions (at Shivta), how they combined and revised Qur'anic verses?  Didn't anybody explain to them that the Qur'an was inimitable?
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #14 - August 26, 2014, 06:47 PM

    13, 817 words. Tortoise should really see someone about that verbal diarrhea. It can't be good for his liver to shit out so much from his face and hands all the time.

    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #15 - August 26, 2014, 06:51 PM

    What is really strange about the doctrine of inimitability is how it could be reconciled with the existence of different Qira'at, not to mention variant texts and the different codices.

    Here is allegedly the most perfect Arabic text, inimitable.  Except that you can read it many different ways, with many different words.  Only some of which are canonical.  At least one of the orthodox readings being in a caseless variant of Arabic.  Also, the text is chock full of terms which nobody understands, botched grammar, interpolations, disjunctions, and errors.  Admittedly that is hard to imitate, because it's difficult to write as though you were misunderstanding your own speech.

    Are all the seven orthodox Qira'at inimitable?  What about non-canonical readings?  How are we to characterize such a gelatinous, ambiguous text?  It's not as though the Qur'an comes in just one version.

    What about the variant Qur'ans such as the Sanaa 1 lower palimpsest?  Also inimitable?

    What about the variant Qur'anic inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock?  Didn't somebody explain to them that the Qur'an is inimitable?  What about the other earliest Qur'anic inscriptions (at Shivta), how they combined and revised Qur'anic verses?  Didn't anybody explain to them that the Qur'an was inimitable?


    See this Zaotar



    https://www.facebook.com/Lorientalist/photos/pb.454338414599807.-2207520000.1409079006./572333196133661/?type=1&theater

    Quote
    In summary, the modern standardised Qurʾān is the 1936 revision of the 1924 Cairo Edition derived from the four recorded variations of the Ḥafṣ Qurʾānic tradition, which in turn is one of the two main variations of the ʿĀṣim Qurʾānic tradition, which in turn is one of the three main variations of the Kūfī version of the ʿUthmānī Qurʾānic tradition, which in turn is one of the many Qurʾānic collections that arose in the decades following the death of Muḥammad.

    Put more succinctly, the modern standardised Qurʾān is a revision (1936) of a revision (1924) of a variant (Ḥafṣ) of a variant (ʿĀṣim) of a version (Kūfī) of a version (ʿUthmānī) of the original Qurʾān.

  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #16 - August 26, 2014, 09:23 PM

    Posted this already but interested in what you guys think. Hamza never responded, apparently.

    http://imgur.com/kgFd9db

  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #17 - August 26, 2014, 09:50 PM


    I am happy to say that I am leaving the darkness and decadence of CEMB for good.





    Late Eid Mubarak, Where's my eidee present ?
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #18 - August 26, 2014, 10:12 PM

    Hamza never responded, apparently.
    (Clicky for piccy!)


    He only said he would respond. He didnt say he would respond insha'allah. So i would expect a response to your email is on his 'fuck it' list, rather than his ever growing 'to do' one.

    im still waiting for him to prove that the quran is not geocentric; that its perfectly ok to marry children; for a definition of rhetorical devices and the list of 40 in kawthar; and for the update to his essays to make them 'in line with best practice and academia' promised over a year ago.

  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #19 - August 26, 2014, 10:25 PM

    Posted this already but interested in what you guys think. Hamza never responded, apparently.



    Your fourth point is exceptional Dr. Sloth, and (if I'm not mistaken) is somewhat similar to the point I was making above, which is that it makes no sense to say the Qur'an is "inimitable" if you can read/substitute different words into it, while maintaining the semantic sense, and having it still be the "orthodox" Qur'an as one of the seven accepted Qira'at.  Not to mention non-canonical Qira'at, not to mention substituting different words, not to mention substituting different ayas.

    If you can rewrite the rasm differently, or even just read the rasm as different Arabic words, then by definition it's not inimitable, as you have created an imitation which is different than the 'true' Qur'an, but which displays all of the same characteristics.
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #20 - August 26, 2014, 10:27 PM

    Although all my points are exceptional, that was kepticsay
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #21 - August 27, 2014, 08:25 AM

    If you can rewrite the rasm differently, or even just read the rasm as different Arabic words, then by definition it's not inimitable, as you have created an imitation which is different than the 'true' Qur'an, but which displays all of the same characteristics.


