Messages

31

General Discussions / Re: Who Determines What is Absurd?

« on: May 09, 2013, 02:21:36 AM »

I don't think I am satisfied with any of the responses I have seen. Allow me to share with you the testimony of a person who converted to Quran onlyism and then eventually abandoned it. See his testimony below:

My testimony already appears in Ibn Warraq's anthology on apostates, so I will only summarize here (and add a few things, as I presently feel that if I could edit my testimony in Warraq's book, I would).

I came from a liberal Christian background, but in 1996 (at the very end of high-school) I became part of the New York City Church of Christ (which is, for the most part, a fundamentalist Evangelical sect/cult). Very quickly, however, I began to have doubts due to a number of issues (on the one hand I wondered about the Church's approach dietary habits and, to a lesser degree, the sabbath, and on the other hand I began to be troubled by the doctrine of the Trinity and apparent "contradictions" in the Bible).

By the time I reached college, I already began to become interested in Islam (this was brought on by a combination of Ahmed Deedat videos, websites that attempted to establish the veracity of Islam over Christianity, and discussions with various Muslims I had met at the City University of New York). Looking back, I'm a bit ashamed of how easily I believed the dawaganda I read (at the time I was particularly interested in the claim that the Bible predicted the coming of Muhammad).

However (and there are many who will say something similar), while I was very pleased with Ahmed Deedat's onslaughts on the Bible, I began to get the feeling that the ahaadeeth could not stand up to the criteria Deedat demanded the Bible be judged by. As a result, I began to seriously doubt Orthodox Islam as well, before I even had a chance to convert! Ironically, I met a Submitter (i.e. a hadith-rejecting Muslim) at school, and he introduced me to other Submitters (a bunch of whom went to my college).

Very quickly I embraced the version of Islam espoused by the Submitters (note however that the group I was associated with was not connected to Rashad Khalifa's group, though I imagine they got the idea from his group). Once a Muslim, I set out to debate Christians on the internet (mainly via AOL chats and instant messages, though to a lesser degree via usenet), hoping to show the "Tri-Theists" the new truth I had discovered.

However, there was a perverse nature to my behavior, as I was anxious to bring the Christians to Islam, but not as anxious to do such with the so-called "Sunni pagans". We would sit around and say many negative things about Sunni Muslims (even criticizing the shahaada, which I never recited because it was a statement of shirk developed by the innovating Sunni pagans), but not once did I ever make a face-to-face attempt to convince one on campus that he was off the path (even more ironic, and blatantly contradictory, we interpreted verses in Soorat al-Baqara and Soorat al-Maida as teaching that Christians and Jews could go to Jannah, yet we simultaneously thought that "Sunni Pagans" were on their way to Jahannam, with the Hindus and Atheists). We were simply a small close-knit group of heterodox Muslims who made a real effort to be invisible to the Orthodox Muslims (in fact, not once while I considered myself a Muslim did I ever go to an MSA meeting!).

By 1999, I started having doubts after taking a class on Hinduism. While reading the colorful stories about castles made of bees wax, Siva replacing Ganesh's head with that of an elaphant, or Hannuman jumping over the ocean, I suffered a moment of doubt. I was in the middle of laughing at the stories and silently mocking them, when suddenly it hit me that they are no more absurd than the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Moses split the ocean and turned a stick into a snake, or that Solomon had conversations with animals.

Once the doubt set in, the flood gates were open. I suddenly realized that the only reason I converted to Islam in the first place was because I had doubts about specific parts of Christianity, but still wanted to hold on the core myths and legendary figures. Islam provided me with a solution to that problem. Not once had I ever questioned the stories in Islam. Now I began to doubt them all.

I spent the fall of 1999 in a fog, not sure if I was an Atheist or a Muslim. I even began to put forth Atheistic arguments before officially considering myself an Atheist. It was when a disappointed friend asked me "are you an Atheist?" that I responded with "yeah, I guess so." The next day I was in Thompkin's Square Park and the full-implications of Atheism hit me: there is no God. I took a deep breath, and looked around me, and a very beautiful feeling came over me. While I don't claim that Atheism is the cure for depression -in fact I know that some people have sunk into depression after becoming Atheists- it is nonetheless a fact that I spent most of my life depressed (even when I was a Christian and Muslim), yet when I went Atheist in 1999, my depression vanished, and has yet to return. Regardless of that, the fact is nonetheless that I had reached a point of no return - I could never go back to believing such fantastic stories (just as we immediately doubt the reliability of tabloid newspapers dedicated to stories about UFOs, Big Foot, and two-headed babies, so too I feel we should agree that the fantastic stories in Islam are a sure sign that the authors of the Islamic texts were writing theology, not history).

Ever since abandoning Islam, I have investigated the religion, and I continue to wonder how I ever could believe something like that without really thinking about it. While I know a great deal more about Islam now than I did then, I still feel uncomfortable with how little critical thought I put into my decision to consider the religion in the first place.

While my position has towards Islam has softened over the years (most apostates from a faith often have a bloody-thirsty zeal for destroying the faith in the beginning), I still think it is important to directly call into question the veracity of Islam. This is particularly true with regard to the aggressive forms of apologia employed (exempli gratia: claims about scientific miracles, Muhammad in the Bible, et cetera). This is why it is important to explain (a) why one left Islam, and (b) why one continues to disbelieve in Islam. The opposing view is, at this point, still so rarely expressed.

This is the point I am making. This whole "I find it ridiculous and absurd, hence I will reject it" approach seems quite subjective to me. I don't think we should reject things for subjective reasons. This is why I don't take the "this hadith is absurd and laughable" route of many Quranist polemicists very seriously.

32

General Discussions / Re: Joseph Islam's Article "THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN"

« on: May 09, 2013, 01:45:59 AM »

Salam Optimist,

"A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail;- a Quran in Arabic, for people who understand". (41:3)

Seeing that Kitab in essence implies a combining and linking of words and only context would denote the form (i.e. textual or not), I don't see how this passage makes it clear that it's textual.

"Shall I seek for a judge other than God, when He it is Who has sent down to you the Book fully explained?" (6:114)

"Is it not enough for them that We have sent down to thee the Book which is rehearsed to them?" (29:51)

Doesn't sound textual to me, unless you want to believe that an actual physical book came from the heavens to the Prophet. This is not tenable, since the Qur'an came down in piecemeal and not at one go.

Thanks,

Bassam

33

General Discussions / Re: Joseph Islam's Article "THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN"

« on: May 09, 2013, 01:40:28 AM »

Salam Joseph,

Thanks for your response.

I think we could stop here as I have nothing new to add (for in my personal opinion I don't think you offered anything new to address and if I were to respond I would only be repeating myself and I think the same would go for you) and we could let the readers formulate a decision.

Good round

Bassam

34

General Discussions / Re: Joseph Islam's Article "THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN"

« on: May 08, 2013, 03:41:13 PM »

Salam Joseph,

“This is a circular argument as you are inferring a position from secondary sources which are moot (i.e. debateable).”

Secondary sources aside… you don’t think that this could be inferred by common sense (since you seem to be comfortable doing this in other matters)? There are virtues in memorizing it, so you don’t think a significant number of them during the Prophet’s time did?

“that the term 'Al-Kitab' can be used as an explicit reference to a complete Book. After all, the Quran could have been referred to as 'qaratisa', 'suhuf, or even 'raqq' if the intention was to refer to the parchments or scrolls extant at the time of the Prophet. These terms are known to the Quran.”

You reason well on this point. However, there are things you need to pay careful attention to:

- Kitab as utilized in modern times linguistically usually means book in its usage. So if you have a book with only 30 Surahs, you still it call it Qur’an and still call it Kitab. It doesn’t have to be the full complete book. Context determines that.

- HOWEVER, Kitab in essence actually means a joining or linking of words to each other. In essence that’s it. As to the FORM, it could either be in discourse or in writing. Context determines that.

- Hence, on a purely linguistic basis alone apart from context we can’t say that Kitab necessitates a comprehensive book form.

- Allah’s usage of “Kitab” doesn’t indicate that it is necessarily referring to a fully comprehensive Qur’anic book in textual form. The Qur’an remains Kitab Allah even if all textual copies on earth are wiped clean.

“You seem to take the default position that a command has to be present in the Quran 'e.g. O believers, collect the Book in one canon / single book'for there to be a valid case to assume that the Quran was compiled into a single book format during the Prophetic ministry.”

I don’t think that’s a fair representation of what I am seeking. I didn’t say that it has to be there word by word. It is okay for it to be inferred and implicit, but it has to be CLEAR. Things could be “implicitly clear” (i.e. it’s not an oxymoron).

“I find that the need to compile the Quran  in a workable, tangible single source would have been implicit given the holy nature of the text and its intended purpose (i.e. to serve as guidance for humanity).”

I think you are confusing “implicit” with “this is what makes sense to me”. Your assumptions are not necessary. I think it’s possible you are projecting the way things are done in the 21st century back to those times where you assume that people need to necessarily study and teach from a written book. It seems difficult for you to comprehend that they would have been perfectly comfortable memorizing large chunks of the Qur’an and only having parchments of some Surahs on an individual basis. I think you forget how large a complete Qur’an would have been back then and that there was no printing press.

“The proposition that I must accept the Quran simply because it can be traced unbroken to an Arabian man from the Hijaz in the 6th-7th century is not proof of its Divine source.”


This is the second time you misrepresent me greatly Joseph. I didn’t argue anywhere that the Qur’an being traced back implies its divinity, rather I was only discussing its preservation.

You on the other hand are confusing divinity with preservation. A divine book is not necessarily preserved (unless you could show that logically NECESSARY connection in an objective manner).

Given that…. You could only accept the Qur’an’s preservation on blind faith (and that's okay, but let's just make that clear) and can’t argue for it on an intellectual basis with sound historical proofs. Something no non-Muslim academic would take seriously, for your method offers no explanation for reading variants, manuscripts variants, etc. while traditional Muslims attempt to offer convincing explanations for the existence of these.

You cast doubt on the hadith system because it's been infiltrated with rejected traditions, but don't seem to realize that the Qur'an has various readings accepted by the Muslim community, which you reject and you can't account for them on a historical basis (hence the inconsistency in your methodology) .

Thanks,

Bassam

35

General Discussions / Re: Joseph Islam's Article "THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN"

« on: May 08, 2013, 12:15:55 AM »

Thanks for your response Joseph.

Ratil has a number of meanings (one being to chant). You haven't clearly demonstrated why the meaning you have chosen is the correct one (this is an example of why Quranists are wrong in believing that the Qur'an is clear in the way they believe). You just went on with that assumption.

I don't find your argument:

"In the famous verse of Surah Maida (Chapter 5), often quoted with reference to the favour bestowed by 'perfecting the Deen', one must ask the obvious question as to how it was possible to complete a ‘Deen’ (a system / religion) without the bedrock of instructions formulated and referenced by scripture? One must therefore posit the possible conclusion that for a 'Deen' to be complete, the scripture must have taken its final form."

To be plausible. I find it "possible", but not "plausible". That is... I'm not saying your argument is bad, I'm just saying it's not necessary.

The Muslims had plenty of scholars they could have referred to who memorized the Qur'an during the Prophet's time. Not all of them had to have access to a comprehensive book. Many were huffaz. Again, it's not necessary. This argument is not as "mubeen" (i.e. clear) as you would like it to be.

Yes, all of the Qur'an was transcribed. I agree. But I didn't deny that, rather I was asking for proof that they were all transcribed and then collected into a single book format. The Qur'an is silent about that.

You said:

A holy text from God intended for mankind's guidance would arguably not be left simply to the whims and memories of individuals who were part of a community which often found itself suppressed and at times under the conditions of war where lives were lost. In all matters that are subjective, the most plausible outcome should remain the most cogent argument in an epistemic discussion.

But...... that was precisely the reason why the Qur'an was later on collected into a single copy. Because the circumstances and events changed from the Prophet's time. There is no reason to believe that the collection of the Qur'an into a single book format in textual form was something necessary during the Prophet's time. First, it wasn't commanded by the Qur'an. Second, we aren't aware of any circumstances which would have made doing so vital during the Prophet's time.

Again, I am blind to your argument from 6:91. I can't see it. It's not clear.

As for God's promise to protect the Qur'an.... well how do you know that 15:9 isn't a false insertion? It's blind faith. Not an attractive position to hold.


If I were to hold you to your own standard that you should only accept that which is explicitly and clearly taught by the Qur'an, then I wouldn't expect you to remain adhering to this position by claiming that it is Qur'anic testimony. Rather, I would expect you to change your tone and say... "I THINK that's what happened" and nothing more.

I simply can't see what you see in the Qur'an on this topic. If you were as lenient in your inference from scripture on the proof texts provided by traditional Muslims supporting the appeal to secondary sources as you are in how you arrived at the conclusion of this topic, well you wouldn't only be following the Qur'an literally alone in the sense you do. That's what I think.

Kind Regards,

Bassam

36

General Discussions / Joseph Islam's Article "HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE QURAN WAS FULLY PRESERVED? ...."

« on: May 07, 2013, 03:54:45 PM »

I was reading brother Joseph's article over here http://quransmessage.com/articles/how%20do%20we%20know%20the%20quran%20was%20preserved%20if%20nor%20for%20ahadith%20FM3.htm

- Brother Joseph asked "A question bears pondering. When a non Muslim individual sincerely accepts the Quran as the Word of God, does he or she really care 'how the Quran was preserved'? Do they really accept the Quran as God's word because the Ahadith attests that the Quran can be traced all the way back to a Prophet which they do not yet believe in?" to then which brother Joseph answered "The answer is of course, in the negative." I don't think brother Joseph could speak on behalf of everyone. We are living in a time and age where our faith is under attack, especially the Qur'an's preservation by orientalists. Such things could shake a person's faith, hence it becomes relevant to many Muslims to historically demonstrate the preservation of the Qur'an and not simply resort to blind faith. We need to demonstrate that the overall collection process was reliable to the extent where we shouldn't even be open to the question that 15:9 was a false insertion in order to not let others doubt and suspect the other alleged false insertions.

- Many of the claims raised by brother Joseph in his "IT IS ONLY THE AHADITH THAT RAISES DOUBTS TO THE QURAN'S PRESERVATION" section were already addressed by myself in my debate on the subject http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWK1xv0Bt-A&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eansweringmuslims%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded.

- Many of the subjective concerns raised against the hadiths have already been addressed by traditional Muslims (some examples http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2008/08/prophet-muhammad-visiting-all-his-wives.html,http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_prophet_prohibited_the_killing_of_women_and_children__but_what_about_those_night_raids_,http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=16188, etc. etc. etc . ). It would be good to see counter rebuttals and a justification for the objectivity of the methodology used to discard these ahaadith. Unfortunately, I feel that there is a double standard going on when it comes to the hadith literature, since I feel the same level and method of argumentation could be equally applied against the Qur'an.

- Joseph talks about "ahad hadiths", so does that mean that he accepts the Mutawaatir ahaadith? How about ahad hadith which have had mutawaatir acceptance?

- Joseph said "The requirement that necessitated the need for ‘isnads’ seems inevitably linked to the fact that the veracity of the statements they provided were most likely challenged by the earliest Islamic communities." Isnads were needed in order to ensure containment and elimination of fabrications and weak evidence based stories from floating around.



I'm afraid that I can't Joseph's method as being serious, since it requires too much blind faith in a personal and subjective interpretation of the Qur'an, while at the same time discards established historical facts by merely sweeping them under the rug.



Bassam

37

General Discussions / Joseph Islam's Article "THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN"

« on: May 07, 2013, 03:17:14 PM »

I was reading brother Joseph's article over here http://quransmessage.com/articles/the%20compilation%20of%20the%20quran%20FM3.htm. Some observations of mine:


- No explicit evidence has been provided to justify that the adequate translation for in 25:32 "denotes the well constructed action of putting together of component parts into one integral whole endowing the complete scripture with an ‘airtight’ inner consistency devoid of errors."

- The claim "the Quran’s statement clearly denies the insinuations and admits to a well planned and arranged structure despite its piecemeal revelation." isn't clear, rather it appears that the reason that the Qur'an gives for the gradual revelation is " thus that We may strengthen thy heart there with".

- Surah 75:17 does not mention the form of collection. It doesn't say whether it's collected in textual form or in the form of memorization in the minds of the companions.

- Again, no explicit evidence has been provided to justify the translation of 73:4 presented by brother Joseph.

- Surah 5:3 does not necessitate that all revelation be collated in textual form. The "completion of the deen" could entail that no more revelation would be coming down and everything that God had to say has been said. Nothing on collection of the revelation in textual form could be objectively/explicitly inferred from this verse.

- 80:13-16 only says that the Qur'an was written down. It doesn't say that all these writings were collected into one comprehensive book. The same goes for 68:1, 96:1-5, 98:2-3 & 25:5.

- The claim "The suggestion that such a central sacred text of the new believing community would not be committed to protected written parchments during the life of the Prophet seems difficult to accept from a Quranic perspective. Equally difficult to accept is the insinuation that the Arabs were so primitive that they would not be able to commit such a holy text to certain scrolls or parchments during the life of the Prophet." seems to be a subjective one, for one would ask: 1) Where is the Qur'anic command to collect everything in textual form in one single comprehensive book? and 2) What was the urgent need for it during the Prophet's time?

- The accusation in 6:91 is not to do with merely keeping the scriptures in parchments, but rather the accusation issued forth is that they would "disclose some of it and you conceal much of it". This is clear in context, since the accusation against the kuffar was for not abiding by the entirety of God's Word.

- Surah 15:9 indeed shows that it was God's promise to guard the Qur'an, however God works through agents. So I don't see the relevance here.

- Adrian Brockett was cited, but the question is... does Adrian Brockett believe that history demonstrates that the Qur'an was compiled into a single book before the Prophet's death (which is the main topic of the article)?



I don't think we should discard established historical facts of the preservation of the Qur'an for subjective interpretations of the Qur'an.

Thanks,

Bassam
 

38

Prophets and Messengers / Re: Joseph Islam's Article "EXCLUSIVENESS OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD (pbuh)"

« on: May 07, 2013, 02:14:08 PM »

If we appeal to secondary sources, then the dispute of 'authority' of these sources must be resolved first as I'm sure you will agree.

Yes, I surely agree.

I was just pointing out that doing such a thing is not necessarily in direct contradiction with 2:285.

39

General Discussions / Who Determines What is Absurd?

« on: May 07, 2013, 06:32:28 AM »

I come across many Quranists who claim that they reject many ahaadith because they appear to be "absurd" and "ridiculous" and "an insult to one's intelligence".

But whose subjection opinion is the correct one when it comes to determining what is absurd? There are many atheists who would claim that the following things from the Qur'an:

- Jesus made birds from clay
- One of the Jins claimed to bring the throne of the Queen of Sheba within the blink of an eye
- Moses parted the sea with his staff
- The staff turned into a snake
- The hoopoe bird spoke to Sulayman
- Ibrahim was shown split dead brids brought back to life
- Some men slept for 300 years.
- Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed
- A she camel came out of a mountain for the people of Saleh
- A floating mountain was brought on top of Banu Israel
- A stone gave water for the twelve tribes of Israel
- An ant spoke and Sulayman heard it talk
- The army of elephants was destroyed by little birds
- The Prophet was taken to masjid al Aqsa and then to the seventh heaven in one night
- etc. etc. etc.


Are ridiculous.

So who draws the line? How do we remain intellectually consistent?


Bassam

40

Discussions / Re: Joseph Islam's Article "ALLEGED MURDER SANCTIONED BY THE PROPHET - OVERLAP OF...

« on: May 07, 2013, 06:18:46 AM »

Yes, I know you did, but as I said you didn't "emphasize strong enough". That's okay.

I think you aren't differentiating between the methodology of the historians and muhaditheen. The historians in generel acknowledged that they purposely collected almost everything they got their hands on and left the job of the verification to the muhaditheen.

As for those historians who did try to differentiate between weak and saheeh stories, well then they don't really have reputations for applying stringent methodologies for accuracy. Hence, Bukhari despite coming later could be more trustworthy and the recognition for the importance of an isnad long preceded Bukhari.

You see, the issues you are raising are things the scholars were already aware of. I think your main concern is your distrust and lack of confidence in the hadith sciences methodology.

