Jump to content

Basics Of Sikhi Vs Dawah Man


Mehtab Singh
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think since that guys faith solely rests on rhetorical devises we should eliminate his argument. It's actually a brand new argument that's been created. The original verse of muhammad was a tricky one because answering it was blasphemy:

Koran
Verse 2:23 "And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides God, if your (doubts) are true."

If you read the above there is nothing about using arabic of other languages or even rhetorical devices, this challenge has already been defeated by many people such as Rumi with his masnavi or the following ( a bunch of arab actually constructed using arabic a piece of literature similar to the koran shortly what followed was death threats and when it does come up in debates, a few good debators question the grammar of the arabic used since the koran is the basis of arabic and people like Hamza Tzoris the greek convert had the come up with the 40 to 10 rhetoric device argument. The argument is a new literature challenge rather than a miraculous claim.

Answers to "Sura like it" Challenge

Answers to "Sura like it" - challenge (Challenge in the Qur'an, 2:23, to produce something of equal quality as the Qur'an, "And if you are in doubt as to which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a sura (chapter) like it")

A verse written by christians (there is a video on youtube where this was recited and a muslim believed it was a piece of the koran- click on the first thread on that link the view the surah like it)

" Surat Al-Muslimoon

(1) Alef Lam Sad Meem

(2) Kul ya ayoohal muslimoona innakom lafee dalalen ba'eed.
(3) Innal latheena kafaroo bil'lahee wa maseehihee lahom fil
akhiratee naroo jahannama wa athabon shadeed.

....

Translation of the Meaning of Al-Muslimoon:

(1) Alef Lam Saad Meem
(2) Say: O Muslims, You are far astray.
(3) Those who disbelieved in God and his Christ
shall have in the lifeafter the fire of hell
and a severe torture.

"

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.religion.islam/hfLZ4afB3jQ

Hamza's website illustrates the argument abit more clearly, this student of Hamza wasn't able to articulate the argument clearly enough for it to make sense.

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/exploring-the-quran/three-lines-the-changed-the-world-the-inimitability-of-the-shortest-chapter-in-the-qur’an/

Inna aAtayna kal kawthar

Fasalli li rabbika wanhar
Inna shani-aka huwal abtar

Verily We have given to you the abundance
So pray to your Lord and sacrifice
Indeed your enemy is the one who is cut off

The above is the verse in question, I question the content of it from which you determine those without abundance (wealth) are god's enemy hence allah of the koran hates poor people and since alot of muslims live in abject poverty and in 3rd worlds their own god hates them, at one point of muhammad the prophets life he was in poverty so his own allah hated him. Notice the repetition of "Inna" (indeed, frequently used through the koran to establish it's themw and tone of absolute certainty) and the end of line ended with har, har and then tar which rhymes with har. kawthar means a river in heaven hence referring to riches.

Hamza says about the verse above: "This chapter has less than 15 words yet briefly analysing this chapter more than 15 rhetorical devices and related features have been found. These features are not just mediocre attempts to please and persuade, rather they are sublime features that if removed or altered will distort the impact and communicative effect of the text."

So where did the number 40 come from if it's just 15? Al-taquia?

Another part of the argument of producing verse like it, is the idea of the verses own uniqueness even a terrible piece of literature such as written by a child will not have a likeness upon it since it is unique. So one method of defeating the argument to begin with is to ask for examples from their own measuring stick of what they feel from external sources if of likeness to another? Do they feel mozart's music is in likeness to beethovens? Or are the uniqueness of the 2 separate entities enough to call them two separate genres even though traditionally they are classified under the same.

This whole business of rhetorical devices needs a few us to dive deeper into here are some sources of what they are, how they are constructed and the rules towards them (which all sound like sales men trying to pitch a horrible product)

: http://www.englishbiz.co.uk/extras/rhetoricalexamples.htm
http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric.htm

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/50-rhetorical-devices-for-rational-writing/

Hamza's website says the following (which all sounds subjective and ignores how the koran speaks in the 3rd person as opposed to god's word in the first person):

Example 2: Grammatical Shift (iltifaat)

Professor Abdel Haleem in his article ‘Grammatical Shift for Rhetorical Purposes: Iltifaat and related features in the Qur’an[33], highlighted another inimitable feature of the Qur’an, the extensive use of grammatical shifts. This feature is an effective rhetorical device that enhances the texts literary expression and achieves the communicative goal;[34] it is an accepted, well researched part of Arabic rhetoric. One can find references in the books of balagha (Arabic Rhetoric) by al-Athir, Suyuti and Zarkashi.[35]

These grammatical shifts include changes in person, change in number, change in addressee, change in tense, change in case marker, using a noun in place of a pronoun and many other changes.[36] An example of this complex rhetorical feature is exhibited in the following verse. It changes to talking about Allah, in the third person, to Allah Himself speaking in the first person plural of majesty:

...

hese shifts contribute to the dynamic style of the Qur’an and are obvious stylistic features and accepted rhetorical practice. The Qur’an uses this feature in such a way that conforms to the theme of the text (semantically driven) while enhancing the impact of the message it conveys. It is not surprising that Neal Robinson in his book ‘Discovering the Qur’an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text’ concludes that the grammatical shifts used in the Qur’an, “…are a very effective rhetorical device.”[37]

The Qur’an is the only form of Arabic prose to have used this rhetorical device in an extensive and complex manner. Professor Abdel Haleem states, “…it employs this feature far more extensively and in more variations than does Arabic poetry. It is, therefore, natural to find…no one seems to quote references in prose other than from the Qur’an.”[38]

...

