Is it possible to Prove the Qu'ran is the very Words of God?

[Hugo]

Greetings Hugo, We can prove that the Qur'an is the word of God by demonstrating it's miraculous nature - the fact that it cannot possibly have been the work of human hands. This is touched upon in this video: How is the Qur'an Miraculous? The Challenge of the Qur'an. Since this is a slightly different area of discussion, I suggest you create a thread in the Clarifications about Islam section if you wish to continue discussing it. Please do watch the video first though.

Regards

This is a new thread based on discussions elsewhere and the above is the suggestion from Uthman. My opening remarks are:

I looked at the video you suggested and essentially the speaker takes 20 minutes to state that the Qu'ran is a 'literary miracle' but as far as I could tell the only 'proof' he offers is that the Meccan's could not reproduce anything like it at the time and according to him that equals it cannot be done.

Coupled with this he makes what to me seems odd claims that Arabic scholars at Cambridge or Princeton are of no account compared to those say in Cairo and it seem even they could not hold a candle to the Meccan pre-islamic Arabic speakers

This to me seems a very weak argument but I would like to explore it and my next post I begin by discussing what is typically understood by the term 'proof' and ways in which the idea of proof is used.

[Uthman]

Greetings Hugo,

Thanks for the reply. I can accept that the speaker did not really explain how exactly the Qur'an is a literary miracle which is why I said that it is 'touched upon' in the video.

I'm not sure why he didn't explain it fully - perhaps due to time constraints. The following video gives more justice to the topic and goes some way to actually explain how the Qur'an is a literary miracle:

I realise that the video is fairly long and so I would request that you watch at least some of it, if not all of it.

[mahi]

It's important to note, you can't prove everything, but their is proof. And lets say I am a non muslim, I won't believe it to be all the words of God, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a great book to read for guidance and how to conduct oneself.

There are proofs, though no doubt posting them will lead to a massive debate on whether or not they are legit proofs, made up by Muhammad, etc etc

But In my next post I'll try and gather as many as I can for you :)

[mahi]

Now truth, is mainly thought in this sense as science. I'll make the point that there is quite a bit of science in the Qu'ran, but many will also make the point that there is no "Strong Science".

If Allah was going to use science to prove the Qur’an, then why not do it in a way that does not depend upon clever exegesis from the supporters of that argument? Rather, Allah could have done it in a way that was indisputable. For instance, why not predict TV with a verse such as: "Say: ‘Men shall watch images that move in a small box that stands in the corner of their dwelling.’" Or the moon landings: "Say: ‘Lo! And men shall walk upon the face of the moon, and plant a flag thereon.’" Do you see? Verses such as these could have no argument against them, unlike the current situation, which requires a) a somewhat tortured exegesis of these "miracle verses" and b) a categorical insistence by those who interpret them that theirs and theirs alone is the right interpretation (often ignoring over 1,000 years of what previous Muslim scholars and interpreters have said.)

I was in the process of giving you many scientific proofs shown in the Qu'ran, but its way beyong my capacity both in science and Islam to comprehend them, so with that I'd rather not post some stuff to you that could be a load of rubbish. My apologies though

But yeah, proof brings the idea of science. I'm pretty sure that not many muslims are muslims based on the sole science in the Qu'ran. The many converts like Yusuf Islam talk about finding guidance in the Qu'ran when their spiritual beliefs became brittle. Same sort of thing with ex Christian ministers like Yusuf Estes

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Hugo]

Before we get going on this thread I need to make a few post to see if we have any agreement on the basic terms. To make it manageable I will have to use a few posts to do it and allow you some time to comment/question or supply an alternative point of view.

Truth is usually simply defined as a fact that has been verified or more loosely as meaning a statement is accurate. Often therefore truth is defined as the problem of being clear about what you are saying when you make some claim or other to be true. Or less obscurely, is our pattern of reasoning or as Aristotle called them the “form” of reasoning valid or invalid.

Confusion - it is important here that you do not confuse belief with proof.

Strands of thought with regard to truth. There are the “absolutists” where they largely rely on dogma (someone tells you what the truth is) and the relativist that see truth as a changing quality. Typically the absolutist is happy in his own convictions and may not care or sympathise with those of others. So absolutism gives a sense of security and self-assurance (sometime spilling over into bigoted self-righteousness) whereas the relativist sees it as unthinking, irrational innocence.

Facts - We use the idea of “fact” all the time; so what is a fact; how do you know when you have a fact? f I look at a fact like "gravity" (called a natural fact) and a fact like "62% of students passed in the May cohort" (called a nominal fact) - is there any differences between these two kinds of fact?

So is it possible to prove a fact - The answer is that I can find proofs of gravity and I can find proofs of the pass rate. Therefore, a fact can be independently checked in some way. Now for nominal facts you may find that some people will not accept your proof. To take a perhaps extreme example, suppose I say that the existence of God or Allah or Krishna is a fact then I might cite proofs and you might or might not find them convincing but I think you will see that such proofs are not falsifiable (put simply we cannot work out how to test the proposition) and clearly not accepted by all as true. Whereas gravity is always true, can be tested and cannot be ignored by anyone.

Let us say you are a Muslim or Hindu or Christian; that is a nominal fact about you that is true and I accept that fact, but my acceptance of that fact does not mean I also automatically accept that Islam or Hinduism or Christianity as holding the truth. In other words what I do or think based on a supposed nominal fact will depend on me not the fact itself. Notice that with natural facts I cannot, for example, rationally decide that I don’t believe in gravity. But, suppose that I irrationally decide that I don’t believe in gravity, that is a matter for me but what I cannot do is avoid its effects because I do not believe in it. Put simply, you believing something to be a fact is NOT a proof of the fact itself.

A fact sometimes can be changed and sometime not. Please be careful here; I CANNOT change the pass rate of the May cohort BUT I can in principle change the pass rate for later cohorts.

Natural facts like gravity cannot be changed by you but some natural facts do change, for example, if you were asked how many planets there are in the solar system then when I was at school the answer was 9 but now there are more.

Nominal facts are important because they crop up all the time and we can in principle do something about them, change them in some way.

Opinions - In contrast to a fact an opinion is person's personal beliefs, thoughts or feelings about something; these may be rationally held and based on facts or quite irrational. Notice that you cannot independently check an opinion as you could a fact. For example, if someone tells you their birthday is 26 April 1942 then you can independently get that checked. In contrast if you ask someone do they like birthday parties then you cannot check that by some other route, you can ONLY reliably get such an answer from one source? You might also notice that we might reasonably make a decision on a fact but we would be much less sure of ourselves if we made the same decision based on an opinion.

Proof - This means that the phenomenon we are looking at is always true, it’s not a matter of belief but something that cannot be avoided (gravity for example) - it is always true for everyone, all the time, everywhere, is accepted by all and cannot be avoided or ignored by anyone.

Indicators - proof as described above is often not possible – that is indicators are not proof but generalisations; predications made on the basis of some evidence (data) we might have. Summary - In this thread I do no think it is possible to find proofs in the first sense for the Qu'ran and we must of necessity relay in the second sense mentioned here.

[Woodrow]

Proof is often a very abstract concept and can be very subjective based upon an individuals concept of Allaah(swt).

since Allaah(swt) is not of this physical world and can not be measured by direct observation, we have to seek ways to show the effects of Allaah(swt) rather than showing Allaah(swt).

Now to get back to the Qur'an and how to prove it is the very Words of Allaah(swt). I believe the only way I could prove it would be to prove at least three things in this order.

1. Allaah(swt) exists

2. Allaah(swt) has revealed

3. The Qur'an is one of the messages Allaah(swt) revealed.

Needless to say different types of proof would have to be shown if the person was a theist of an Abrahmic belief (a Person of the Book), a non-Abrahamic monotheist, a polytheist, an Agnostic or an Atheist.

to try to prove it to you I would first have to know what you would accept as proof of Allaah(swt) that is not a simple thing to do. There is a possibility that something exist as proof my be something you had not even considered. But it is still a starting point. so I will begin by simply asking. "What would you accept as proof Allaah(swt) exists?"

[Eliphaz]

Now to get back to the Qur'an and how to prove it is the very Words of Allaah(swt). I believe the only way I could prove it would be to prove at least three things in this order.

1. Allaah(swt) exists

2. Allaah(swt) has revealed

3. The Qur'an is one of the messages Allaah(swt) revealed.

to try to prove it to you I would first have to know what you would accept as proof of Allaah(swt) that is not a simple thing to do. There is a possibility that something exist as proof my be something you had not even considered. But it is still a starting point. so I will begin by simply asking. "What would you accept as proof Allaah(swt) exists?"

The simplest way to prove God exists is to say that I did not make myself, therefore someone must have made me, and the things around me did not make themselves, therefore something must have made them.

The second point is harder and I would argue, with some sadness as a former follower of Abrahamic faith, that there is no way to prove God has revealed anything. A revelation to one man is not a revelation to all humanity. If you then ask, well then what is the purpose of our existence, I would say that God knows better than I do, but that the entire creation is His revelation. It is not limited to one language but is knowable to all in equal measure.

If 2 cannot be proved, then 3 is neither here nor there, no matter how much 'good stuff' is in there.

[Hugo]

Proof is often a very abstract concept and can be very subjective based upon an individuals concept of Allaah(swt). since Allaah(swt) is not of this physical world and can not be measured by direct observation, we have to seek ways to show the effects of Allaah(swt) rather than showing Allaah(swt). Now to get back to the Qur'an and how to prove it is the very Words of Allah(swt). I believe the only way I could prove it would be to prove at least three things in this order.

1. Allaah(swt) exists
2. Allaah(swt) has revealed
3. The Qur'an is one of the messages Allaah(swt) revealed.

Needless to say different types of proof would have to be shown if the person was a theist of an Abrahmic belief (a Person of the Book), a non-Abrahamic monotheist, a polytheist, an Agnostic or an Atheist.

to try to prove it to you I would first have to know what you would accept as proof of Allaah(swt) that is not a simple thing to do. There is a possibility that something exist as proof my be something you had not even considered. But it is still a starting point. so I will begin by simply asking. "What would you accept as proof Allah (swt) exists?"

This is a good start and it is fair to ask what might be acceptable as proof. But it seem a little odd to me to say we need different kinds of proof which implies that X might be a proof for me and Y for you and neither for someone else. Though I might go along with the idea that X and Y are evidence for God but not absolute proof.

One of the defining things about proof is that it cannot be avoided or set aside by anyone. For example, suppose I say that flowers being so beautiful is a proof of a creator then in a way all I am doing is making a proof by definition and it would be no different logically if I said that flowers is a proof that the world was created by little green men. I don't know what would constitute absolute proof and I like billions before me fall back on faith, that inward conviction that like Abraham we have heard God speak.