    Have to point out that the email isn't my own work. It was written by an anonymous ex-Muslim, that's all I know.


    im still waiting for him to prove that the quran is not geocentric


    could you link me to anything you've done on this so far?
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #22 - August 27, 2014, 10:05 AM

    i simply asked on the iera facebook page if a good response to the charge of the quran being geocentric exists.
    they said it was a good question, and they will get back to me with a good response. I dont think there was an 'insha'allah'.
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #23 - August 27, 2014, 10:36 PM

    I sent an email to Prof. Neuwirth relating to Hamza's claims. I've pasted it below minus the introductory and concluding paragraphs:

    Quote
    However, I have come across certain claims made by a Mr Hamza A. Tzortzis. He has posted the following quote from you:

    During an interview with Angelika Neuwrith, the distinguished Professor of Qur’anic studies, she argued that the Qur’an has never been successfully challenged by anyone, past or present:


    "…no one has succeeded, this is right…I really think that the Qur’an has even brought Western researchers embarrassment, who weren’t able to clarify how suddenly in an environment where there were not any appreciable written text, appeared the Qur’an with its richness of ideas and its magnificent wordings."[1]



    Why did the Professor say this? To find out more read here http://www.iera.org/research/essays-articles/gods-testimony-inimitability-divine-authorship-quran.


    [1] Personal interview with Professor Angelika Neuwrith in German. A copy of the recording is available on request.


    Could you please confirm whether the above is true? The person in question is attempting to claim that the Qur'an is a divine revelation and features a literary style that can only be decribed as miraculous. I hope that you can answer the following questions for me:


    1) Do you think that the Qur'an is inimitable?


    2) Do you think that the Qur'anic ijaz challenge can be met or is is it flawed?


    3) What do you think that the authors of the Qur'an actually meant when they challenged readers to 'produce a chapter, verse similar to it'?


    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #24 - August 28, 2014, 12:46 AM

    I wouldn't be remotely surprised if that Neuwirth quote is accurate, she's the reigning queen of the old-guard Orientalist faction, arguing that the Qur'an is a magnificent aesthetic accomplishment, that the surahs are precisely composed in accordance with unified structure, and that everything strange, disjointed, or confusing about the Qur'an is actually calculated for rhetorical effect.

    If I was to point to a single scholar who most embodies the failure of Western Islamic scholarship, it would be Angelika Neuwirth.  Thankfully newer scholars from outside her circle seem to have universal disdain for her old-school Orientalism, as do I.

    Just think about her quote:

    "No one has succeeded, this is right…I really think that the Qur’an has even brought Western researchers embarrassment, who weren’t able to clarify how suddenly in an environment where there were not any appreciable written text, appeared the Qur’an with its richness of ideas and its magnificent wordings."[1]

    And yet nearly every phrase in that sentence is complete nonsense.  Start with (a) she is assuming a mythical and false environment, the supposed poets sitting in an illiterate jahiliya -- in fact it has become inarguable that the Qur'an was slowly drafted, compiled, and composed from disparate materials with the aid of scribes in a literate Northern Arabian context, not in an illiterate pagan context; (b) Arabic and Aramaic had a very long written tradition *in the North*; (c) richness of ideas ... really?  almost incredible repetition of simplistic ideas is more accurate; (d) magnificent wordings, well occasionally this is quite true (as in some of the Meccan surahs), but much of the time the Qur'anic language is gibberish, incomprehensible, uses botched grammar, unknown words, or even when clear is relatively crude and prosaic.

    So one has to ask .... what Western researchers take the position she is proffering?  Who would be so uncritical?  The only people who would be embarrassed are those who already bought into these preposterous foundational assumptions that Neuwirth holds, for which they should indeed be ashamed.  Even Noldeke, who laid the groundwork for Neuwirth's school of Orientalism, was relentless in ripping on the Qur'an's defective style, its disjointed text, its numerous errors, etc.  Evidently Noldeke did not get the message about how miraculous, perfect, and rich its text is.

