70 jawans killed in biggest Maoists/Naxal attack ever in India

[Kriterion]

kriterion , Iam simply not going to respond to any of your posts untill you provide a straight answer the following (see below) without beating around the bush as Iam tired of the circular debate ... Is there a authentic piece of Genuine authoritative scholarly work or official ruling on the matter of what 54:1 really means that is accepted and followed by the vast majority of Islamic world ? If you say "Yes" then who is the author(s) or the authority ? If you say No then You (Kriterion ) simply cannot be the only person in nearly 14 centuries to have understood the true meaning of 54:1 This is the crux of the whole discussion. I will respond only when you come back with a name of such scholar(s) or the authority. If you think all scholars are BS'ing and have been able to con billions of muslims over nearly 14 centuries then I respectfully disagree with that and would like to end this discussion. Otherwise please name this scholar(s) and we will dig out their works/ruling and take it from there.

Once again, your inability or lack of willingness to discuss LOGIC. IF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS TRUE (that Muhammad CLAIMED to split in the moon in Quran verse 54:1), then Muhammad must NECESSARILY have been both mentally incompetent and yet hugely successful at the same time. Which is not possible. Or he must have been schizophrenic, which is also not possible given the same level of success. If the logical implication of your argument is something which is not physically possible, then it must mean that your argument is WRONG. This basic simple reductio ad absurdum. No scholar on earth, can correct that logical inaccuracy. The way you can prove your point correct, or at least me wrong, is if you can show that your argument leads to a logically acceptable consequence other than what I have shown. However, thus far, you have refused. In a debate, a refusal to even answer a point is taken as a concession of your defeat on that point. So if you would like to discuss the next thing after 54:1, lets resume, because you have already lost on that point.

[Kriterion]

Read the post again ... Iam simply NOT INTERESTED IN Mohammads state of mind at this point . Those who follow his teachings dont check his psychiatric analysis first and then decide to follow his words. So if you dont mind pls answer this :

so are you eventually willing to discuss Muhammad's state of mind?

This is the crux of the whole discussion.

but what if we get to something which is even more fundemental than the "crux"?

To repeat in a different manner ... can you have the courtesy to put up the widely accepted and official translations of 54:1 without trying to digress ? We can go into Muhammads state of mind AFTER we have this official or widely accepted interpretation of 54:1. Its a request.

the interpretation of 54:1 is a moot issue. its irrelevant. 54:1 could state that the Quran was just a big fat hoax, and it wouldn't matter because we are going even further back to whether it is possible for 54:1 to say what you believe it says. And it is simply not physically possible. I.e your point "contradicts" itself.

[Kriterion]

Right now Iam only interested in 54:1 and what it means... If you provide the widely accepted and official translations (with explanations) of 54:1 I will then take you up on the other aspects that you have bought up .... such as Mohammads state of mind and things like that. If you choose to evade the question and not provide straightforward answers this discussion ends here as far as Iam concerned.

I'm not evading the question...I'm rendering the question irrelevant. There is a difference between not answering, and proving that the question is itself meaningless. So yes, I may not be answering your question, but thats only because a) it still wouldn't prove your point and b) the question is based on a logical absurdity. Your interpretation, regardless of which scholar or if all of them back it up, leads to a logical absurdity (Muhammad was mentally incompetent yet he eventually succeeded in almost everything he did during his lifetime despite great logistical odds). Therefore, your (and the scholars') interpretation must be incorrect. You still have every chance to disprove my logic above. But you refuse. The only other option you have is to pre-empt my question as irrelevant, as I have done to yours about asking for acceptable scholars. But you refuse to do that also. The choice is yours. Btw, you mentioned Ghazali sometime earlier. Ghazali is universally regarded as being one the most influential Islamic scholars of all time. Ghazali was actually noted for revolutionizing the use of LOGIC in islamic theology. So your claim that the Quran cannot be approached rationally is not true. Ghazali himself introduced deductive logic as well as inductive logic, and analogical reasoning within Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). He was scripturally justified as the Quran has over a dozen commandments for muslims to engage in rational and critical thinking (tafakkur). Your assertion that the Quran gives absolute authority to scholars to interpret it, is just one of the many falsehoods you can peddle because people usually aren't bothered to look that stuff up. There is no Quranic verse that gives that sort of "dictat" to any scholar. At any rate, I'm still up for debate, but I'm guessing this particular discussion stops here for now. I look forward to refuting your posts in another thread.

[Kriterion]

Kriterion , I need you to post the widely accepted and followed interpretation(with brief explanation) of 54:1 before we move on to the implications of that interpretations. No jumping the gun please. Once we have that infront of us we can sit and debate till the cows come home about its implications including Muhammads sanity.

If we agree to not "jump the gun", then you should acknowledge my point about your assertion being a contradiction or offer a rebuttal because: 1) my point pre-empts your question asking for a list of scholars and renders it completely irrelevant since secular logic > scholar's SUBJECTIVE interpretations. 2) i introduced the need for logic and non-religious proofs BEFORE you even mentioned any scholars or asked for a list of "acceptable" scholars. 3) even the scholars you mentioned eg Yusuf interpret 54:1 as I do http://www.jannah.org/qurantrans/quran54.html 4) you also mentioned Ghazali - and he believed in the usage of logic to study religion, so once again, you're wrong. So yes, i agree, no jumping the gun please. ***************** And just to counter your claim of "scholars aren't subject to logic" BS...which is irrelevant because everyone is subject to logic whether they believe it or not. the only question is whether the logic is good or does it have flaws. so again, i challenge u to find fault with the logic of my assertion. At any rate, even you Boss, have resorted to "logic" to understand the context of the Quran. And you did it before you ever brought up the need for a list of scholars. Boss himself uses "external secular" logic to understand the Quran So is it one standard for you, and another standard for me? Is that how you hold an "honest" discussion? Surely, you must be a better man than that.

[Kriterion]

As early as post #177 of this thread (and probably earlier), I was using external, non-religious logic to counter your arguments. You still had not brought up any issues with individual scholars, nor had you asked for a list of acceptable scholars. Kriterion using logic as far back as post #177 Even as early as post #322, I was using logic to prove that there was NO contradiction in the Quran as to how many days it took to create the Universe. You were not asking for a list of scholars then either. The I showed how the literal arabic, makes it even clearer than the translation as to this imagined contradiction. Again you had no rebuttal to offer. The earliest you mentioned different scholars and their various interpretations was in post #283, IIRC. Even then you hadn't explicitly asked for a list of scholars. Even if you had, I still have you beat by at least 106 posts. you should be answering my questions first. So you, sir, are jumping the gun. Not me. I have bent over backwards accepting everything you've thrown at me. I have tolerated your ignorance of basic scientific facts such as the origins of seminal fluid - fueled by prejudice and not by a lack of education. I have tolerated your open statement of false information. I have even watched you contradict yourself like you wouldn't believe - asserting in one post that Hindu texts are more peaceful than the Quran, and in another text asserting that the Purasharam texts are "far more" violent than anything the Quran says. Quite frankly, you will say anything and everything. However, I refuse to allow you to violate the laws of logic without at least offering an explanation of why you should be allowed to do so. Why? Because I simply do not need to.

[Kriterion]

Kriterion, On a discussion of Quranic verses the first thing that needs to get done is we put down the official and widely accepted translations and explanation of verse(s) in question. Without knowing what that is there cant be any discussion on whether it is logical or illogical or Mohammad was normal/abnormal etc. AFAIK you have been avoiding to put down the official and widely accepted translations and explanation of 54:1 for whatever reasons. Your problem entirely. I will simply not proceed without having this tabled by you because Iam perfectly aware of your need to divert the thread into a different direction and create circular discussions. So you put up the official and widely accepted translations and explanation and we will discuss EVERY single implication and fallout resulting from that explanation. Keep in mind that I have indeed put up such a explanation ( many times ) but you keep rejecting it for whatever reasons which is why Iam asking YOU to post the widely accepted translation along with a brief explanation. If there isnt even an agreement between us as to what this translation is there is no point discussing this topic. So this is why we need such a translation and untill and unless YOU put it up I aint going to discuss anything with you.

you've made a decent point here, i will concede that much to you. however, lets shed a bit of light on the discussion first (feel free to correct me if i make a mistake): 1) what specific verse are we discussing right now? answer = Quran verse 54:1, regarding the alleged "moon splittling" event. 2) who brought this issue/verse to the forefront of discussion? answer = Bossbhai 3) who provided the initial interpretation? answer = Bossbhai since he brought it up as you can see from this, i didn't bring 54:1 up as a verse first. you did. In fact, my very first post of this thread was #124, and i never mentioned the Quran until you brought it up first. You first mentioned the Quran, specifically Surah 8 "The Spoils of War", as early in post #129:

plus a trackrecord for destruction that is unmatched by any other ideology ... I also showed you a bunch of Tafsirs that you agreed were aggresive and ofcourse we have an entire chapter dedicated to Spoils of War and how to share the booty in Gods Text ... there is only so much that can be hidden in this day and age.