Its just a thought but another way of dealing with this to say why we don't believe, I might be able to say why I am not a Muslim, another might be able to say why he is not a Buddhist and so on as that might give us a chink of light as to what direction to go to find proof.

[Hugo]

I will post a little more on what is meant be proof later but it is as well to say what is not right bat the start. So here is a little note and example (sent to me)

Sophistry
Much that you will read on the internet in particular can only be classed as sophistry that is clever but worthless argument. The Sophists arose as philosophers more or less at the same time as Socrates in ancient Greece and felt themselves to be very wise men who knew everything in contrast to Socrates who claimed he knew nothing. The Sophists it seems were not much interested in truth but only in winning an augment and many believe they in effect sowed the seeds of the demise of the Greek nation at that time. This may all have happened 2,500 years ago but their legacy lives on and the corrosive influences of their attitude is evident everywhere today and certainly in politics and religion.

As it happens I was discussing these ideas with a student about a year ago (so the link might have changed) and she pointed me to a site written by Dr Gary Miller. Dr Miller invites us to use his materials freely so I will do that to illustrate several things about proof. On this site he wrote many things which he regards are some sort of proof and he says it is possible to set standards for truth and talks about falsification tests. Here is one example of the kind of argument he uses. (See http://www.islamicinvitationcentre.c...uran.htm#Intro)

An engineer at the University of Toronto who was interested in psychology and who had read something on it, conducted research and wrote a thesis on Efficiency of Group Discussions. The purpose of his research was to find out how much people accomplish when they get together to talk in groups of two, three, ten, etc. The graph of his findings: people accomplish most when they talk in groups of two. Of course, this discovery was entirely beyond his expectations, but it is very old advice given in the Qur'an: "Say, 'I exhort you to one thing - that you stand for Allah, [assessing the truth] by twos and singly, and then reflect.....'

Some thoughts on this:

1. Can this in any way be regarded as proof. We might easily observe that there are no references and it is impossible for us to check what has been said as it’s a hopeless task to find “An Engineer at the University…” He quotes the Qu’ran but does not tell us the surah or the English translation it is taken from (or did he translate it himself or even just make it up). When you see this kind of extremely poor scholarship one has no alternative but to ignore Dr Millar’s work entirely as it cannot be trusted. That does not mean Dr Miller is a bad person, all we are saying is that his work cannot be trusted as he seem ignorant of normal scholarly practices.

2. You may also note that the quotation from the Qu’ran is extremely short and that would make me wonder if he is just being very selective to try to make his own point; that is the quote in full might not support his conjecture so he ignores the bits that don’t suit him. Again because we have no references we cannot easily check it.

Also notice that he adds something in brackets to the Qu’ran “that you stand for Allah, [assessing the truth]” and so he perhaps forces an interpretation on the words” that you stand for Allah” but like any interpretation it is only one of many. Additionally, he assumes that it means assessing the truth of anything and it is almost impossible to see that the actual Qu’ranic verse is saying that. Overall this looks like Dr Miller is being tendentious (the author simply wants to convince you of something and may use any means to do it) in the extreme.

3. What is he trying to prove here? That the Qu’ran agrees with an Engineer’s findings? That the Engineer has verified something the Qu’ran has said? Is he offering an interpretation of the Engineers findings or the Qu’ran? We simply don’t know for sure what point he is making. In any case this was just one case study and no one is going to assume that what the Engineer found is universally true, and has been and will be for all time on just one set of results.

4. It is interesting to note here that if this Engineer or the Qu’ran is saying that working in two’s is powerful he might like to recall that Socrates made the same observation, which he called his dialectical, with impeccable logic about 2,500 years before the Engineer was even born and about 1,000 years before any copies of the Qu’ran existed.

This point is quite important and that is why we must read widely otherwise we may well think we have discovered something only to find that it is already known and published and we end up making an idiot of ourselves because we have not prepared properly. At worst of course this can also look like plagiarism – to take my example a little further we could argue then that the Engineer and the Qu’ran both plagiarised the idea of Socrates – but of course we take the obvious solution to be that the Engineer and Prophet Mohammed had no knowledge of Socrates. Whilst we might easily allow that Prophet Mohammed had no knowledge of Greek thinkers (although there was great library at Alexandria at the time so we cannot be sure) we are much less inclined to forgive this Engineer or Dr Miller for not knowing something about Socrates, perhaps the greatest thinker of all time.

In short what this example is saying is that you must be sceptical and careful with what people say and you must ask for evidence. Now of course in everyday life we don’t question everything we hear or read otherwise life would be an impossibility but we must always be aware that things may not be what they seem and of course in research and what we read we do need to carefully question what it is because we want to be credible and not make a laughingstock of ourselves.

[mahi]

I'm not trying to offend, you may find as I have done as going in to as much depth as one would like just ends up making the person even more confused. It's happened to me many times in questioning things, because one question leads to another endlessly

All I know that even if I may not be sure of the truth of the Qu'ran, there are 1.5 Billion muslims out there who know and have felt the truth of the Qu'ran, and will try their best to follow everything in it. They will pray five times a day amongst others as they know its the truth.

So in answer to your question, yes it is possible to prove, to those who will believe, on God's will. And also no, not to those who don't want to believe, no matter how much proof is given I doubt it'd suffice. All we can do is pray to God that everyone can find the truth.

You have problems no doubt, with people who can't see or don't want to see.
These people will go with the stereotypes like Islam places women below men, and say things like this make Islam a massive problem. Yet we forget that above all these we're here, that God has given us life, let us be possible, given us eyes to see, hands to feel. That itself is a proof of the truth.

Personally, I know its the truth. Just an example, but if the Qu'ran guides something that allows people to stray away from their lives 5 times a day to go to the mosque, where hundreds of people cry as one when asking god for forgiveness, to help the sick, to help their children and parents, thanking God for everything that we have; then I know it is the truth.

[Woodrow]

This is a good start and it is fair to ask what might be acceptable as proof. But it seem a little odd to me to say we need different kinds of proof which implies that X might be a proof for me and Y for you and neither for someone else. Though I might go along with the idea that X and Y are evidence for God but not absolute proof.

That probably was worded awkwardly. But for Example if I am debating with a Christian or Jew I would not need to prove the existence of God(swt) But I would need to prove that Allaah(swt) is the same God(swt) tat was mentioned by the Prophets(PBUH) we agree upon.

One of the defining things about proof is that it cannot be avoided or set aside by anyone. For example, suppose I say that flowers being so beautiful is a proof of a creator then in a way all I am doing is making a proof by definition and it would be no different logically if I said that flowers is a proof that the world was created by little green men. I don't know what would constitute absolute proof and I like billions before me fall back on faith, that inward conviction that like Abraham we have heard God speak.

I see the difficulty that is here. To use an analogy of how electricity is measured. Electricity itself is not measurable and is non material so we measure the effects of electricity and use that as an analog to calculate the quantity or quality of Electricity. So it is with trying to Qualify and Quantify God(swt) we have no physical object to measure and therefor have to find an acceptable analog to show the effects of God(swt).

Its just a thought but another way of dealing with this to say why we don't believe, I might be able to say why I am not a Muslim, another might be able to say why he is not a Buddhist and so on as that might give us a chink of light as to what direction to go to find proof.

That could be the best way of all. So tell me why you do not believe the Qur'an is the word of Allaah(swt).

[Hugo]

I'm not trying to offend, you may find as I have done as going in to as much depth as one would like just ends up making the person even more confused. It's happened to me many times in questioning things, because one question leads to another endlessly

All I know that even if I may not be sure of the truth of the Qu'ran, there are 1.5 Billion muslims out there who know and have felt the truth of the Qu'ran, and will try their best to follow everything in it. They will pray five times a day amongst others as they know its the truth.

So in answer to your question, yes it is possible to prove, to those who will believe, on God's will. And also no, not to those who don't want to believe, no matter how much proof is given I doubt it'd suffice. All we can do is pray to God that everyone can find the truth.

You have problems no doubt, with people who can't see or don't want to see.
These people will go with the stereotypes like Islam places women below men, and say things like this make Islam a massive problem. Yet we forget that above all these we're here, that God has given us life, let us be possible, given us eyes to see, hands to feel. That itself is a proof of the truth.

Personally, I know its the truth. Just an example, but if the Qu'ran guides something that allows people to stray away from their lives 5 times a day to go to the mosque, where hundreds of people cry as one when asking god for forgiveness, to help the sick, to help their children and parents, thanking God for everything that we have; then I know it is the truth.

I see your point but if the logic you have used it is true for Islam then it is true for lots of other religions as well. That is I can re-write you post putting Christian or Buddhist with a few minor changes and we get the same argument - ipso facto it amounts to a fallacy.

This does not mean you cannot feel it to be the truth, live by it, but what you feel or what you believe is not a proof of anything.

[Hugo]

That probably was worded awkwardly. But for Example if I am debating with a Christian or Jew I would not need to prove the existence of God(swt) But I would need to prove that Allaah(swt) is the same God(swt) tat was mentioned by the Prophets(PBUH) we agree upon.

I see the difficulty that is here. To use an analogy of how electricity is measured. Electricity itself is not measurable and is non material so we measure the effects of electricity and use that as an analog to calculate the quantity or quality of Electricity. So it is with trying to Qualify and Quantify God(swt) we have no physical object to measure and therefor have to find an acceptable analog to show the effects of God(swt).

That could be the best way of all. So tell me why you do not believe the Qur'an is the word of Allaah(swt).

Good idea but let me start a bit further back. If you visit Islamic discussion boards or U-Tube one is struck by the sheer amount of traffic on proving this or that one of several impossible things before breakfast (to me) about the Qu'ran. You will not find the same thing in Jewish or Christian circles with regard to the Bible.

I for example, have spend a lifetime in Christian circles and listened to probably several thousands of hours of sermons and teaching and I cannot recall one that tried to prove anything about the Bible or Jesus or the law or transmission etc. The whole thrust is about finding out what God is saying through the accepted scriptures. This does not mean Christian are not interested in authenticity but that they do it by reading the words so to speak, understanding interpreting the message.

So my starting question is why are Muslim so concerned and to me it obsessively so, about proving the Qu'ran is the word of God, proving its is unchanged etc etc and often it seems as if what it say is of little importance

[Woodrow]

Good idea but let me start a bit further back. If you visit Islamic discussion boards or U-Tube one is struck by the sheer amount of traffic on proving this or that one of several impossible things before breakfast (to me) about the Qu'ran. You will not find the same thing in Jewish or Christian circles with regard to the Bible.

I will agree that is true of many non-zionist Jews. But it is not true of some of the Evangelical movements in Christianity. May Allaah(swt) spare me from the incessant knocking on the door by the merchants of salvation.

