Is the Koran Truly Amazing?

Ramanujan,

Thanks for the advice pal.

We do what we like best to do. Just like comrade masadi, you need to chill too.

Re: #429 by GT

What`s wrong with you? Huh? Go outside and take a stroll. You are spending too much time indoors. Get a girlfriend. Go to a movie.

You can take the line:

``If I was anyone other than your Lord the God, I would have a dimple on the pimple on my a$$.``,

and then divide and subdivide every word in this line and come up with all kind of foolishness.


The line ``If it had been from anyone other than God, it would contain many contradictions.`` is VERY common use of words. It`s called plain English. It means zero, zilch.

Go get a life.

urstruly #426 That is an informative post. Now I am sorry I referred to you as a nut. I knew Colonel Muhammed Khan (he was my father`s boss and good friend), and his bajang aamad is indeed a very nicely written, humorous account of his adventures during WWII. I read it when the book came out in the 60`s, and still recall one scene he describes: an old woman praying in a mosque in cairo, smoking as she prayed. Things have gone downhill in cairo since then.

and btw, just to relate #430 to this topic, i recall reading a verse in the Quran that encourages the use of written contracts (as opposed to verbal ones). This is one of the many pieces of good advice in the book that is sadly ignored.

aslam #421 I think the price and freight cost responsibilities are established in a legal document (the Letter of Credit) that you (as importer) prepare before any exporter can ship anything to you and hold you responsible for paying for the goods. Even then you can refuse to pay if the quality/quantity is not as specified. Did you not open an LC?? If not, you are under no legal obligation. So I dont understand the problem and why you need to ``sort him out`` as you say.

I am sorry for this long post (I am actually a bit ashamed). Comments are more than welcome, for there may be several mistakes. All that I ask is that the post is read before commenting. What follows has little to do with the Koran as a whole.

Consider the following statement (from masadi`s webpage) which I find very intriguing and interesting:

``If it had been from anyone other than God, it would contain many (Kathirun) contradictions (Ikhtelaafun-).`` Koran 4:82

In what follows many (but not all) of my assertions will be similar to that of Masadi (infact they have been formulated over the course of my conversation with him). To save on space I shall not always point them out as they would be clear to the reader.

The statement is not only beautifully formulated, it is quite sophisticated for its time. Unlike most religious proposition that I am familiar with, the above is a falsifiable statement. (Someone in this board had asked whether the Koran has any falsifiable statement). Let me state how.

To falsify the statement, form the equivalent statement (contrapositive):

``If it does not have many contradictions then it cannot be from anyone but God``.

So one needs to go through the Book and if one does not find many contradictions one can logically conclude (from the statement) that the book is written by God. In this way one can FALSIFY the claim that the Book is the work of (wo)man/(wo)men. There can be two kinds of criticisms here. First (as has been pointed out), one can claim that even people can write a book without contradiction. Personally I have not checked all, but I have not come across any article in my field (including my own) which does not have a single mistakes. Nevertheless, this criticism cannot take anything away from the scientific validity of the above-mentioned claim. At most, this criticism can assert that the theory behind the claim is not robust. For my present purpose, this criticism is not pertinent. The second criticism may have to do with the fact that the word ``many`` is vague. Sure, but since all definitions of the word ``many`` will agree that it means more than one, we can replace ``not many`` with ``zero or one`` and write the proposition as:

``If it has zero or one contradiction then it cannot be from anyone but God``

So, after going through the book if one finds at most one contradiction one can falsify the fact (on the basis of this proposition) that the Book is a work of (wo)man/(wo)men.

What intrigues me is the ``or`` in the ``zero or one``. Given the sophistication of the claim the writer of the proposition might well have been aware of this ``or``. So why is it there? I have not read the Koran, but it seems that masadi has studied it thoroughly. Since he goes outside the Koran to explain it, I believe that my question is not answered in the Koran. Before I go ahead, and to be fair to masadi, let me put forward masdi`s explanation. If one considers the statement again, one will note that there is the word ``contradiction`` in it. So when one goes about looking for contradictions in the Koran, one may choose to count the word ``contradiction`` as a contradiction OR may choose not to do so. If one finds no other contradiction, then one will end up with ``zero OR one`` contradiction depending on how one interprets contradiction. This is an intelligent observation and it provides a good answer to my question.

[This is upto where my discussion with masadi went on this board. Since, masadi never explicitly claimed everything that I have written in the previous paragraph it could well be the case that he disagrees with some of what I write.]

I have a different take on the word ``or``. I believe that the word “or” is there to encourage readers to verify whether or not there are real contradictions in the Koran. Not linguistic or frivolous (albeit intelligent) contradictions like counting words. Why do I say so?

Suppose one wants to falsify the hypothesis that “the Koran is a work of God”. Though our statement, the one under consideration, does not tell us how to falsify that “the Koran is a work of God”, it could if it were to be joined with other statements. I do not know whether such statements exist in the Koran. If not then the reader need not read the rest of what follows. Let me assume that there exists such a statement and let that statement be ``God does not make a mistake``, where mistake has the same meaning as contradiction. In fact I shall assume from now on that counting the word contradiction does not imply a contradiction (if this is allowed then what I say below will be false). I consider such counting to be frivolous anyway. Before proceeding further, let me assert that my assumption on the exact formulation of the sentence is not necessary for what follows. Now with such a sentence we get the composite proposition:

1. It is true that “God does not make a mistake.”
2. ``If it has one or zero contradiction then it is from God``.

Note that now, if we find more than one contradiction in the Koran we can falsify the claim that “the Koran is a work of God”. But before one goes around searching for contradictions one may simply wish to start with the independent claim that “the Koran is indeed the work of God”. One then will have to determine whether the claim is true or false if one were to test the proposition. But the proposition is there to verify whether or not the claim is true! So a smart Abdul could simply start by supposing that this claim is false. If statement 2 did not have the “or one” part, the proposition would indeed verify Abdul’s supposition. But because of the “or one” part Abdul cannot start and then end with this supposition. By doing so he would end with a supposition and it’s contradiction! He has to start with the supposition that the “Koran is a work of God”. In other words, in trying to falsify the statement, Abdul’s null hypothesis (i.e. the hypothesis taken to be true until proven false) has to be that the “Koran is a work of God”! This is very neat. The reader may now ask, why the “or zero” part. Given that the null hypothesis is assumed to be true, if no other contradictions are to be found then we have zero contradictions. If the “or zero” part were not to be there the proposition would tell you nothing about the Koran’s writer. The claim would be accepted by assumption! Thus the “or” part is an integral part of the Proposition stated as 1 and 2 above.

Urstruly,
Now I think urdu is in trouble in Pakistan…

The cause that you pick up will go down and now I am worried abt urdu too. Though it does not effect me a bit.

Unfortunately, the writers that Shahab sponsored in his days, were all second grade writers and poet. Anytime you weigh their work with the progressive writers, you will right away know that they were light weights. (Hmm..barring Ibne Insha but not all his work.)

He was a bureaucrat and he had his own hanger ons and prodigies. I doubt that any one of them would have survived the rigors of literary debates without his help…

You forgot to mention Jamil Ud Din Aali.

Hum tuo gaye thaay chhilla ban kar
Bhia keh gai naar!

Raw Dust

I agree that Chandravati is the best chapter written by Qudrutullah. It probably set the standard for `desperate-love` in Urdu literature. If I were Qudrutullah I would have named the Chapter as `Sadna`, but too bad I am nut Qudrutullah.

HP & Raw dust

Unfortunately we are so partial to our respective political positions that we often fail to see the bigger picture. Qudrutullah may or may not be a literary genius but in my opinion he has left an indelible mark on Urdu literature. As a matter of fact I consider him the greatest benefactor of Urdu language, greater than any so-called ehl-e-zubaan writer or poet. He helped Urdu language and Urdu literature, consciously or unconsciously in two ways.

One, he broke down the absolute hold of leftists over the Urdu literature. Soon after Pakistan came into being the literary circle was absolutely dominated by the leftists like Faiz, Ahmad Nadeem Qasmi, Quratul Ain Haider, Noon Meem Rashid, Nasir Kazmi, Manto, Asmat Chughtai, Josh Malih abadi and countless others. All the publications, literary journals, and critique was done by these people.

I don`t mind an ideological bend of any type in literature, because it is necessary. After all literature is about human beings. But if in literature there remains nothing but ideology then it ceases to be literature and becomes propaganda. Had Qudrutallah not stepped into literary circles, that is exactly what would have happened. Not only did he prove himself to be an accomplished writer but he also promoted people like Mumtaz Mufti, Qudsia Bano, Ashfaq Ahmad, Ibne Inshah, Col Mohammad Khan, and many others. I don`t necessarily consider them right wingers but they helped bring literature back into the domain of literature. Consider, for example, Mumtaz Mufti; he has written more on sex and psychological issues than Manto, and quite openly if I might add. There is absolutely no way you can call Ashfaq or bano as right wingers. But lets admit it that, without Qudrutullah`s patronage they would have had hard time surviving among people with such staunch ideological bend. Thus he saved Urdu literature from becoming stagnant and stale.

The second thing that he has done for Urdu literature is that he freed it from the tight-ass linguistic purists. It is an undeniable fact that Punjabis have benefited Urdu language in ways that not even ehl-e-zuban were ever able to do. Since the inception of Pakistan Urdu literature and poetry is absolutely dominated by Punjabi writers and poets. These writers and poets were linguistic purists to such an extent that we may call them holier than the pope as far as the language goes. The Urdu language chauvinists like Moulvi Abdul Haq (Baba-e-Urdu) stand pale in front of people like Ahmad Nadeem, and Faiz, etc. Manto may be called an exception, since there always are exceptions. But it is introduction of new and confident writers like Mumatz, Ashfaq, and Bano into literature that saved Urdu language from becoming stagnant and stale.

What is Urdu language after all. It is nothing but an incredibly beautiful amalgam of Central Asian and South Asian languages. Urdu language kept on evolving as long as it kept on absorbing from other languages. But this evolution stopped absolutely with the inception of Pakistan when Urdu speaking people migrated into areas what now are called Pakistan. It was probably a cultural shock that made them so anal retentive to let anything introduced into Urdu language from local cultures and languages. Urdu chauvinists like Moulvi Abdul Haq and prejudiced people like Firaq Gorakhpuri went out of the way to stop any mixing of Urdu with local languages. Moulvi Abdulhaq spent his whole life trying to stop this mixing, making sure that he would borrow new words from Arabic and Persian but not a single word from Sindhi or Punjabi. Today, as far as I know, there is not a single word in Urdu that is borrowed from Sindhi, except some street slang like `chuttu`.

People like Ashfaq, Bano, and Mumtaz, changed all that. Today in Pakistan Urdu language is being transformed into a new accent and a linguistic amalgamation with Punjabi. This new dialects has taken over TV shows, media, newspapers, books, literature, and what not. This dialect was once condescendingly called ``Gulabi Urdu`` by anal retentive ehle zuban, but I am pretty sure that with the emergence of this new dialect soon a stage will come that it may form a whole new language called ``Urdaabi`` (Urdu-Punjabi) or may be ``Purdu``. It was not possible without Qudrutullah. He helped save Urdu language that is loved by great many people in subcontinent.

#424

Come on now Asadi!
There are all grown ups here. No one is changing their mind because you said so.

It was a good debate. I think people enjoyed it. You have just to live with that and write some more for good discussions but sermons wont do anything.
Have fun, relax and call it a day!

All those who have had the courage to go against the pressure of their social traditions while pursuing the truth, those that have rejected hadith and fiqh and upheld the Quran, I salute you. You follow a noble tradition (even though you have rejected social tradition), and the tradition you follow is that of men of reason, the (real) tradition of the prophets of God, who used argumentation as they asked people to return to the truth, the truth ingrained in the very nature of the universe and not follow their made up/invented social traditions. You have risen above provincialism and seen the big picture. You have thus witnessed the very face of God. You, people of reason are humanity`s best hope. I admire you, I emulate you and I encourage you:

``You are the the best community that has been extracted for (the sake of) humanity, you enjoin what is good while opposing the wrong, evan as you affirm God.`` (Quran)