    Neuwirth has fought to keep Qur'anic studies within a dogmatic and theological bubble ... in particular she howled with outrage against Luxenberg ... but she failed.  The problem is that her position only makes sense when you completely buy into the traditional Muslim theology on every point regarding the Sirah, the Qur'an, the Arabic language, its geographical/linguistic origins, its meanings, etc.  But if you reject that entire apparatus as late, tendentious, and unreliable, then all of this becomes nonsense, and Neuwirth is left arguing for aesthetics in the same way a modern artist might ask you to perceive the awesome aesthetic perfection of an upended trash can.  Emperor's new clothes.

    If y'all are interested, there is a hilarious long article in "Early Islam" where Gross mercilessly beats on Neuwirth's arguments about Qur'anic aesthetics; shows that any aesthetic qualities of Qur'anic recitation are actually text-independent (meaning imposed as an external aesthetic) in a way unlike all other genuine aesthetic oral literature, etc.

    Sorry to go on at such lengths, but I truly loathe Neuwirth.  Not quite as much as Gross and the Inarah group loathes her, but definite loathing.
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #25 - August 28, 2014, 01:29 AM

    Thanks, as ever, Zaotar.
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #26 - August 28, 2014, 01:42 AM


    If y'all are interested, there is a hilarious long article in "Early Islam" where Gross mercilessly beats on Neuwirth's arguments about Qur'anic aesthetics; shows that any aesthetic qualities of Qur'anic recitation are actually text-independent (meaning imposed as an external aesthetic) in a way unlike all other genuine aesthetic oral literature, etc.

    Sorry to go on at such lengths, but I truly loathe Neuwirth.  Not quite as much as Gross and the Inarah group loathes her, but definite loathing.


    Hey, can you provide the exact title of the book or article you are referring to? Thank you
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #27 - August 28, 2014, 01:51 AM

    Zaotar is awesome

    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #28 - August 28, 2014, 03:05 AM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHCeYSvazY4

    Well  at least she knows how to read

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • I am reverting back to Islam
     Reply #29 - August 28, 2014, 03:51 AM

    I wouldn't be remotely surprised if that Neuwirth quote is accurate, she's the reigning queen of the old-guard Orientalist faction, arguing that the Qur'an is a magnificent aesthetic accomplishment, that the surahs are precisely composed in accordance with unified structure, and that everything strange, disjointed, or confusing about the Qur'an is actually calculated for rhetorical effect.

    ...

    Neuwirth has fought to keep Qur'anic studies within a dogmatic and theological bubble ... in particular she howled with outrage against Luxenberg ... but she failed.  The problem is that her position only makes sense when you completely buy into the traditional Muslim theology on every point regarding the Sirah, the Qur'an, the Arabic language, its geographical/linguistic origins, its meanings, etc.  But if you reject that entire apparatus as late, tendentious, and unreliable, then all of this becomes nonsense, and Neuwirth is left arguing for aesthetics in the same way a modern artist might ask you to perceive the awesome aesthetic perfection of an upended trash can.  Emperor's new clothes.



    The following quote  from the book Fooled by Randomness by Nassim Nicholas Taleb is most appropriate;

    Quote
    "The foundation of our beliefs is fraught with superstition ... This confusion strikes people of different persuasions: the literature professor invests a deep meaning into a mere coincidental occurrence of word patterns, while the economist proudly detects "regularities and "anomalies" in data that are plain random."

    "At the cost of appearing biased, I have to say that the literary mind can be intentionally prone to the confusion between noise and meaning, that is, between a randomly constructed arrangement and a precisely intended message. However, this causes little harm; few claim art is a tool of investigation of the Truth - rather than an attempt to escape it or make it more palatable. Symbolism is the child of our inability and unwillingness to accept randomness."


    Everything he says here, I think, is true except where he says "few claim art is a tool of investigation of the Truth" - clearly, we have a tiny elite group of humpty dumpties who have been trying to do exactly that however, they have more than a billion people who are willing to dogmatically accept everything they say even if they don't have the first clue about it.
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »