both in context, of courseSomeone said to me...(here)
“when it comes to the Bible you request that we read in context, consider historical circumstances and so on. While you reject a similar approach towards the Holy Qur'an!”
>>… Actually I never said that in regard to the Qur’an…it shows that you didn’t really bother to read carefully my post….I never rejected a contextual approach towards the Qur’an…at the very opposite…I really would welcome it, because it would show how things are actually even worse than one could imagine. Showing why and when some Surah’s were revealed, and explaining the real reasons behind, would actually only show how earthy the message was. This is why you should for example always take into consideration the Tafsirs that are produced. They corroborate the violent and aggressive message behind the Qur’an instead of rendering it more peaceful… What I actually said, is that for the Bible you always should take into consideration the background and the chronology. But it seems that you didn’t grasp it (as far as I’ve seen from how you utilize Matthew 10:34-39)
Now let’s see how your argument itself turns against Islam:
a) how do you combine the historical/contextual approach to the Qur’an with the fact that it should be the eternal Word of Allah? If it’s words have been around since the very beginning, what relationship do they have with history? (it seems a stupid question Behruz, but the philosophical implications are terrific, don’t underestimate)…moreover…if they are here to stay forever, do you apply them just for Muhammad’s time period? There is another interesting point that should not be underestimated and that heads up competition to the Christian “Trinity”…here a glimpse…
The Qur’an is supposed to be the eternal speech of Allah and yet it has a mother!
“God doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book (ommu alkitabi)”. Q 13:39 (Y. Ali); or
“…verily, we have made it an Arabic Qur'an; haply ye will have some sense. And it is in the Mother of the Book (ommi alkitabi) with Us,- high and wise”. Q 43:3-4 (Palmer).
Now, if the Qur’an is eternal, its mother must be eternal as well. But how can a child be just as old as his/her parent? In the Qur’an we find that God has no consorts (Q 6:100-101). But here it seems that we have a contradiction: the Qur’an actually has a mother. Muslims want to believe that “mother of” is not to be intended physically but metaphorically, and that there is no need to have sexual intercourse to have a "child". Do you note the irony behind? It’s the same opposition they have against Jesus being the Son of God! If it is to be meant spiritually…well...this is the same way, Christians mean it. If Allah is the source of the Qur’an, he is as well husband of the Mother of the Qur’an. But if the Qur’an is uncreated, and the Mother of the Qur’an as well, Allah has always been married...
taken from: (here)