There is nothing in there about any particular scholar, any particular interpretation, or anything which is "widely accepted". You have brought that issue up after the fact. If you wanted a scholar, you should have provided one since you mentioned the Quran first. Once you mentioned it, I used Muhammad Asad's translation, because overall I find his to be the most reliable and accurate vis a vis logic. Most reliable does NOT mean perfectly reliable. Anytime there is a problem with the translation, we must check with the literal Arabic and see what context is being used. I have stated this before. Now you may not be able to accept that human scholars can make mistakes, and I think that is unreasonable. No human is perfect. You of course, disagree. You believe that some people, or all people, are incapable of making mistakes. Thats your viewpoint, and you're entitled to it. Now you pointed out Asad's contradiction on 54:1 regarding verb tenses, and I agreed, based upon the literal arabic I have at my disposal currently. Which is why I then explained that this is an obvious allusion of Prophecy, given the term "The Hour" which is present. I cited the example of the Book of Revelation in the Christian Bible which is prophecy written in past tense. You were not satisfied, and asked for scholars who have the same interpretation. I am pretty sure, I offered up Yusuf as example, or you admitted that Yusuf and Asad were the only 2 scholars who took this to be a Future event. Thats two extremely widely accepted scholars right there. Not to mention that immediately subsequent verses talk about "Judgement" and a "Decision" which are obviously talking about the Final Day of Judgement (Pickthall). So you have Asad, Yusuf, and Pickthall who ALL agree with my "interpretation" regardless of the verb tense they've translated it. So YOU are providing verse 54:1 first, and then asking me to explain it. Therefore, I do NOT have to provide any list of scholars. But you do, and you have. All I have to do is explain the verse, and I don't need a scholars backing for that, even though I have at least 3 above. You have refused to even discuss my explanation, so I am refusing your irrelevant request. Sounds more than fair to me.

[Kriterion]

Read post#487 above. I repeat for your convenience : what is the widely accepted translation and explanation of 54:1 ? If you are so shy to even post the official version of a verse from the text which you treat as being sent by an authority no less than God ... why even bother debating ? Perhaps you are not so sure it came from up above which is why you keep beating around the bush ? You post the official version of 54:1 and we talk .... else we stop. Upto you.

I'm considering it...if you are absolutely unwilling to concede to me this way, I'll get you the next. Thats the magic about truthful logic: it'll catch you one way or another. But I would first like to ask for some clarity...your question above isn't totally clear. Suppose I provide you with an explanation for 54:1 as per your request...what is your expectation of our discussion after I provide the requested info?

[Kriterion]

It has been already explained a million times before. It is to do with errors in Quran. So can we have the widely accepted translation and explanation of 54:1 ?

You can have a "widely accepted" translation and explanation of 54:1. But "widely accepted" by whom? Do you mean "widely accepted" by modern, educated muslims of the present day? Or are we talking "widely accepted" throughout Islamic history? And will you be willing to discuss the validity of these translation(s) using SECULAR LOGIC, including but not limited to the implications of such a translation?

[Kriterion]