Your point is taken and I understand that this onlaught is usually counter productive and possibly even sometimes misleading. When somebody knocks on the door too often and too loudly people soon become deaf to the sound.

I doubt if many people reverted to Islam as the result of Youtube videos or fear tactic preaching. speaking as a revert myself, none of those things led me to Islam. I tend to doubt if any of us reverted as a result of any of that. (That just gave me an idea for a poll, please stay tuned to this forum for a soon to be posted poll in the poll section)

I for example, have spend a lifetime in Christian circles and listened to probably several thousands of hours of sermons and teaching and I cannot recall one that tried to prove anything about the Bible or Jesus or the law or transmission etc. The whole thrust is about finding out what God is saying through the accepted scriptures. This does not mean Christian are not interested in authenticity but that they do it by reading the words so to speak, understanding interpreting the message.

Many do try that and get rebutted for doing so. Usually with the statement that we are going in circles by using the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an is true.

Those of us who try to do so by explaing our understanding of the scripture get hit with we are giving opinions not facts.

It is difficult to find a method of communication that is readily palatable to the taste of non-Muslim audiences and still state the facts fully.

Perhaps as a non-Muslim you may be able to give suggestions as to what Da'wah methods would most likely be seen or listened to by non-Muslims.

So my starting question is why are Muslim so concerned and to me it obsessively so, about proving the Qu'ran is the word of God, proving its is unchanged etc etc and often it seems as if what it say is of little importance

We get paid to do so.















Not a cash or material payment but payment in the satisfaction we are serving Allaah(swt) and at the same time rescuing some of our Brothers and Sisters in humanity from the flames of hell. No different from the same feeling that prods a fireman to run into a burning building to pull out a trapped child.

we also find it to be a very fulfilling and enjoyable life style we want to share with others.

[Hugo]

I will agree that is true of many non-zionist Jews. But it is not true of some of the Evangelical movements in Christianity. May Allaah(swt) spare me from the incessant knocking on the door by the merchants of salvation. Your point is taken and I understand that this onlaught is usually counter productive and possibly even sometimes misleading. When somebody knocks on the door too often and too loudly people soon become deaf to the sound. I doubt if many people reverted to Islam as the result of Youtube videos or fear tactic preaching. speaking as a revert myself, none of those things led me to Islam. I tend to doubt if any of us reverted as a result of any of that. (That just gave me an idea for a poll, please stay tuned to this forum for a soon to be posted poll in the poll section)

Many do try that and get rebutted for doing so. Usually with the statement that we are going in circles by using the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an is true. Those of us who try to do so by explaing our understanding of the scripture get hit with we are giving opinions not facts.

It is difficult to find a method of communication that is readily palatable to the taste of non-Muslim audiences and still state the facts fully. Perhaps as a non-Muslim you may be able to give suggestions as to what Da'wah methods would most likely be seen or listened to by non-Muslims.

We get paid to do so. Not a cash or material payment but payment in the satisfaction we are serving Allaah(swt) and at the same time rescuing some of our Brothers and Sisters in humanity from the flames of hell. No different from the same feeling that prods a fireman to run into a burning building to pull out a trapped child. we also find it to be a very fulfilling and enjoyable life style we want to share with others.

It would be a bit odd to not use the Qu'ran as part of the task of authentication so I don't quite understand such an attitude. In terms of methods of spreading the message Christians would always point to Jesus and the Gospels because they would say that it is God that make a difference not a method.

It interesting to see you note on 'getting paid' and Christians would take a quite different attitude and perhaps this is best expressed in the well-known prayer of Saint Ignatius Loyola and it would be one of the reason I for example would feel Islam to be unsatisfactory - that is no amount of good works can bring us forgiveness.

Teach us, Good Lord,
To Serve Thee as Thou deservest;
To give and not to count the cost;
To fight and not to heed the wounds;
To labour and not to ask for any reward,
save that of knowing that we do Thy will.

In my next post I will offer a reason for not seeing the Qu'ran as God's words as you asked earlier.

[Hugo]

That could be the best way of all. So tell me why you do not believe the Qur'an is the word of Allaah(swt).

Please understand that what I say here is not intended to offend but simply state my position. Let us begin with a fairly well known line. In 10:35 -38 we read "This Koran could not have been devised by any but God. It confirms what was revealed before it and fully explains the scripture. It is beyond doubt from the Lord of the Universe" (Dawood).

If we assume that 'scriptures' here means the Bible then:

a. Why is that Muslim don't study and accept the OT and NT as we have them now?

b. If you don't accept them then what can this verse mean? I of course know the Muslim position that the scriptures have been corrupted but you are then in the totally illogical position of trusting in scriptures that do not now as far as we know exist and that is if I may say so an absurd stance.

c. One presumes that Prophet Mohammed understood this verse but could not as far as we know have had access to the supposed uncorrupted versions so he must have understood it as being the versions we know about.

[Woodrow]

Please understand that what I say here is not intended to offend but simply state my position. Let us begin with a fairly well known line. In 10:35 -38 we read "This Koran could not have been devised by any but God. It confirms what was revealed before it and fully explains the scripture. It is beyond doubt from the Lord of the Universe" (Dawood).

No offense taken. I see that verse as meaning that in the past messages have been sent to mankid and the Qur'an reiterates and reminds mankind of what those messages were.

If we assume that 'scriptures' here means the Bible then:

Not exactly. We are told the messages were the
tauret, Zaboor and Injil. No where are we told that these are in the Bible. Although when we read the Bible it appears that may be partially included in the Torah and the first five books of the OT the Book of Psalms may be from the Zaboor and perhaps some of the quotes attributed to Jesus(as) in the NT are from the Injil

a. Why is that Muslim don't study and accept the OT and NT as we have them now?

There is no indication that it accurately includes the Tauret, Zaboor and Injil

b. If you don't accept them then what can this verse mean? I of course know the Muslim position that the scriptures have been corrupted but you are then in the totally illogical position of trusting in scriptures that do not now as far as we know exist and that is if I may say so an absurd stance.

It means the Qur'an does repeat and covers what was originally given in the past

c. One presumes that Prophet Mohammed understood this verse but could not as far as we know have had access to the supposed uncorrupted versions so he must have understood it as being the versions we know about.

I think your assumption is that Muhammad(PBUH) was the Author. We do not believe he was and he did not know what was going to be in the Qur'an until it was revealed to him. I do not personally know what he understood but do get some insight in what is in Ahadeeth about what he taught.

Just my own words and opinion here. My impression of the Qur'an is that Allaah(swt) had revealed to us what we need 3 times in the past, we botched it up all 3 times so Allaah(swt) gave it a fourth and final time in the Qur'an

[Uthman]

:salamext:

The rest of your post was spot on Woodrow except for this:

Just my own words and opinion here. My impression of the Qur'an is that Allaah(swt) had revealed to us what we need 3 times in the past, we botched it up all 3 times so Allaah(swt) gave it a fourth and final time in the Qur'an

The Qur'an is the only scripture to have been revealed for the whole of mankind until the end of time. The rest of the scriptures were only intended for the particular time and for the specific nation that they were sent to.

It is for this reason that the miracles given to the previous prophets (the purposes of which were to prove that they truly were prophets) were only observable at that time and place - because the message of those prophets were only intended for that time and place. In short, the proof that the prophets truly were prophets was only observable by the people that the prophets were sent to.

By contrast, the miraculous nature of the Qur'an - the greatest and most superior miracle given to the final prophet Muhammad (:saws:) - is still observable to this day. The reason for this is that the message given to Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) is intended for all of mankind until the end of time. Therefore, the proof that he truly was a prophet will be observable by all of mankind until the end of time, in accordance with the principle I mentioned above: that the proof of prophethood is only observable by the people that the prophets are sent to.

[Woodrow]

:salamext:

The rest of your post was spot on Woodrow except for this:

The Qur'an is the only scripture to have been revealed for the whole of mankind until the end of time. The rest of the scriptures were only intended for the particular time and for the specific nation that they were sent to.

It is for this reason that the miracles given to the previous prophets (the purposes of which were to prove that they truly were prophets) were only observable at that time and place - because the message of those prophets were only intended for that time and place. In short, the proof that the prophets truly were prophets was only observable by the people that the prophets were sent to.

By contrast, the miraculous nature of the Qur'an - the greatest and most superior miracle given to the final prophet Muhammad (:saws:) - is still observable to this day. The reason for this is that the message given to Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) is intended for all of mankind until the end of time. Therefore, the proof that he truly was a prophet will be observable by all of mankind until the end of time, in accordance with the principle I mentioned above: that the proof of prophethood is only observable by the people that the prophets are sent to.

Jazkallahu Khayran for your correction. I gladly accept correction and welcome additional information on all of my posts. My opinion is just that, my opinion and very limited.

[Hugo]

No offense taken. I see that verse as meaning that in the past messages have been sent to mankid and the Qur'an reiterates and reminds mankind of what those messages were.
Hugo - I note here you use the word 'reiterates' and so there was nothing new in the Qu'ran' - well I have not been able to find anything new.

We are told the messages were the tauret, Zaboor and Injil. No where are we told that these are in the Bible. Although when we read the Bible it appears that may be partially included in the Torah and the first five books of the OT the Book of Psalms may be from the Zaboor and perhaps some of the quotes attributed to Jesus(as) in the NT are from the Injil
Hugo - there are in fact 4 holy books in Islam aside from the Qu'ran and here you omitted Suhuf Ibrahim. The Qu'ran here is interesting as it typically uses the word 'scriptures' and does it about 100 times and often in translations the words Gospel or Psalms is added for clarification.

I don't quite see there is any argument in your words that it does not say these various books are in the Bible and frankly it would sound absurd to keep saying 'Injeel as found in the Bible'; it is much more natural and credible to assume people know where these books are.

Now, as far as I know there is no sign of these 4 books outside of the Bible. Let us consider the Injeel - its is used in the Qu'ran 12 times and refers to the message of Jesus but nowhere in the Qu'ran does it say what that message was. Qu'ranic scholars have suggested three explanations: an oral message, the book is lost or the books are corrupted (tahrif), anything but the obvious one that it is the 4 gospels we find in the NT. One understands this difficulty because as soon as you accept the Gospels as we know them then there are obvious and basic doctrinal difficulties. So in my view Muslims loose out and deprive themselves of such passages as the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapter 6 or the great treatise on love in 1 Corinthians 13 and I cannot see there would be any doctrinal difficulties there.

There is no indication that it accurately includes the Tauret, Zaboor and Injil
Hugo - how can there be from your perspective as you do not have these books so your sentence amounts to nonsense because you cannot know or ever know whether its accurate or not.

It means the Qur'an does repeat and covers what was originally given in the past
Hugo - I have already stated what is common knowledge; that the Qu'ran does not tell us what the message of Jesus was so there is no way to know if it repeats or covers what was given in the past.

I think your assumption is that Muhammad(PBUH) was the Author. We do not believe he was and he did not know what was going to be in the Qur'an until it was revealed to him. I do not personally know what he understood but do get some insight in what is in Ahadeeth about what he taught.
Hugo - I don't think I made any such assumption though it is obviously a possibility. No prophet knew what was revealed until it was revealed so there is no weight is such a statement. The word 'scripture' is easily found in the hadith though not that often so it seems there is not much there either. However, I can only read and search in English so I cannot be certain.

Just my own words and opinion here. My impression of the Qur'an is that Allaah(swt) had revealed to us what we need 3 times in the past, we botched it up all 3 times so Allaah(swt) gave it a fourth and final time in the Qur'an

Not quite sure what you mean by three times in the past?

[Hugo]

The Qur'an is the only scripture to have been revealed for the whole of mankind until the end of time. The rest of the scriptures were only intended for the particular time and for the specific nation that they were sent to.

It is for this reason that the miracles given to the previous prophets (the purposes of which were to prove that they truly were prophets) were only observable at that time and place - because the message of those prophets were only intended for that time and place. In short, the proof that the prophets truly were prophets was only observable by the people that the prophets were sent to.

By contrast, the miraculous nature of the Qur'an - the greatest and most superior miracle given to the final prophet Muhammad (:saws:) - is still observable to this day. The reason for this is that the message given to Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) is intended for all of mankind until the end of time. Therefore, the proof that he truly was a prophet will be observable by all of mankind until the end of time, in accordance with the principle I mentioned above: that the proof of prophethood is only observable by the people that the prophets are sent to.

In think this is a fair response because it sets out clearly the Islamic position and this is the question we are exploring here. I have no issues with you stating this but showing it to be true absolutely is quite another story.

Here we do it seems have some difficulties and one might say for example that Abraham was told in Genesis 18:18 (NIV) "Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him." This would seem to indicate a timeless nature of his message and of course Jesus told his followers to go into all the world and preach the Gospel and it would seem obvious he did not mean just for that time else there seems little point in such a command.

One further difficulty is that we have to consider is what about all the people who never had the Qu'ran so it could not have been a message for them?

[Hugo]

As a final posting to initiate this thread a short note on ways of constructing proofs.

Hypothesis
With regard to proof, many like to write out a hypothesis. There are two stages: write the null and alternative hypotheses and then write down the two (usually) variables involved (dependant and independent variables). This is usually the basis of an experiment of some kind so implies repeatability and so in context of this thread might not be all that useful

Setting Standards/Definitions
It is easily acknowledged that in normal life we can almost never get what one might call absolute proof. In courts of law for example they talk about the evidence being “beyond reasonable doubt” or based on “the balance of probabilities” – in other words you get enough information to convince (but not absolutely prove) you of the truth. This may be done in many ways but usually one lists the things one wants to see. For example, if I wanted to prove that Manchester United is the best football team in the world (they are not because everyone knows that is Arsenal!) then I might lay out my standard or definition for proof: no of goals scored, championships won, number of world class players and so on. There are three problems with this approach: firstly whoever you are talking to has to agree to your standards or definition, secondly if I can prove it today will it still be true tomorrow and thirdly once one knows the standards, it is all too easy to find the necessary evidence (one might often say manufacture the evidence).

A final vignette may help you here. I came across a true story of a man who had been married for many years but regularly had nightmares as to whether his wife really loved him. He was so bothered by this that he went to see a Church Minister and was told one way (standard/definition) to find proof (evidence) of love was to consider all the little things you wife does for you: wash you shirts, clean you shoes, cook your meals, look after you when you are ill and so on. You can see the “proofs” would be observable but is it really proof, will that man accept the standard or not, will it still be true in a year’s time and if the wife knows the standard will she just manufacture the evidence? The fact is that one can never know the answer here for certain and there will be many things in life that simply cannot be absolutely proved in any observable or rational manner and all that can be done is to feel convinced.

Falsification
This means that a proof is like a chain with links – break one link and the chain fails. So in proof if you can find one contrary example then the proof fails. In life of course it is all too easy to just ignore contrary opinion or examples and go on only looking for supporting ones. No doubt you have come across many people like this (you or I may be one of them!!), who no matter what you say to them they refuse to be shifted from their own view even when the evidence is overwhelming. Sometime you see this very strong idea distorted. Where you see this is with authors who try to show that X is untrue and then say that Y is therefore true. I am not talking here about a hypothesis because often there is no link at all between X and Y. The argument is something like “I can show that Ford is a bad car therefore Volkswagen is a good one” or even more starkly and absurdly, “you are wrong therefore I am right.” One might say here that if you cannot find at least in principle a way to falsify something then it can never be regarded as a proof - that is it means your proof cannot be tested.

Proof by the Unexpected
Most often when we are working on a topic we have an expectation about the answer so that when we actually see it we feel sort of reassured about it. Now, sometimes we can be surprised and startled by an answer because it is just “too good to be true” and that is most often that somewhere along the line you have made a mistake

Proof by Example or Illustration/Vignette
Many authors try argument as a way of proof. One often seen this in religion and politics but it is also present in many technical papers we see. The idea is that I present my view on something and then proceed to “prove” it by instancing examples that endorse its truth. Often those who use this idea challenge you to find a contrary example (falsification). I rather like this approach but one just needs to be ultra careful that we are not taken in by our own arguments and get to a stage where we just want to keep convincing ourselves that we are right and fail to see weaknesses in our own thinking. When you use this form your logic must be impeccable and you must get evidence that can be checked and always keep in mind that your arguments are almost bound to be constrained.

Does it Work
It is always very strong when you can show that something works. That is you have a sort of theory and although you perhaps cannot prove it in any absolute sense you can show that it works by citing examples. For example, some project management techniques are like this as we can see them working but if one is sensible one just recommends them as likely to work as no one would be willing to offer a guarantee that they always work no matter what the circumstances or project.

Reading
Monk, R and Raphael, F (ed), (2000), The Great Philosophers published, Phoenix ISBN 0-75381-136-7
Popper, K (2005), the Open Society and Its Enemies Volume 1, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-23731-9
Popper K, (2006), the Logic of Scientific Discovery, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-27844-9
Lipton, P, (2004), Inference to the best Explanation, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-2424-09
Forstater, M., “The Living Wisdom of Socrates”, Hodder Headliner Audio books.
Blackburn, Simon, (2001), Think, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-285425-9
Blackburn, Simon, (2006), Truth, Penguin, ISBN 0-141-01423-3
Talib, N,N (2007), The Back Swan, Penguin ISBN 978-0-1410-3459-1
Talib, N,N (2007), Fooled by Randomness, Penguin ISBN 978-0-141-034148-4
Kaye, S. M., (2009), Critical Thinking, Oneworld Publications ISBN 978-1-85168-654-4

[Woodrow]

Peace Hugo,

Quite a lot in your last couple of posts. It is going to take a bit of time to digest it all. I really appreciate the last post. Quite informative. Perhaps it can serve as a guide for keeping religious debates peaceful. A debate should never be justification for anger. Differences of beliefs are just that, differences, not need for anybody to get in an uproar about them no matter how far apart the differences are. The reasons for the differences can be discussed calmly with reason, and no need for mutual acceptance of a belief to be the call for victory. There are many things in this life people will never agree on, we all need to be open for allowing diversity as long as neither infringes upon the rights of the other.

[Eliphaz]

One further difficulty is that we have to consider is what about all the people who never had the Qu'ran so it could not have been a message for them?

Indeed. And furthermore, what about those who cannot read Arabic and therefore cannot get the full meaning and poetry of the Qur'an? And what about those who do not speak Hebrew/Greek and cannot obtain the full meaning of the Bible as it was originally intended?

Non-Arabic Muslims are constantly told 'you can never fully understand the Qur'an', and indeed, one English translation will differ quite significantly from another. One will try to be poetic, one will try to be rational, one will try to be half and half. One will be condemned for being apologetic, whilst the other for being too literal. Meanwhile the Arabic-speaking Muslims will simply say 'Learn Arabic or you can never truly grasp what God is saying to you. You have a more difficult path because of your geographic circumstances. Sorry.'

The problem of languages, is that there is no universal language for revealed scripture, that there are parts of the world such as Africa where people speak hundreds of dialects into which neither the Bible nor the Qur'an has been translated. I have met Muslims who have no idea what the Qur'an says and may never know.

The only truly universal revelation which can be appreciated by all peoples of all cultures is the creation itself.

[Humbler_359]

:sl:,

Apart from Miracles proof, could you tell us if it is weak argument for you?

Allah says:
"And nothing is hidden from your Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in the heaven. Nor (is there) what is less than that or what is greater than that but is (written) in a Clear Record.)" -Qur'an 10:61


It says 'weight of an atom', do you think Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) possible wrote it in 1400 years ago despite no technology/knowledges at that times?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

:sl:,

Apart from Miracles proof, could you tell us if it is weak argument for you?

Allah says:
"And nothing is hidden from your Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in the heaven. Nor (is there) what is less than that or what is greater than that but is (written) in a Clear Record.)" -Qur'an 10:61


It says 'weight of an atom', do you think Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) possible wrote it in 1400 years ago despite no technology/knowledges at that times?

It's the language problem again, mentioned by Eliphaz above. The word 'atom' is derived from Greek via Middle English. What is the word used in the Qur'an and how do you think it should be translated? Do you think the intended meaning really is: "the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element, consisting of a nucleus containing combinations of neutrons and protons and one or more electrons bound to the nucleus by electrical attraction; the number of protons determines the identity of the element."?

Peace

[Hugo]

Apart from Miracles proof, could you tell us if it is weak argument for you?
says: "And nothing is hidden from your Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom] on the earth or in the heaven. Nor (is there) what is less than that or what is greater than that but is (written) in a Clear Record.)" Qur'an 10:61. It says 'weight of an atom', do you think Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) possible wrote it in 1400 years ago despite no technology/knowledges at that times?

1. Well firstly, I think you will find that Muslim doctrine says that it is God who wrote these words not Prophet Mohammed.

2.I think it was Democritus, a Greek philosopher who gave the world let's call it an atomic theory and so it was I suppose customary to think that an atom was the smallest particle but one does not need modern technology to conceive or imagine in ones mind that something might be smaller or larger than something else so there is no miracle of any kind here.