[Neal Robinson's book : http://www.youquran.com/DISCOVERING-QURAN-Robinson.PDF ]

]

Hamza earlier on sets his own conditions for breaking the koranic code which is (sounds abit like pakistani cricket match fixing set conditions which are impossible to meet even for another piece of literature which defeats the koran being superior since it is unique as is every other piece of text- I wonder if Hamza can do this for any other man-made text as he calls it such as a legal document or a piece of poetry like bulleh shah's works):

Without going into an extensive analysis of why Muslim and non-Muslim scholars have agreed that those who have attempted to challenge the Qur’an have failed, the following summary should suffice. Even though the challengers have had the same set of ‘tools’, which are the twenty eight Arabic letters, finite grammatical rules and the blue print of the challenge – which is the Qur’an itself; they have failed to:

1. Replicate the Qur’an’s literary form
2. Match the unique linguistic nature of the Qur’an
3. Select and arrange words like that of the Qur’an
4. Select and arrange similar grammatical particles
5. Match the Qur’an’s superior eloquence and sound
6. Equal the frequency of rhetorical devices
7. Match the level of content and informativeness
8. Equal the Qur’an’s conciseness and flexibility

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think since that guys faith solely rests on rhetorical devises we should eliminate his argument. It's actually a brand new argument that's been created. The original verse of muhammad was a tricky one because answering it was blasphemy:

Koran Verse 2:23 "And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides God, if your (doubts) are true."

If you read the above there is nothing about using arabic of other languages or even rhetorical devices, this challenge has already been defeated by many people such as Rumi with his masnavi or the following ( a bunch of arab actually constructed using arabic a piece of literature similar to the koran shortly what followed was death threats and when it does come up in debates, a few good debators question the grammar of the arabic used since the koran is the basis of arabic and people like Hamza Tzoris the greek convert had the come up with the 40 to 10 rhetoric device argument. The argument is a new literature challenge rather than a miraculous claim.

Thanks for this post. It seems this 40 to 10 rhetoric device miracle is made up and a new argument Muslims are parroting. I tried to search all over google but couldn't find a thing about this. Surely if this is the greatest miracle of Islam then Muslims would have written books on this very miracle yet not even one article exists explaining this miracle. When people like Hamza and Imran try to make up miracles in order to show the greatness of their faith, they only end up ruining the credibility of their religion in the eyes of non Muslims.

Their challenge of creating something better is also very subjective. Sikhs don't lie about Gurbani or their Gurus. We have nothing to hide and nothing to over exaggerate. It is all there for the world to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the dawah man youtube page he additionally posted this video- I really liked this comment I want to share here:

Muslim Guy:Come as calm and compassionate person
Sikh Guy: Come as calm and compassionate person
Muslim Guy: Facial expression showing ignorance what's being said in converation and instead focus on next devile move to put down other religion
Sikh Guy: Facial expression showing love misunderstanding of opponent in recognizing different colors/cultures God put on this earth.
Muslim Guy: Jumping like a monkey during debate
Sikh Guy: Composed, Calm, Objective and Compassionate about Sikhism
Muslim Guy: quran is ONLY word of God because it has 10 rhetorical device per word
Sikh Guy:Will you trash quran and start following something you come across that has 11 rhetorical device per word
Impatient and defeated Muslim Guy:.You will burn in hell if you are not muslim
Calm and Compassionate Sikh Guy: We don't believe in such a nuisance
Muslim Guy:Leave as confused and stressed person
Sikh Guy: Leave as calm and compassionate person


Thanks for this post. It seems this 40 to 10 rhetoric device miracle is made up and a new argument Muslims are parroting. I tried to search all over google but couldn't find a thing about this. Surely if this is the greatest miracle of Islam then Muslims would have written books on this very miracle yet not even one article exists explaining this miracle. When people like Hamza and Imran try to make up miracles in order to show the greatness of their faith, they only end up ruining the credibility of their religion in the eyes of non Muslims.

Their challenge of creating something better is also very subjective. Sikhs don't lie about Gurbani or their Gurus. We have nothing to hide and nothing to over exaggerate. It is all there for the world to see.

Ironically in the way Hamza has constructed his 8 point arguments he has equally wrote something which is being passed off to many people as if it is koranic scripture so he himself has answered his own question in his question.

There is also this youtube comment

There's no way of objectively counting 'rhetorical features', literary analysis isn't maths. For example, you could say that every syllable in a sentence is onomatopoeic (eg imitative of the sound of thunder, or whatever) and immediately get two dozen items on your 'rhetorical features' tally.

Do you have a reference for the '10 words' and a breakdown of the '40 rhetorical features'? As there are lots of different ways of breaking down the literary techniques used in a phrase, it'd be interesting to see the way that was used to arrive your total.
Also, you talk as if 'rhetorical techniques per word' were a commonly accepted standard of literary quality. But the number of metaphors in a sentence tells you nothing about the quality of the work or the divinity of the author. It just tells you that he/she would be good at designing riddles and crossword puzzles.

I don't know about Arabic, but in English and Chinese the best poets use both complexity and pure clarity, and shift skilfully between the two. See, eg. the shift to simplicity in the last line of this from Shakespeare:

"Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood/
Clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather/
The multitudinous seas incarnadine,/
Making the green one red."

I fully believe that the Koran is beautiful and poetic, but I think you'd communicate that better if you were less competitive.

The muslim himself destroys imran's comments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use