OK, good. I hope you recognize and appreciate that I am allowing you to steer the discussion any direction you like - as a show of my open-ness. Only one time have I tried to adjust the discussion myself by refusing to offer this translation. I did this experiment to see if I could push you, and I could not. No matter. **************** So 54:1, here we go... I will give you these translations, and then you can respond as you wish. Arabic - اقْتَرَبَتِ السَّاعَةُ وَانشَقَّ الْقَمَرُ Literal (yaqb.org) - The Hour/Resurrection neared/approached, and the moon split/cracked/cut open . 54:1 (Asad) THE LAST HOUR draws near, and the moon is split asunder! Most of the commentators see in this verse a reference to a phenomenon said to have been witnessed by several of the Prophet’s contemporaries. As described in a number of reports going back to some Companions, the moon appeared one night as if split into two distinct parts. While there is no reason to doubt the subjective veracity of these reports, it is possible that what actually happened was an unusual kind of partial lunar eclipse, which produced an equally unusual optical illusion. But whatever the nature of that phenomenon, it is practically certain that the above Qur’an -verse does not refer to it but, rather, to a future event: namely, to what will happen when the Last Hour approaches. (The Qur’an frequently employs the past tense to denote the future, and particularly so in passages which speak of the coming of the Last Hour and of Resurrection Day; this use of the past tense is meant to stress the certainty of the happening to which the verb relates.) Thus, Raghib regards it as fully justifiable to interpret the phrase inshaqqa l-qamar ("the moon is split asunder") as bearing on the cosmic cataclysm - the end of the world as we know it - that will occur before the coming of Resurrection Day (see art. shaqq in the Mufradat). As mentioned by Zamakhshari , this interpretation has the support of some of the earlier com mentators; and it is, to my mind, particularly convincing in view of the juxtaposition, in the above Qur’an -verse, of the moon’s "splitting asunder" and the approach of the Last Hour. (In this connection we must bear in mind the fact that none of the Quranic allusions to the "nearness" of the Last Hour and the Day of Resurrection is based on the human concept of "time".)(Quran Ref: 54:1 ) 54:1 (Yusuf Ali) The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder. 54:1 (Pickthall) The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain. 54:1 (George Sale) The hour of judgement approacheth; and the moon hath been split in sunder 54:1 (Malik) The Hour of Doom is drawing near, the moon has split asunder; which is a clear proof that the same thing can happen to the earth. 54:1 (Chouraqui) Elle approche, l’heure: la lune est piégée ! ************* If you need more, I can offer some more, but I'll leave it at that for now. The Asad translation/commentary is from www.islamicity.com The others are from www.yaqb.org

[Kriterion]

I have posted these translations before in this thread and you went into a huge circular discussion .... what Iam asking is the explanation of these ... i.e does the majority of Islamic community translate 54:1 as though the moon was split into two or not.

Simple answer, yes, they do believe the moon was split.

[Nova]

None of the holy books are words of any God. Quran, Bible, Vedas are just man made stories. This is the only truth you should accept. :bow:

[Laaloo]

None of the holy books are words of any God. Quran, Bible, Vedas are just man made stories. This is the only truth you should accept. :bow:

What about the Geeta? :hmmm:

[ViruRulez]

What about the Geeta? :hmmm:

[manoj bajpai mode] Na koi maarta hain na koi marta hai ye main nahin kehta ye geeta me likha hai .. heeheeheehee [/manoj bajpai mode] On a serious note I agree with tdigi. There are enough proof that none of the religious books are words of God but actually man made stories. That includes all religions and all religious book. In b4 the hardliners of ICF run after me :vroam:

[Kriterion]

Bossbhai, do you agree that the person who best understands any book would be the author himself? In other words do you think it would be fair to ask seedhi what you meant in your last post, or do you agree that it would be best if I asked you since you wrote your own post?

[b555]

Yeah but in the case of Quran its author is supposed to be God himself ... Muslims stoutly believe that the Quran that is out there is a exact replica of the one in heaven.

According to Islamic tradition, many of the revelations of Muhammad perished in the battle of Yamama "Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.23)."The point here is clear. There were many passages that were lost forever and could not be recovered. It is evident that the revelation in today's Qur'an is not the complete revelation allegedly passed down by the Angle Gabriel. We find more evidence that support the fact that some of Muhammad's revelations may have been lost from one of the earliest works of the Hadith. In the words of Muhammad's wife Aisha: "Aishah said: A man got up (for prayer) at night, he read the Qur'an and raised his voice in reading. When morning came, the Apostle of Allah (saw) said: May Allah have mercy on so-and-so! Last night he reminded me a number of verses I was about to forget. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, p.1114)." How should we expect that the companions of Muhammad would have a flawless memory when the "Apostle" himself was prone to lapses of memory? This is even more interesting considering the fact that according to tradition, Muhammad would have to recite the Qur'an to the Angle Gabriel at least once a year at which time Gabriel would authenticate the word for word revelation. Gilchrist presents a number of other examples of missing passages from the Qur'an. Abdullah ibn Umar, in the earliest days of Islam, was quite emphatic about the fact of missing Qur'anic text: It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524). A further example of missing text from the Qur'an can be found in Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3421 where Aisha says: "It had been revealed in the Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Qur'an [emphasis added] (and recited by the Muslims)." However, this verse is found nowhere in the Qur'an of today. The evidence is clear that the Qur'an that Muslims have today cannot be an exact replica of the tables in heaven as Von Denffer would have us to believe. There were clearly variant reading which differ from quotes in the hadiths, which itself serves as a witness to the mutability of the Qur'an.