3. You might also like to look at Mohsin Khan's translation and there you get quite a different take on this "Neither you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) do any deed nor recite any portion of the Qur'an, - nor you (mankind) do any deed (good or evil) but We are Witness thereof, when you are doing it. And nothing is hidden from your Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom (or small ant) on the earth or in the heaven. Not what is less than that or what is greater than that but is (written) in a Clear Record. (Tafsir At-Tabari). (سورة يونس , Yunus, Chapter #10, Verse #61)

4. It is not always or perhaps ever reasonable to look for a scientific miracle in a sentence that speaks of the probability of an improbable thing, and it is simpler and more natural to think of it as hyperbole. In the New Testament St Paul uses hyperbole when he says he is “less than the least of all the saints” (Ephesians 3:8) so is St Paul hinting (about 700 years before the Qu'ran was known) at the existence of sub-atomic particles when he said that even the least of something had something lesser or smaller? This would make the Qur’an’s supposed scientific miracle about the sub-atomic particles inferior to the miracles of the Christian scripture.

5. Not every Qur’an verse talking of an atom includes the phrase “less than that”:

Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an atom, and if it is a good deed He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward. (Surah 4:40)

Say: Call upon those whom you assert besides Allah; they do not control the weight of an atom in the heavens or in the earth nor have they any partnership in either, nor has He among them any one to back (Him) up. (Surah 34:22)

The Qur’an uses the same notion of weight (mithqal) even with regard to a grain of mustard in the following verse so this example debunks any allegations about the foreknowledge of the sub-atomic particles in the Qur’an.

And We will set up a just balance on the day of resurrection, so no soul shall be dealt with unjustly in the least; and though there be the weight of a grain of mustard seed, (yet) will We bring it, and sufficient are We to take account. (Surah 21:47)

6. It seems to me that making such a woolly assertion borders on tendentious and detracts from the message the verse is actually giving and to push out such weak ideas as proof reduces the argument to sophistry.

[جوري]

I haven't been following this thread, but certainly, it has been discussed before in greater detail here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ord-god-4.html

1. Well firstly, I think you will find that Muslim doctrine says that it is God who wrote these words not Prophet Mohammed.

The Quran is the word of God, written by scribes!

2.I think it was Democritus, a Greek philosopher who gave the world let's call it an atomic theory and so it was I suppose customary to think that an atom was the smallest particle but one does not need modern technology to conceive or imagine in ones mind that something might be smaller or larger than something else so there is no miracle of any kind here.

well, when you have christian folks thinking the earth was flat in the 12th c. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404705536.html

it would indeed seem miraculous that an atom or smaller is mentioned 600AD.

3. You might also like to look at Mohsin Khan's translation and there you get quite a different take on this "Neither you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) do any deed nor recite any portion of the Qur'an, - nor you (mankind) do any deed (good or evil) but We are Witness thereof, when you are doing it. And nothing is hidden from your Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom (or small ant) on the earth or in the heaven. Not what is less than that or what is greater than that but is (written) in a Clear Record. (Tafsir At-Tabari). (سورة يونس , Yunus, Chapter #10, Verse #61)

Mohsin Khan translation isn't a substitute for what is actually written in Arabic.. he providing his own rendition or his own interpretation in brackets doesn't make it a substitute for what God dictated and preserved!

4. It is not always or perhaps ever reasonable to look for a scientific miracle in a sentence that speaks of the probability of an improbable thing, and it is simpler and more natural to think of it as hyperbole. In the New Testament St Paul uses hyperbole when he says he is “less than the least of all the saints” (Ephesians 3:8) so is St Paul hinting (about 700 years before the Qu'ran was known) at the existence of sub-atomic particles when he said that even the least of something had something lesser or smaller? This would make the Qur’an’s supposed scientific miracle about the sub-atomic particles inferior to the miracles of the Christian scripture.

I don't see any similarities...
the term used in the Quran is the same term used today by modern Muslim physicists and chemists who have gone on to win the Nobel prize:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/ahm...ewail-info.htm

Say: Call upon those whom you assert besides Allah; they do not control the weight of an atom in the heavens or in the earth nor have they any partnership in either, nor has He among them any one to back (Him) up. (Surah 34:22)

5. Not every Qur’an verse talking of an atom includes the phrase “less than that”:

Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an atom, and if it is a good deed He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward. (Surah 4:40)

in your ignorance you fail to see the great significance of that, for surely even atoms can be split!

The Qur’an uses the same notion of weight (mithqal) even with regard to a grain of mustard in the following verse so this example debunks any allegations about the foreknowledge of the sub-atomic particles in the Qur’an.

I don't understand the point you are making here.. mithqal zhara is a different weight from a mithqal khardal.. what is your point?

And We will set up a just balance on the day of resurrection, so no soul shall be dealt with unjustly in the least; and though there be the weight of a grain of mustard seed, (yet) will We bring it, and sufficient are We to take account. (Surah 21:47)

6. It seems to me that making such a woolly assertion borders on tendentious and detracts from the message the verse is actually giving and to push out such weak ideas as proof reduces the argument to sophistry.

Not at all, different examples are given all throughout the quran to address all levels of intellect. You can go as deep or as superficial.. That is why it is said that the wonders of the Quran never cease!

all the best!

[Supreme]

Indeed. And furthermore, what about those who cannot read Arabic and therefore cannot get the full meaning and poetry of the Qur'an? And what about those who do not speak Hebrew/Greek and cannot obtain the full meaning of the Bible as it was originally intended?

Non-Arabic Muslims are constantly told 'you can never fully understand the Qur'an', and indeed, one English translation will differ quite significantly from another. One will try to be poetic, one will try to be rational, one will try to be half and half. One will be condemned for being apologetic, whilst the other for being too literal. Meanwhile the Arabic-speaking Muslims will simply say 'Learn Arabic or you can never truly grasp what God is saying to you. You have a more difficult path because of your geographic circumstances. Sorry.'

The problem of languages, is that there is no universal language for revealed scripture, that there are parts of the world such as Africa where people speak hundreds of dialects into which neither the Bible nor the Qur'an has been translated. I have met Muslims who have no idea what the Qur'an says and may never know.

The only truly universal revelation which can be appreciated by all peoples of all cultures is the creation itself.

Thank you for this post. Even though I had thought of this before, you did phrase it wonderfully.

[Humbler_359]

:sl:

Yes, Qur'an is the false book written by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), you are correct..

I assure you it is not first time, Unbelievers like you are still exists today as before. I expect that.

Even idol Unbelievers drowned easily during Noah (PUBH)
Unbelievers argued against Abraham (PBUH)
Unbelievers argued against Moses (PBUH)
More clown Unbelievers still argued against Jesus (PBUH)
More crazy Unbelievers still argued wasting time against Muhammad (PBUH)
.
.
.
.
Prophet Jacobs, Lot, Adam, David, Solomon, Job, Jonah, Joseph, Aaron, so on...... All the messages are SAME and different role models.
.
.
.
Amazingly, some people still unable to perceive the simple messages of the Qur'an (last reminder of testament) before your time expire.

[جوري]

If we assume that 'scriptures' here means the Bible then:

Not the ones you have today in your possession.. the torah itself was an oral tradition for a good 800-1000 yrs before it was written down..
surely you have heard of chinese whispers?.. It isn't OK to substitute one word for a similar word in the Quran and claim it is from God obviously very unlike the OT/NT of which I may remind you to the Jews there is no such thing as an NT as it is completely at odds with monotheism!

a. Why is that Muslim don't study and accept the OT and NT as we have them now?

They are full of contradiction.. if you can't get christians to agree on content and not call each other heretics how can you expect that jews should believe it let alone Muslims?

b. If you don't accept them then what can this verse mean? I of course know the Muslim position that the scriptures have been corrupted but you are then in the totally illogical position of trusting in scriptures that do not now as far as we know exist and that is if I may say so an absurd stance.

The verse denotes that God has given previous messengers scriptures, but they weren't preserved, if you go on to read the Quran, you'd come across verses as such
2:75 Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of God, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.