Then there are others, the enemies of the prophets, those who have upheld their social tradition while opposing all reason and truth and thereby bringing to naught the word of God. You all also follow a tradition, whereas you claim to follow the traditions of the prophet (hadith), yet the tradition that you all are following are the traditions of the opposers of all the prophets, the religious elite of all times who opposed Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammed, even as they claimed to be doers of good and upholders of the faith. In following that traditon of opposing the prophets, and conspiring to kill the prophets, you have applied magnificent labels upon yourselves, Maulanas, Ayatollahs etc etc yet you all are what Jesus referred to as a ``community of vipers``, snakes that oppose reason and enjoin perversion. The prophet will reject you on the day of judgment:

``And the messenger says: O my Lord, my own people took this Quran as a thing to be shunned.`` (Quran 25:30)

The third group, the Islam haters, in bed with the second group of Mullahs and Ayatollahs, support their social tradition, use similar arguments and methodology, so that using this perverted logic they can bring to naught the truth that is the Quran. They are the hypocrites, the back stabbers, neither of the first group nor of the second but play one against the other. They follow their narrow agendas, siding with the enemies of truth to bring to naught all reason and truth. They are the ones that we have seen here. The foundations of their arguments are weak, they are easily ruined, but what do they do? They reject the truth while claiming to uphold reason and repeat the same nonsense in different garb so that they can trap the unsuspecting. They are poster children for illogical thinking. They use appeal to authority where there is no authority, appeal to emotion even though they are emotionally dead. These are the ones deceived by their own deception. Deaf, Dumb and Blind, they will never attain the path of reason.

Their victories, attained through deception are short-lived because truth by its very nature is bound to triumph. You can notice their misery when confronted with the truth, they jump from one objection to the next as if they were walking on fire, but their entire structure of falsehood collapses in on them, they are a ruined lot as they have lost their humanity in their reletness campaign against truth and reason.

``Indeed we hurl the truth against falsehood and it destroys its source`` (Quran)

Then there is a fourth group, those who care about truth and reason but are sincerely not sure. They have embarked, as did Ibrahim in his early life, to questioning everything and anything. I salute them too, for if you are sincere in your persuit of truth and reason, soon you will reach the nobel tradition as well. Indeed those who struggle in this cause, ``their guidance is encumbent upon God.`` (Quran)

M. Asadi

Urstruly bhai:
i am sure you must be joking when you called shahabnama a masterpiece of urdu literature. Actually, the title should have been Shaf`faaf-nama for all the clarity and squeaky clean image that it projects of the author.
Memory being life, the more intense and elaborate a recalling -> the wonderful that it paints a lifestory is an interesting premise, Proust`s magnum opus in that regard (of whatever 800 pages or so i read) stands as the masterpiece. sadly, shahaabnaama is no way in the same league. imo.

anyway, my favorite has to be Chandra Wati episode where our hero was found biking in and around the walled city lahore along with his hindu-flame, the tragic queen of the story.

his entertaining Faiz Ahmed Faiz in london is another thing i recall. all in all it wasnt a bad read but it wasnt some literary masterpiece either.

jang:
shahabnama is like a 1000 page long autobiography of a pakistani civil servant who passed the illustrous ICS pre-`47 and then came over to pak. civil service. he held some key positions during ayub and ghulam mohammad`s rule inside the presidency.

Overall, an interesting article. The amazing part was the manner in which arguments were made, defended, and dismissed. So long as such claims as Masadi`s can be advanced and refuted with equal passion, fervor, and freedom by anybody and everybody we should be safe.

#402 by tahmed32
tahmed sahab
i have started a new company importing sports equipment from sialkot the person i am dealing with has went back on his word at least three times first it was the prices he quoted then it was i was responsible for freight charges etc, this company has been going for at least 50 years, they say his father was a decent honourable man, any how he`s coming to uk soon i will sort him out.

Re Urstruly`s posts.
You`ve got to wonder two things
1. Why Pakistanis go to countries like India merely to kill the same Hindus/Sikhs instead of being happy they have killed off all their own.
2. Why the heck do India and Pakistan have a peace process? What do Pakis want with people they consider subhuman and why is India seeking peace with a society which considers Indians subhuman?

that should be ``on behalf of pakistan`` in the last sentence in #418