[Kriterion]

Yeah but in the case of Quran its author is supposed to be God himself ... Muslims stoutly believe that the Quran that is out there is a exact replica of the one in heaven.

So then we both agree that the author of the Quran (God or Muhammad - doesn't matter as long as we agree there is a single author) would understand the meaning and the words of the Quran best. Not Maududi, or Bukhari, or Ibn Ishaq, none of whom were even born till years after Muhammad died. Good to have that settled. If you use the Quran itself, there is NO POSSIBLE meaning for 54:1, apart from the meaning that the "moon splitting" is a FUTURE event. Any scholar who interprets otherwise, his interpretation is against the literal content of the Quran. Why and how is this true? 54:1 states simply that the "moon was split". But when was it split? The quran says it was split just prior to something referred to as "the Hour". If term "the Hour" was mentioned only in 54:1, then a reasonable case could be made that this referred to a magical miracle performed or claimed by Muhammad. However, the term "the Hour" actually occurs several times in the Quran, and ALWAYS as a reference to the "day of judgement" and NEVER (except in 54:1) associated with any "moon splitting" miracle. Now, the Day of Judgement is referred to in many other verses, and often associated with similar "astronomical miracles" e.g sky being torn apart, mountains vanishing, stars stop shining, massive earthquakes, et al. The only difference, is that 54:1 is written in what appears to be the past tense. And this is usually the style of prophetic passages, as the entire biblical book of Revelation - written by Paul - is written in the PAST tense. Some christians, believe its simply metaphorical, but even the ones who take the Bible literally, aren't confused by the past tense and believe that these things were historic events. Furthermore, using incorrect verb tenses is something that is not normal in healthy adults. There are neurological pathologies which can cause a person to mix up his verb tenses, but that would occur regularily, not in just a one-off verse as 54:1. Furthermore, it is not a unintentional mistake. Because, people do NOT just suddenly make such a blatant mistake as "i went to the store tomorrow" in a single random isolated incident. It either fits a pattern of consistent multiple errors, or it doesn't occur at all. There is no middle ground. You don't just forget grammer in one single verse all of a sudden. Thats like saying you forgot how to walk just today, even though you were fine before and after. It just doesn't happen. Therefore the only logical possibility is that Muhammad intentionally wrote verse 54:1 to illustrate the magnitude of what he was saying. There is only confusion if one fails to look at the OPERATIVE word here which is "the Hour", and compare it with all the other occurences of the same word in the Quran. Furthermore, we are ignoring the possibility - highly likely - that all these scholars indeed understood the true meaning of the verse. Almost all of them, if not all of them, have mentioned "the day of judgment" the "Day of doom" or the "the Hour". However, it is interesting to note that some of them, contradict themselves when they explain it as a "miracle" of Muhammad. Obviously, scholars have an interest in protraying a "miracle" of Muhammad in order to *prove* his Divine Messengership. Unless, you wish to vouch for the honesty and integrity of these ROP practicioners...

[Kriterion]

What does the Quranic phrase "the Hour" really mean? this is an addendum to my post above. Verse 54:1 mentions something translated almost universally as "the Hour" or L'heure, in french. But what does the literal arabic say? If you enter a search of the term "hour", minus the specific article "the", you will end up with a list of 54 verses of the Quran which contain the word "hour". In 54:1, the word is translated as "the Hour" and rightly so since the arabic word contains the specific article "the"......... السَّاعَةُ as well as the arabic letter "ain" completely changing the pronunciation from the different word in verse 4:18 below. In verse 4:18 the quran mentions the dying "hour" of sinners. Clearly not a reference to the Day of Judgement. And the literal arabic proves this because this word is completely different. not only does it not have the specific article "the", it also does not have the letter "ain", meaning it is not pronounced guttorally, and hence is a completely different word and this is obvious. .... السَّيِّئَاتِ In verse 10:45, a non-specific "hour of a day" is mentioned...and this too does not have the article "al" present, although it has the "ain" making it guttoral as well...... سَاعَةً Verse 7:187 also talks about the Day of Judgement and this uses the identical word as verse 54:1.... السَّاعَةِ 7:187 says:

THEY WILL ASK thee [O Prophet] about the Last hour: "When will it come to pass?" Say: "Verily, knowledge thereof rests with my Sustainer alone. None but He will reveal it in its time. Heavily will it weigh on the heavens and the earth; [and] it will not fall upon you otherwise than of a sudden." They will ask thee - as if thou couldst gain insight into this [mystery] by dint of persistent inquiry! [153] Say: "Knowledge thereof rests with my Sustainer alone; but [of this] most people are unaware."