يَسْمَعُونَ كَلَامَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يُحَرِّفُونَهُ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا عَقَلُوهُ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَيَقُول تَعَالَى " أَفَتَطْمَعُونَ " أَيّهَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ" أَنْ يُؤْمِنُوا لَكُمْ " أَيْ يَنْقَاد لَكُمْ بِالطَّاعَةِ هَؤُلَاءِ الْفِرْقَة الضَّالَّة مِنْ الْيَهُود الَّذِينَ شَاهَدَ آبَاؤُهُمْ مِنْ الْآيَات الْبَيِّنَات مَا شَاهَدُوهُ ثُمَّ قَسَتْ قُلُوبهمْ مِنْ بَعْد ذَلِكَ " وَقَدْ كَانَ فَرِيق مِنْهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ كَلَام اللَّه ثُمَّ يُحَرِّفُونَهُ " أَيْ يَتَأَوَّلُونَهُ عَلَى غَيْر تَأْوِيله" مِنْ بَعْد مَا عَقَلُوهُ " أَيْ فَهِمُوهُ عَلَى الْجَلِيَّة وَمَعَ هَذَا يُخَالِفُونَهُ عَلَى بَصِيرَة " وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ " أَنَّهُمْ مُخْطِئُونَ فِيمَا ذَهَبُوا إِلَيْهِ مِنْ تَحْرِيفه وَتَأْوِيله وَهَذَا الْمَقَام شَبِيه بِقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى " فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِمْ مِيثَاقهمْ لَعَنَّاهُمْ وَجَعَلْنَا قُلُوبهمْ قَاسِيَة يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعه " قَالَ مُحَمَّد بْن إِسْحَاق حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّد بْن أَبِي مُحَمَّد عَنْ عِكْرِمَة أَوْ سَعِيد بْن جُبَيْر عَنْ اِبْن عَبَّاس أَنَّهُ قَالَ ثُمَّ قَالَ اللَّه تَعَالَى لِنَبِيِّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - وَلِمَنْ مَعَهُ مِنْ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُؤَيِّسهُمْ مِنْهُمْ " أَفَتَطْمَعُونَ أَنْ يُؤْمِنُوا لَكُمْ وَقَدْ كَانَ فَرِيق مِنْهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ كَلَام اللَّه " وَلَيْسَ قَوْله لَيَسْمَعُونَ التَّوْرَاة كُلّهمْ قَدْ سَمِعَهَا وَلَكِنْ هُمْ الَّذِينَ سَأَلُوا مُوسَى رُؤْيَة رَبّهمْ فَأَخَذَتْهُمْ الصَّاعِقَة فِيهَا . وَقَالَ مُحَمَّد بْن إِسْحَاق فِيمَا حَدَّثَنِي بَعْض أَهْل الْعِلْم أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا لِمُوسَى يَا مُوسَى قَدْ حِيلَ بَيْننَا وَبَيْن رُؤْيَة رَبّنَا تَعَالَى فَأَسْمِعْنَا كَلَامه حِين يُكَلِّمك فَطَلَبَ ذَلِكَ مُوسَى إِلَى رَبّه تَعَالَى فَقَالَ نَعَمْ مُرْهُمْ فَلْيَتَطَهَّرُوا وَلْيُطَهِّرُوا ثِيَابهمْ وَيَصُومُوا فَفَعَلُوا ثُمَّ خَرَجَ بِهِمْ حَتَّى أَتَوْا الطُّور فَلَمَّا غَشِيَهُمْ الْغَمَام أَمَرَهُمْ مُوسَى أَنْ يَسْجُدُوا فَوَقَعُوا سُجُودًا وَكَلَّمَهُ رَبّه فَسَمِعُوا كَلَامه يَأْمُرهُمْ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ حَتَّى عَقَلُوا مِنْهُ مَا سَمِعُوا ثُمَّ اِنْصَرَفَ بِهِمْ إِلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيل فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ حَرَّفَ فَرِيقٌ مِنْهُمْ مَا أَمَرَهُمْ بِهِ وَقَالُوا حِين قَالَ مُوسَى لِبَنِي إِسْرَائِيل إِنَّ اللَّه قَدْ أَمَرَكُمْ بِكَذَا وَكَذَا قَالَ ذَلِكَ الْفَرِيق الَّذِينَ ذَكَرَهُمْ اللَّه إِنَّمَا قَالَ كَذَا وَكَذَا خِلَافًا لِمَا قَالَ اللَّه عَزَّ وَجَلَّ لَهُمْ فَهُمْ الَّذِينَ عَنَى اللَّه لِرَسُولِهِ - صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَقَالَ السُّدِّيّ" وَقَدْ كَانَ فَرِيق مِنْهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ كَلَام اللَّه ثُمَّ يُحَرِّفُونَهُ" قَالَ هِيَ التَّوْرَاة حَرَّفُوهَا وَهَذَا الَّذِي ذَكَرَهُ السُّدِّيّ أَعَمّ مِمَّا ذَكَرَهُ اِبْن عَبَّاس وَابْن إِسْحَاق وَإِنْ كَانَ قَدْ اِخْتَارَهُ اِبْن جَرِير لِظَاهِرِ السِّيَاق فَإِنَّهُ لَيْسَ يَلْزَم مِنْ سَمَاع كَلَام اللَّه أَنْ يَكُون مِنْهُ كَمَا سَمِعَهُ الْكَلِيم مُوسَى بْن عِمْرَان عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاة وَالسَّلَام وَقَدْ قَالَ اللَّه تَعَالَى " وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِنْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اِسْتَجَارَك فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ كَلَامَ اللَّهِ " أَيْ مُبَلَّغًا إِلَيْهِ وَلِهَذَا قَالَ قَتَادَة فِي قَوْله ثُمَّ يُحَرِّفُونَهُ مِنْ بَعْد مَا عَقَلُوهُ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ " قَالَ هُمْ الْيَهُود كَانُوا يَسْمَعُونَ كَلَام اللَّه ثُمَّ يُحَرِّفُونَهُ مِنْ بَعْد مَا عَقَلُوهُ وَوَعَوْهُ وَقَالَ مُجَاهِد الَّذِينَ يُحَرِّفُونَهُ وَاَلَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَهُ هُمْ الْعُلَمَاء مِنْهُمْ وَقَالَ : أَبُو الْعَالِيَة عَمَدُوا إِلَى مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّه فِي كِتَابهمْ مِنْ نَعْت مُحَمَّد - صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - فَحَرَّفُوهُ عَنْ مَوَاضِعه وَقَالَ السُّدِّيّ" وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ " أَيْ أَنَّهُمْ أَذْنَبُوا وَقَالَ اِبْن وَهْب قَالَ : اِبْن زَيْد فِي قَوْله " يَسْمَعُونَ كَلَام اللَّه ثُمَّ يُحَرِّفُونَهُ" قَالَ : التَّوْرَاة الَّتِي أَنْزَلَهَا اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ يُحَرِّفُونَهَا يَجْعَلُونَ الْحَلَال فِيهَا حَرَامًا وَالْحَرَام فِيهَا حَلَالًا وَالْحَقّ فِيهَا بَاطِلًا وَالْبَاطِل فِيهَا حَقًّا وَإِذَا جَاءَهُمْ الْمُحِقّ بِرِشْوَةٍ أَخْرَجُوا لَهُ كِتَاب اللَّه وَإِذَا جَاءَهُمْ الْمُبْطِل بِرِشْوَةٍ أَخْرَجُوا لَهُ ذَلِكَ الْكِتَاب فَهُوَ فِيهِ مُحِقّ وَإِذَا جَاءَهُمْ أَحَد يَسْأَلهُمْ شَيْئًا لَيْسَ فِيهِ حَقّ وَلَا رِشْوَة وَلَا شَيْء أَمَرُوهُ بِالْحَقِّ فَقَالَ اللَّه لَهُمْ" أَتَأْمُرُونَ النَّاس بِالْبِرِّ وَتَنْسَوْنَ أَنْفُسكُمْ وَأَنْتُمْ تَتْلُونَ الْكِتَاب أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ "


surely you can fool yourself into believing that the books are error free, even if they are incongruous but it is clear for us in the Quran and tafsir that your books have been tampered with.. it isn't a new definition or spin on the verses, that is how they were always understood!

c. One presumes that Prophet Mohammed understood this verse but could not as far as we know have had access to the supposed uncorrupted versions so he must have understood it as being the versions we know about.

That is what the Quran did, also called the Furqan
مِن قَبْلُ هُدًى لِّلنَّاسِ وَأَنزَلَ الْفُرْقَانَ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ بِآيَاتِ اللّهِ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ وَاللّهُ عَزِيزٌ ذُو انتِقَامٍ {4}
[Pickthal 3:4] Aforetime, for a guidance to mankind; and hath revealed the Criterion (of right and wrong). Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. Allah is Mighty, Able to Requite (the wrong).

clearly understood to be the decider between where you lie in error and where the truth is
so point to be made
1- How could prophet mohammed copy your scriptures when firstly he was illiterate, secondly he was an Arabic speaker, and secondly when the content is clearly telling you, that your scribes have perverted the message

and again

تَبَارَكَ الَّذِي نَزَّلَ الْفُرْقَانَ عَلَى عَبْدِهِ لِيَكُونَ لِلْعَالَمِينَ نَذِيرًا {1}
[Pickthal 25:1] Blessed is He Who hath revealed unto His slave the Criterion (of right and wrong), that he may be a warner to the peoples.

The Quran is known as the criterion to teach where the folks of old have perverted and erred.

I have no idea why this is a point many of you bring up, because it is actually a non-point, if a Muslim believes in the Quran, he believes in all that there is therein, and clearly the Quran has established that the scribes of old have lied and perverted the message..

____________________

Now I challenge you to bring me a chapter in the bible that speaks of Ahel Al kahf (early monotheistic Christians)

since you can't have it both ways.. you can't say he copied in one stance, then he didn't know in another stance.. the only logical conclusion after an exhaustive search is to conclude the book is from none other than Allah swt

Muhsin Khan
: All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has sent down to His slave (Muhammad SAW) the Book (the Quran), and has not placed therein any crookedness.

18:2 to top

Muhsin Khan
: (He has made it) Straight to give warning (to the disbelievers) of a severe punishment from Him, and to give glad tidings to the believers (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism), who work righteous deeds, that they shall have a fair reward (i.e. Paradise).

18:3 to top

Muhsin Khan
: They shall abide therein forever.

18:4 to top

Muhsin Khan
: And to warn those (Jews, Christians, and pagans) who say, "Allah has begotten a son (or offspring or children)."

18:5 to top

Muhsin Khan
: No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. Mighty is the word that comes out of their mouths [i.e. He begot (took) sons and daughters]. They utter nothing but a lie.

18:6 to top

Muhsin Khan
: Perhaps, you, would kill yourself (O Muhammad SAW) in grief, over their footsteps (for their turning away from you), because they believe not in this narration (the Quran).

18:7 to top

Muhsin Khan
: Verily! We have made that which is on earth as an adornment for it, in order that We may test them (mankind) as to which of them are best in deeds. [i.e.those who do good deeds in the most perfect manner, that means to do them (deeds) totally for Allah's sake and in accordance to the legal ways of the Prophet SAW ].

18:8 to top

Muhsin Khan
: And verily! We shall make all that is on it (the earth) a bare dry soil (without any vegetation or trees, etc.).

18:9 to top

Muhsin Khan
: Do you think that the people of the Cave and the Inscription (the news or the names of the people of the Cave) were a wonder among Our Signs?

18:10 to top

Muhsin Khan
: (Remember) when the young men fled for refuge (from their disbelieving folk) to the Cave, they said: "Our Lord! Bestow on us mercy from Yourself, and facilitate for us our affair in the right way!"

18:11 to top

Muhsin Khan
: Therefore We covered up their (sense of) hearing (causing them, to go in deep sleep) in the Cave for a number of years.

18:12 to top

Muhsin Khan
: Then We raised them up (from their sleep), that We might test which of the two parties was best at calculating the time period that they had tarried.

18:13 to top

Muhsin Khan
: We narrate unto you (O Muhammad SAW) their story with truth: Truly! They were young men who believed in their Lord (Allah), and We increased them in guidance.

18:14 to top

Muhsin Khan
: And We made their hearts firm and strong (with the light of Faith in Allah and bestowed upon them patience to bear the separation of their kith and kin and dwellings, etc.) when they stood up and said: "Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, never shall we call upon any ilah (god) other than Him; if we did, we should indeed have uttered an enormity in disbelief.

18:15 to top

Muhsin Khan
: "These our people have taken for worship aliha (gods) other than Him (Allah). Why do they not bring for them a clear authority? And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allah.

18:16 to top

Muhsin Khan
: (The young men said to one another): "And when you withdraw from them, and that which they worship, except Allah, then seek refuge in the Cave, your Lord will open a way for you from His Mercy and will make easy for you your affair (i.e. will give you what you will need of provision, dwelling, etc.)."

18:17 to top

Muhsin Khan
: And you might have seen the sun, when it rose, declining to the right from their Cave, and when it set, turning away from them to the left, while they lay in the midst of the Cave. That is (one) of the Ayat (proofs, evidences, signs) of Allah. He whom Allah guides, is rightly guided; but he whom He sends astray, for him you will find no Wali (guiding friend) to lead him (to the right Path).

18:18 to top

Muhsin Khan
: And you would have thought them awake, while they were asleep. And We turned them on their right and on their left sides, and their dog stretching forth his two forelegs at the entrance [of the Cave or in the space near to the entrance of the Cave (as a guard at the gate)]. Had you looked at them, you would certainly have turned back from them in flight, and would certainly have been filled with awe of them.