As for your question about Ka'b, I think there are premises behind your question which I don't agree with. Hence, I don't think I could answer it.

41

Discussions / Joseph Islam's Article "ALLEGED MURDER SANCTIONED BY THE PROPHET - OVERLAP OF...

« on: May 07, 2013, 05:38:39 AM »

I was reading brother Joseph's article over here http://quransmessage.com/articles/history-hadith%20overlap%20FM3.htm and I was disappointed that brother Joseph didn't emphasize strong enough on the fact that orthodox Muslims don't accept the Sira and hadith literature whole sale and have thus argued against the stories of:

Kinana: http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_silas_s_article__muhammad_and_the_death_of_kinana_
Abu Afak and bin Marwan: http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com/2008/07/allegation-that-muhammad-killed-poets.html

Due to them not being proven to be authentic. And it's not for arbitrary reasons at all.

As for Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf. I don't see what the objection to this killing is. He was a war criminal. Deception in war is permitted. What Islam forbids however is treachery and there is a difference between deception and treachery.


Bassam

42

Prophets and Messengers / Joseph Islam's Article "EXCLUSIVENESS OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD (pbuh)"

« on: May 07, 2013, 05:28:15 AM »

I was reading brother Joseph's article "EXCLUSIVENESS OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD (pbuh)" over here http://quransmessage.com/articles/exclusiveness%20of%20prophet%20muhammad%20FM3.htm

I tend to understand 2:285 as many exegetes do that it means that one should not make a distinction between the messengers in the sense where you recognize some of them as being messengers, while others are not. It is emphasizing acceptance of all them. I believe it's an extra emphasis, since believing in the Messenger would lead to believing in everything else by default (e.g. books, message, etc.).

As for 2:253, which brother Joseph cited at the end... I totally agree that it is God alone who could elevate certain prophets in ranks or not. However, I think brother Joseph forgot one thing........ that doesn't mean that we cannot RECOGNIZE God's elevation of certain Prophets and BASED ON THAT, distinguish between the Prophets in terms of rank. We aren't doing the distinction because of what we think, but rather because of how God distinguished between them. Hence, we are merely recognizing God's distinction Himself.


Your thoughts?

43

Discussions / Joseph Islam's Article "WILL THE SINS OF MUSLIMS BE TRANSFERRED TO CHRISTIANS A"

« on: May 07, 2013, 05:08:24 AM »

Brother Joseph Islam expressed some concerns regarding certain ahaadeeth in the orthodox Muslim hadith literature in his article over here http://quransmessage.com/articles/will%20the%20sins%20of%20musilms%20be%20transferred%20to%20christians%20and%20jews%20FM3.htm 

However, I think it would be fair to see how orthodox Muslims have clarified the meaning of these ahaadith.

I gave a partial explanation here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_william_lane_craig_s_divine_insurance_policy_analogy , while another brother dedicated an entire article to it here http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/04/no-substitutionary-atonement-islam.html


Thanks,

Bassam

44

General Discussions / Re: Ignore or Reply ? Your Views

« on: April 01, 2013, 08:50:53 PM »

Today all over the world we Muslims are suffering frm pain, torture, suppression, insult, terrorism, psychological traumas, and many many more. Dont you think that the above post from Bukhari implies that muslims were so much of sinners that Allah is now removing their sins ? Does that make any sense ?"

That hadith is not saying that THE ONLY reason why Muslims get punished is in order to have their sins removed. For instance, some people are punished precisely because of their sins.

There are conditions for getting rewarded, while undergoing a trial from Allah and one of them is that one bears them patiently with faith in Allah.

45

General Discussions / Re: To defend the Hadith, attack the Qur'an !

« on: April 01, 2013, 08:43:41 PM »

I believe we need to see how traditional Muslims understood the hadith of the ajwa dates. They don't believe that the power of protection is in the dates themselves, but rather it's a means taken, while the ultimate power is in Allah.

It's kind of like Allah saying in the Qur'an "Make dua to Me and I shall respond". Could we then take this verse and challenge people to ask Allah for a Ferrari and expect it to then turn up miraculously in our garage? No, I don't think so.

I think we need to sometimes look at the spirit of things in their proper context and not at the letter of things in isolation of their context.