Now I understand you don't understand any arabic, and I understand only slightly more than you...but nonetheless you should be able to differentiate the words since i posted them in extra large text. Of course if all else fails, you can just ask any arab what this means if you don't believe me. In conclusion, it is obvious that when the literal arabic of the Quran itself is compared with itself...there is no contradiction nor even any AMBIGUITY about what and when verse 54:1 is supposed to be. Thus the Quran retains its claim about being the "clear" book. But you have to actually read it. It ain't just gonna be "clear" sitting on your bookshelf collecting dust.

[Kriterion]

How should we expect that the companions of Muhammad would have a flawless memory when the "Apostle" himself was prone to lapses of memory?

this point has actually already been discussed on this thread, but not made a point of focus, hence it prolly "fell throught he cracks". however a quick restatement of the argument follows as such: The Quran never guarantees, nor do Muslims beileve that the Quran cannot be changed...rather the belief is that any change or mistake in the Quran will always be corrected because there are multiple sources who have it comitted to memory. This is different from Boss' "all scholars can't be wrong" because this is a clear cut objective thing i.e reciting a poem one has memorized. Interpretation of text is a different matter which is subjective and hence any number of people can be wrong, and its even possible for differing opinions to be simaltaneously "correct". The Quran can be likened to a piece of DNA molecule. DNA can have "corruptions" such as point mutations and frameshift mutations...which are results of either additions or deletions or base-substitutions. Now, the idea is that even if everyone's DNA has mutations of some sort...the chance of the exact same mutation at the same exact place is highly rare given the size of the molecule (in this analogy we're considering only people who are not related). Now, we also know that each of these DNA molecules was originally copied from an error-free template. Now this is where the analogy doesn't work so well...but basically even if 2 people have errors in their memory of the Quran, they will be able to catch each others errors, because they have errors in different places. This happens all the time in mosques during prayer when the Imam will make a mistake and someone standing behind him corrects him. Does this mean the "corrector" himself has a perfect memory? NO, it just means that he has errors elsewhere. IN this way, if the sample size of people is large enough (even 2 people is most likely large enough), but anything greater than say 10 is enough to preserve the perfection of the Quran perfectly. And there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of huffaz - people who have memorized the Quran.

[Kriterion]

Sorry Not settled. Some key issues : 1. Author = God himself (and nobody else) 2. Neither were YOU and Asad born till centuries after Muhammad just like Maududi , Bukhari etc 3. But there were companions who were eye witness to that event. 4. There is no evidence of Muhammad correcting these companions on the matter of 54:1 given that he lived for many yrs after revealing chapter 54. 5. There is simply no evidence of any other hanky panky by anybody. 6. Whatever logic you are using to make your case cannot have evaded everyone else except you. 7. Even otherwise its just moot because given that there are people like you who disagree with the vast majority it clearly tells us that there is a dispute that simply cannot be resolved unless Muhammad/God himself comes out and issues a clarification on what 54:1 really means. That obviously ain't happening. Meaning that Quran's claim of being the most crystal clear book is obviously wrong. So no matter what direction you want to take this discussion you will atleast find one error ( either there is error reg claim of moon splitting or the claim regarding Quran being a crystal clear book because of the various interpretations possible for 54:1 ). So either ways we have one error on our hands and naturally that means this cannot be a work of God. I rest my case here.

1) doesn't matter if Dr Seuss is the other, we have other verses from the SAME author for a reference to see what was meant by the term "the Hour". 2) which is why I am using the Quran itself to discuss verse 54:1. maududi and others haven't cited any verses in favor of their interpretation...they've merely pulled it out of their underwear. you have already agreed that the Quran is a better reference to what teh Quran is talking about rather than Maududi, or Fowdudi. 3) how do you know? did any companions tell you? all you have is the "word of mouth" hadith...which has plenty of contradictions in it to disregard its authenticity, and you have agreed that you don't believe the hadith. this point would only be valid if i accepted the authenticity of these or all hadiths. 4) there is no record saying the companions even saw this supposed miracle. Ibn Ishaq and Bukhari's hadiths came 100 years after these companions DIED. that is the earliest source. 5) fair...but there is no evidence of what you have suggested. except the hadiths which you will agree DO NOT qualify as sound evidence due to their internal contradictions. 6) irrelevant. 7) Like i said its crystal clear if you read the entire thing and realize the difference between "an hour" and "the Hour". Just because you don't understand spanish doesn't mean that spanish is an impossible to understand language.