18:19 to top

Muhsin Khan
: Likewise, We awakened them (from their long deep sleep) that they might question one another. A speaker from among them said: "How long have you stayed (here)?" They said: "We have stayed (perhaps) a day or part of a day." They said: "Your Lord (Alone) knows best how long you have stayed (here). So send one of you with this silver coin of yours to the town, and let him find out which is the good lawful food, and bring some of that to you. And let him be careful and let no man know of you.

18:20 to top

Muhsin Khan
: "For if they come to know of you, they will stone you (to death or abuse and harm you) or turn you back to their religion, and in that case you will never be successful."

18:21 to top

Muhsin Khan
: And thus We made their case known to the people, that they might know that the Promise of Allah is true, and that there can be no doubt about the Hour. (Remember) when they (the people of the city) disputed among themselves about their case, they said: "Construct a building over them, their Lord knows best about them," (then) those who won their point said (most probably the disbelievers): "We verily shall build a place of worship over them."

18:22 to top

Muhsin Khan
: (Some) say they were three, the dog being the fourth among them; (others) say they were five, the dog being the sixth, guessing at the unseen; (yet others) say they were seven, the dog being the eighth. Say (O Muhammad SAW): "My Lord knows best their number; none knows them but a few." So debate not (about their number, etc.) except with the clear proof (which We have revealed to you). And consult not any of them (people of the Scripture, Jews and Christians) about (the affair of) the people of the Cave.

18:23 to top

Muhsin Khan
: And never say of anything, "I shall do such and such thing tomorrow."

18:24 to top

Muhsin Khan
: Except (with the saying), "If Allah will!" And remember your Lord when you forget and say: "It may be that my Lord guides me unto a nearer way of truth than this."

18:25 to top

Muhsin Khan
: And they stayed in their Cave three hundred (solar) years, and add nine (for lunar years).

18:26 to top

Muhsin Khan
: Say: "Allah knows best how long they stayed. With Him is (the knowledge of) the unseen of the heavens and the earth. How clearly He sees, and hears (everything)! They have no Wali (Helper, Disposer of affairs, Protector, etc.) other than Him, and He makes none to share in His Decision and His Rule."

_______________________

another miracle here is that of the number of years they remained in the cave, not everyone walks around calculating lunar calendar in comparison with the regular one but that is a story for another!

all the best

[جوري]

As a final posting to initiate this thread a short note on ways of constructing proofs.

Hypothesis
With regard to proof, many like to write out a hypothesis. There are two stages: write the null and alternative hypotheses and then write down the two (usually) variables involved (dependant and independent variables). This is usually the basis of an experiment of some kind so implies repeatability and so in context of this thread might not be all that useful

Indeed, you can reject the null hypothesis or fail to reject it.
has this been applied to any books of philosophy though? I mean how do you think the bible will do in comparison?

Setting Standards/Definitions
It is easily acknowledged that in normal life we can almost never get what one might call absolute proof. In courts of law for example they talk about the evidence being “beyond reasonable doubt” or based on “the balance of probabilities” – in other words you get enough information to convince (but not absolutely prove) you of the truth. This may be done in many ways but usually one lists the things one wants to see. For example, if I wanted to prove that Manchester United is the best football team in the world (they are not because everyone knows that is Arsenal!) then I might lay out my standard or definition for proof: no of goals scored, championships won, number of world class players and so on. There are three problems with this approach: firstly whoever you are talking to has to agree to your standards or definition, secondly if I can prove it today will it still be true tomorrow and thirdly once one knows the standards, it is all too easy to find the necessary evidence (one might often say manufacture the evidence).

I agree again, and even though the Quran is filled with signs for us to ponder and reflect the very second chapter states:
Muhsin Khan
2:2 This is the Book (the Quran), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqun [the pious and righteous persons who fear Allah much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allah much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)].

Muhsin Khan
2:3 Who believe in the Ghaib and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and spend out of what we have provided for them [i.e. give Zakat , spend on themselves, their parents, their children, their wives, etc., and also give charity to the poor and also in Allah's Cause - Jihad, etc.].

as in believe in the unseen, the things that one doesn't know, by placing some measure of confidence in the rest you can then reject or fail to reject!
and that is really what you'd do in any experiment with a P value, a confidence interval, types I or II errors.
There is no book more studied or memorized or recited than the Quran, it has been scrutinized by every possible mean, and it resolute and unfalsifiable!

I suggest you look with some great details at the thread I linked a few posts ago:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ord-god-4.html

just to see the many ways it is scrutinized and how all the false claims just crumble to the veritable truth of the Quran

