The Nimrodian Tradition continues to scuttle any last remnant of credibility Islam may have otherwise retained: Tabari II:108 "They took off from Jerusalem and they fell down in the Mountain of Smoke. When Nimrod saw that this method would accomplish nothing, he began building the tower - taller and taller. Then he voided excrement through it. Allah seized his building by its foundations and the roof fell down upon them and doom came upon them whence they knew not." [Qur'an 16:26] Dare we poke through the excrement and find Allah's little problem? Or do we just chalk this one up to diarrhea of the mouth? We've come this far. Why give up now? Hold your nose if you must. Verses 22-25 of the 16th surah say that non-Muslims are puffed up with pride (probably from holding their noses) and living in denial. But Allah is on to them like stink on...well, you know what. The Big Guy asks, "'What has your Lord sent down.' They answer, 'Tales from long ago.'" In other words, a blend of plagiarism and stolen Hebrew and Babylonian myths. As you will discover in the "Source Material" appendix, the Islamic clerics in Baghdad who fleshed out the Qur'an in the eighth century attempted to make it seem more religious by usurping myths and fables from the Talmud, uninspired Jewish folklore. That somehow leads us to this: Qur'an 16:26 "Those that have gone before them had also conspired; Then Allah uprooted their structure from its foundation; the roof fell over them from above, and punishment came upon them from where they did not suspect." Okay, I understand. Without the context of the Hadith the Qur'an doesn't make sense. But with the context, nothing makes sense. Qur'an 68:15 "When you recite Our proofs and verses (from the Qur'an) they cry, 'Tales of the ancients, mere fables of long ago.' Soon shall We muzzle them and brand the beast on the snout!" Ouch! Muhammad's Lord chafes when he's called a plagiarizer. Must be hitting a little too close to home. Let's turn to the Sira to see how close... Ishaq:180 "According to my information, the Apostle often sat by a young Christian slave named Jabr. The Meccans said, 'He is the one who teaches Muhammad most of what he brings.'" Then Allah revealed, Qur'an 16:103 "We know what they (pagans) say: 'It is only a mortal man who teaches him (Muhammad). But the tongue of the man they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this (Qur'an) is pure Arabic.'" When accused of plagiarism, the best Team Islam could do was to claim that the Bible Jabr was quoting from wasn't written in Arabic. That's a problem. First, by responding to the Meccan's claim that Muhammad was out of his mind, a demon-possessed madman, plagiarizing scripture, the Qur'an confirmed that these were legitimate concerns. Muhammad's kin were convinced he was demon possessed and insane. Second, the Qur'an continues to reflect man's least civil nature rather than rising above the fray and inspiring humankind. Name-calling isn't divine and the never-ending argument isn't motivational. Further, without the supplemental "scripture" from the Hadith, the Qur'an's response is senseless. No one would have any way of knowing who was talking to whom, or why. Senseless material that floats aimlessly outside place, circumstance, and time doesn't belong in a book that claims to be dictated word for word by God. Third, if Arabic was Allah's chosen language for revelation, why were "his" earlier revelations written in Hebrew and Greek? And as illiterates, Team Islam remains confused as to how translations work. Words are just tools, names for things and ideas mankind uses to convey a message. Every language has a word for demon, god, mad, and plagiarize. But this argument goes to the root of why today's Muslims say their Qur'anic message can't be translated - they still don't understand the nature of language. Little do they know, the Greek Gospels they are so fond of claiming credit for literally began their existence as translations of Aramaic conversations. Fourth, the source of the Qur'an's inspiration and its audience was so dimwitted, the claim was posited that changing the language obfuscated the source. That's as lame as Muslims claiming that Muhammad couldn't have stolen his Qur'an from the Bible because he couldn't read, suggesting the surahs were miraculous. Yet even the Qur'an pokes holes in this argument by saying the Jews incorrectly read their scriptures to Muhammad, saying words that weren't really on their scrolls. All this Christian source had to do was to verbally convey the gist of the Biblical stories. And judging by the quality of the material we are reading, the prophet was qualified to twist them from there. Fifth, by bringing this argument, the Qur'an injured itself. The rebuttal is a lie. The Qur'an wasn't written in "pure Arabic." The plethora of parentheses in the Qur'an text we have been examining proves this. They were put there to fill in missing words, fix the grammatical errors, solve the problem of dangling participles, and render a discernable message. Moreover, as you'll discover in the "Source Material" appendix, the Qur'an's most important words are foreign. They are Christian Syriac or Rabbinic Hebrew. Allah's book contains many words that have no meaning in any language, including Arabic. In its defense, the Qur'an says only Allah knows what they mean. But that defeats the whole purpose of scripture. While we're on the subject of exposing the words of fools, the 16th surah says: Qur'an 16:103 "When we replace a message with another, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: 'You have made it up.'" The Meccans recognized that Muhammad's Qur'an recitals were conflicting, and that the prophet couldn't keep his stories straight. They knew that internal contradiction was the surest sign that something was bogus. Since Muhammad wasn't able to refute his critic's claims, he had his spirit friend belittle them. Even today, unable to defend Islam, Muslims slander and threaten their accusers. |