All this has been discussed ad-nauseum earlier and I simply cannot be bothered to go do another iteration of this circular discussion. If you cannot understand a simple thing - such as the concept of past tense = past tense and God cannot forsee the problems that could be created when something is told in past tense but supposedly is a description of an event that will happen in the future especially when the solution is to be simple and not be smart alecky and convoluted - then there is absolutely nothing logical that I say will fly with you. Sorry I dont have time to engage in such a circular discussion which in my very humble opinion is either very dishonest or that we come from extreemly different school of logic. But feel free to explain what the logical problem is with the stuff in blue in this post just above. Keep in mind that you have agreed in the past that using past tense for describing events that have already taken place and using future tense for future events is the right practice ( and that obviously God would know this if we do )

I agree its convuluted...but only to those who haven't read the rest of the Quran. Now you have either not read, or failed to understand the difference between the articles "a/an" (nonspecific) and "the" (specific). maybe its the fact that Hindi or whatever language you speak (e.g Bengali does not have articles) don't use articles. But arabic does. And it makes a difference as the precise meaning of things.

So my summary( the 7 points in this post above) stands. To add to it ... Claiming to be Gods last messenger and to provide an update to previous divine works sent by the same God thru previous messengers is just simply the most illogical thing. What it means is that God did not get it right when he sent the first messenger to Earth with his book. This simply flies in the face of the Concept of God who is perfect. So the moon splitting thing is just nuisance compared to all of that. When you are done explaining how God can commit mistakes such that he requires many messengers to get his word out to mankind you can then move on to explaining other preposterous things like the journey to Al-Aqsa on a flying horse and how Muhammad could converse with Gabriel and how God was certain that no more messengers would be needed after Muhammad despite past experiences etc etc. There simply cant be a rational and logical explanation to all of these other than a faith based one which requires an overdose of blind belief. So when Muhammad was able to sell such other preposterous stuff there is no reason to believe that he didn't do the same with reg to Moon splitting.Welcome to the concept of man-made religions.

throwing stones from a glass house is neither wise nor is it "nice". trust me, i can be a bigger douche than you can ever dream of being, but i don't wanna get banned from this lovely discussion, so... 1) when did Islam or the quran claim that God sent a "wrong" message to earth the first time? 2) if Muhammad is the Messenger of an Infinite God...then all of those "prepesterous" things you have mentioned - including the "moon splitting" - are perfectly and 100%, POSSIBLE. The fact that Muhammad didn't attribute the origins of semen from the testicles - the common sense thing to do - when in fact, thats exactly what you yourself claimed as an educated 21st century man, tells me that either Muhammad was an anatomist ahead of all other anatomists that we know of, or that perhaps someone told him these things. If you can name the person who in 7th century arabia had such exclusive biological knowledge that no one else did, I'll stop right here. Yes, I believe Muhammad went on a "miraculous" night journey to the "farthest mosque" and then went up to Heaven to speak with God Himself. Why do I believe in this? Because the Quran says so, and I don't really care if there are Hadiths which contradict or confirm this account. The Quran trumps all. The Quran never mentions that Muhammad split the Moon. Verse 54:1 simple states that moon has split, very close to the time of the "the Hour". The term "the Hour" occurs many times in the Quran always to refer to a future event. There is no way in heck, that Muhammad mistakenly forgot when "the Hour" was supposed to be, even if he was making all this up. If it had been a mistake, one would expect to see "the Hour" mentioned fairly evenly between past and future times. In other words, you don't consistently say one thing, and then accidentally say something else. Now, if you can disprove any of these claims, please go ahead. Otherwise, I would like to hold you to your word of discussing the practical implications of your take on 54:1.

[Kriterion]

Btw, you have completely ignored the term "the Hour" - which is the NOUN of the sentence in 54:1 - and its various references in the Quran. Explain to me how it is something different in 54:1 vs 7:187...expecially given that the scholars have ALSO translated it equally in both verses. And let me remind you of your favorite phrase "the scholars cannot all be wrong".