peace




الَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْغَيْبِقَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَر الرَّازِيّ عَنْ الْعَلَاء بْن الْمُسَيِّب بْن رَافِع عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاق عَنْ أَبِي الْأَحْوَص عَنْ عَبْد اللَّه قَالَ : الْإِيمَان التَّصْدِيق وَقَالَ عَلِيّ بْن أَبِي طَلْحَة وَغَيْره عَنْ اِبْن عَبَّاس رَضِيَ اللَّه عَنْهُمَا يُؤْمِنُونَ يُصَدِّقُونَ وَقَالَ مَعْمَر عَنْ الزُّهْرِيّ : الْإِيمَان الْعَمَل وَقَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَر الرَّازِيّ عَنْ الرَّبِيع بْن أَنَس يُؤْمِنُونَ يَخْشُونَ . قَالَ اِبْن جَرِير : وَالْأَوْلَى أَنْ يَكُونُوا مَوْصُوفِينَ بِالْإِيمَانِ بِالْغَيْبِ قَوْلًا وَاعْتِقَادًا وَعَمَلًا وَقَدْ تَدْخُل الْخَشْيَة لِلَّهِ فِي مَعْنَى الْإِيمَان الَّذِي هُوَ تَصْدِيق الْقَوْل بِالْعَمَلِ وَالْإِيمَان كَلِمَة جَامِعَة لِلْإِيمَانِ بِاَللَّهِ وَكُتُبه وَرُسُله وَتَصْدِيق الْإِقْرَار بِالْفِعْلِ" قُلْت " أَمَّا الْإِيمَان فِي اللُّغَة فَيُطْلَق عَلَى التَّصْدِيق الْمَحْض وَقَدْ يُسْتَعْمَل فِي الْقُرْآن وَالْمُرَاد بِهِ ذَلِكَ كَمَا قَالَ تَعَالَى " يُؤْمِن بِاَللَّهِ وَيُؤْمِن لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ" وَكَمَا قَالَ إِخْوَة يُوسُف لِأَبِيهِمْ " وَمَا أَنْتَ بِمُؤْمِنٍ لَنَا وَلَوْ كُنَّا صَادِقِينَ " وَكَذَلِكَ إِذَا اُسْتُعْمِلَ مَقْرُونًا مَعَ الْأَعْمَال كَقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى " إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَات " فَأَمَّا إِذَا اُسْتُعْمِلَ مُطْلَقًا فَالْإِيمَان الشَّرْعِيّ الْمَطْلُوب لَا يَكُون إِلَّا اِعْتِقَادًا وَقَوْلًا وَعَمَلًا. هَكَذَا ذَهَبَ إِلَيْهِ أَكْثَر الْأَئِمَّة بَلْ قَدْ حَكَاهُ الشَّافِعِيّ وَأَحْمَد بْن حَنْبَل وَأَبُو عُبَيْدَة وَغَيْر وَاحِد إِجْمَاعًا : أَنَّ الْإِيمَان قَوْل وَعَمَل وَيَزِيد وَيَنْقُص وَقَدْ وَرَدَ فِيهِ آثَار كَثِيرَة وَأَحَادِيث أَفْرَدْنَا الْكَلَام فِيهَا فِي أَوَّل شَرْح الْبُخَارِيّ وَلِلَّهِ الْحَمْد وَالْمِنَّة . وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ فَسَّرَهُ بِالْخَشْيَةِ كَقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى " إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَخْشَوْنَ رَبّهمْ بِالْغَيْبِ " وَقَوْله " مَنْ خَشِيَ الرَّحْمَن بِالْغَيْبِ وَجَاءَ بِقَلْبٍ مُنِيب " وَالْخَشْيَة خُلَاصَة الْإِيمَان وَالْعِلْم كَمَا قَالَ تَعَالَى " إِنَّمَا يَخْشَى اللَّه مِنْ عِبَاده الْعُلَمَاء " وَقَالَ بَعْضهمْ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْغَيْبِ كَمَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالشَّهَادَةِ وَلَيْسُوا كَمَا قَالَ تَعَالَى عَنْ الْمُنَافِقِينَ" وَإِذَا لَقُوا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا قَالُوا آمَنَا وَإِذَا خَلَوْا إِلَى شَيَاطِينهمْ قَالُوا إِنَّا مَعَكُمْ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُسْتَهْزِءُونَ" وَقَالَ " إِذَا جَاءَك الْمُنَافِقُونَ قَالُوا نَشْهَد إِنَّك لَرَسُول اللَّه وَاَللَّه يَعْلَم إِنَّك لِرَسُولِهِ وَاَللَّه يَشْهَد إِنَّ الْمُنَافِقِينَ لَكَاذِبُونَ " فَعَلَى هَذَا يَكُون قَوْله بِالْغَيْبِ حَالًا أَيْ فِي حَال كَوْنهمْ غَيْبًا عَنْ النَّاس . وَأَمَّا الْغَيْب الْمُرَاد هَاهُنَا فَقَدْ اِخْتَلَفَتْ عِبَارَات السَّلَف فِيهِ وَكُلّهَا صَحِيحَة تَرْجِع إِلَى أَنَّ الْجَمِيع مُرَاد قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَر الرَّازِيّ عَنْ الرَّبِيع بْن أَنَس عَنْ أَبِي الْعَالِيَة فِي قَوْله تَعَالَى " يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْغَيْبِ " قَالَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاَللَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَته وَكُتُبه وَرُسُله وَالْيَوْم الْآخِر وَجَنَّته وَنَاره وَلِقَائِهِ وَيُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْحَيَاةِ بَعْد الْمَوْت وَبِالْبَعْثِ فَهَذَا غَيْب كُلّه . وَكَذَا قَالَ قَتَادَة بْن دِعَامَة وَقَالَ السُّدِّيّ عَنْ أَبِي مَالِك وَعَنْ أَبِي صَالِح عَنْ اِبْن عَبَّاس وَعَنْ مُرَّة الْهَمْدَانِيّ عَنْ اِبْن مَسْعُود وَعَنْ نَاس مِنْ أَصْحَاب النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَمَّا الْغَيْب فَمَا غَابَ عَنْ الْعِبَاد مِنْ أَمْر الْجَنَّة وَأَمْر النَّار وَمَا ذُكِرَ فِي الْقُرْآن وَقَالَ مُحَمَّد بْن إِسْحَاق عَنْ مُحَمَّد بْن أَبِي مُحَمَّد عَنْ عِكْرِمَة أَوْ عَنْ سَعِيد بْن جُبَيْر عَنْ اِبْن عَبَّاس بِالْغَيْبِ قَالَ بِمَا جَاءَ مِنْهُ - يَعْنِي مِنْ اللَّه تَعَالَى - وَقَالَ سُفْيَان الثَّوْرِيّ عَنْ عَاصِم عَنْ زِرّ قَالَ الْغَيْب الْقُرْآن وَقَالَ عَطَاء بْن أَبِي رَبَاح مَنْ آمَنَ بِاَللَّهِ فَقَدْ آمَنَ بِالْغَيْبِ وَقَالَ إِسْمَاعِيل بْن أَبِي خَالِد يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْغَيْبِ قَالَ بِغَيْبِ الْإِسْلَام وَقَالَ زَيْد بْن أَسْلَمَ الَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْغَيْبِ قَالَ بِالْقَدَرِ . فَكُلّ هَذِهِ مُتَقَارِبَة فِي مَعْنَى وَاحِد لِأَنَّ جَمِيع هَذِهِ الْمَذْكُورَات مِنْ الْغَيْب الَّذِي يَجِب الْإِيمَان بِهِ . وَقَالَ سَعِيد بْن مَنْصُور حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَة عَنْ الْأَعْمَش عَنْ عُمَارَة بْن عُمَيْر عَنْ عَبْد الرَّحْمَن بْن يَزِيد قَالَ كُنَّا عِنْد عَبْد اللَّه بْن مَسْعُود جُلُوسًا فَذَكَرنَا أَصْحَاب النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَمَا سَبَقُونَا بِهِ فَقَالَ عَبْد اللَّه إِنَّ أَمْر مُحَمَّد صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ بَيِّنًا لِمَنْ رَآهُ وَاَلَّذِي لَا إِلَه غَيْره مَا آمَنَ أَحَد قَطُّ إِيمَانًا أَفْضَل مِنْ إِيمَان بِغَيْبٍ ثُمَّ قَرَأَ " الم ذَلِكَ الْكِتَاب لَا رَيْب فِيهِ هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِينَ الَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْغَيْبِ - إِلَى قَوْله - الْمُفْلِحُونَ " وَهَكَذَا رَوَاهُ اِبْن أَبِي حَاتِم وَابْن مَرْدَوَيْهِ وَالْحَاكِم فِي مُسْتَدْرَكه مِنْ طُرُق عَنْ الْأَعْمَش بِهِ وَقَالَ الْحَاكِم صَحِيح عَلَى شَرْط الشَّيْخَيْنِ وَلَمْ يُخَرِّجَاهُ . وَفِي مَعْنَى هَذَا الْحَدِيث الَّذِي رَوَاهُ أَحْمَد حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْمُغِيرَة أَنَا الْأَوْزَاعِيّ حَدَّثَنِي أَسَد بْن عَبْد الرَّحْمَن عَنْ خَالِد بْن دُرَيْك عَنْ اِبْن مُحَيْرِيز قَالَ : قُلْت لِأَبِي جُمْعَة حَدِّثْنَا حَدِيثًا سَمِعْته مِنْ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ نَعَمْ أُحَدِّثك حَدِيثًا جَيِّدًا : تَغَدَّيْنَا مَعَ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَمَعَنَا أَبُو عُبَيْدَة بْن الْجَرَّاح فَقَالَ يَا رَسُول اللَّه هَلْ أَحَد خَيْر مِنَّا ؟ أَسْلَمْنَا مَعَك وَجَاهَدْنَا مَعَك . قَالَ " نَعَمْ قَوْم مِنْ بَعْدكُمْ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِي وَلَمْ يَرَوْنِي " طَرِيق أُخْرَى قَالَ أَبُو بَكْر بْن مَرْدَوَيْهِ فِي تَفْسِيره حَدَّثَنَا عَبْد اللَّه بْن جَعْفَر حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيل عَنْ عَبْد اللَّه بْن مَسْعُود حَدَّثَنَا عَبْد اللَّه بْن صَالِح حَدَّثَنَا مُعَاوِيَة بْن صَالِح عَنْ صَالِح بْن جُبَيْر قَالَ : قَدَّمَ عَلَيْنَا أَبُو جُمْعَة الْأَنْصَارِيّ صَاحِب رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِبَيْتِ الْمَقْدِس يُصَلِّي فِيهِ وَمَعَنَا يَوْمَئِذٍ رَجَاء بْن حَيْوَة رَضِيَ اللَّه عَنْهُ فَلَمَّا اِنْصَرَفَ خَرَجْنَا نُشَيِّعهُ فَلَمَّا أَرَادَ الِانْصِرَاف قَالَ إِنَّ لَكُمْ جَائِزَة وَحَقًّا أُحَدِّثكُمْ بِحَدِيثِ سَمِعْته مِنْ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قُلْنَا هَاتِ رَحِمَك اللَّه قَالَ : كُنَّا مَعَ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَمَعَنَا مُعَاذ بْن جَبَل عَاشِر عَشَرَة فَقُلْنَا يَا رَسُول اللَّه هَلْ مِنْ قَوْم أَعْظَم مِنَّا أَجْرًا ؟ آمَنَا بِاَللَّهِ وَاتَّبَعْنَاك قَالَ " مَا يَمْنَعكُمْ مِنْ ذَلِكَ وَرَسُول اللَّه بَيْن أَظْهُركُمْ يَأْتِيكُمْ بِالْوَحْيِ مِنْ السَّمَاء بَلْ قَوْم بَعْدكُمْ يَأْتِيهِمْ كِتَاب مِنْ بَيْن لَوْحَيْنِ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِهِ وَيَعْمَلُونَ بِمَا فِيهِ أُولَئِكَ أَعْظَم مِنْكُمْ أَجْرًا " مَرَّتَيْنِ - ثُمَّ رَوَاهُ مِنْ حَدِيث ضَمْرَة بْن رَبِيعَة عَنْ مَرْزُوق بْن نَافِع عَنْ صَالِح بْن جُبَيْر عَنْ أَبِي جُمْعَة بِنَحْوِهِ . وَهَذَا الْحَدِيث فِيهِ دَلَالَة عَلَى الْعَمَل بِالْوِجَادَةِ الَّتِي اِخْتَلَفَ فِيهَا أَهْل الْحَدِيث كَمَا قَرَّرْته فِي أَوَّل شَرْح الْبُخَارِيّ لِأَنَّهُ مَدَحَهُمْ عَلَى ذَلِكَ وَذَكَرَ أَنَّهُمْ أَعْظَم أَجْرًا مِنْ هَذِهِ الْحَيْثِيَّة لَا مُطْلَقًا وَكَذَا الْحَدِيث الْآخَر الَّذِي رَوَاهُ الْحَسَن بْن عَرَفَة الْعَبْدِيّ حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيل بْن عَيَّاش الْحِمْصِيّ عَنْ الْمُغِيرَة بْن قَيْس التَّمِيمِيّ عَنْ عَمْرو بْن شُعَيْب عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدّه قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ " أَيّ الْخَلْق أَعْجَب إِلَيْكُمْ إِيمَانًا ؟ قَالُوا الْمَلَائِكَة قَالَ " وَمَا لَهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ وَهُمْ عِنْد رَبّهمْ " قَالُوا فَالنَّبِيُّونَ قَالَ " وَمَا لَهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ وَالْوَحْي يَنْزِل عَلَيْهِمْ ؟ " قَالُوا فَنَحْنُ قَالَ " وَمَا لَكُمْ لَا تُؤْمِنُونَ وَأَنَا بَيْن أَظْهُركُمْ " قَالَ : فَقَالَ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ " أَلَا إِنَّ أَعْجَب الْخَلْق إِلَيَّ إِيمَانًا لَقَوْم يَكُونُونَ مِنْ بَعْدكُمْ يَجِدُونَ صُحُفًا فِيهَا كِتَاب يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا فِيهَا " قَالَ أَبُو حَاتِم الرَّازِيّ : الْمُغِيرَة بْن قَيْس الْبَصْرِيّ مُنْكَر الْحَدِيث" قُلْت " وَلَكِنْ قَدْ رَوَى أَبُو يَعْلَى فِي مُسْنَده وَابْن مَرْدَوَيْهِ فِي تَفْسِيره وَالْحَاكِم فِي مُسْتَدْرَكه مِنْ حَدِيث مُحَمَّد بْن حُمَيْد - وَفِيهِ ضَعْف - عَنْ زَيْد بْن أَسْلَمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ عُمَر عَنْ النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِمِثْلِهِ أَوْ نَحْوه . وَقَالَ الْحَاكِم صَحِيح الْإِسْنَاد وَلَمْ يُخَرِّجَاهُ وَقَدْ رُوِيَ نَحْوه عَنْ أَنَس بْن مَالِك مَرْفُوعًا وَاَللَّه أَعْلَم وَقَالَ اِبْن أَبِي حَاتِم حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي حَدَّثَنَا عَبْد اللَّه بْن مُحَمَّد الْمُسْنَدِيّ حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاق بْن إِدْرِيس أَخْبَرَنِي إِبْرَاهِيم بْن جَعْفَر بْن مَحْمُود بْن سَلَمَة الْأَنْصَارِيّ أَخْبَرَنِي جَعْفَر بْن مَحْمُود عَنْ جَدَّته بَدِيلَة بِنْت أَسْلَمَ قَالَتْ : صَلَّيْت الظُّهْر أَوْ الْعَصْر فِي مَسْجِد بَنِي حَارِثَة فَاسْتَقْبَلْنَا مَسْجِد إِيلِيَاء فَصَلَّيْنَا سَجْدَتَيْنِ ثُمَّ جَاءَنَا مَنْ يُخْبِرنَا أَنَّ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَدْ اِسْتَقْبَلَ الْبَيْت الْحَرَام فَتَحَوَّلَ النِّسَاء مَكَان الرِّجَال وَالرِّجَال مَكَان النِّسَاء فَصَلَّيْنَا السَّجْدَتَيْنِ الْبَاقِيَتَيْنِ وَنَحْنُ مُسْتَقْبِلُونَ الْبَيْت الْحَرَام قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيم فَحَدَّثَنِي رِجَال مِنْ بَنِي حَارِثَة أَنَّ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حِين بَلَغَهُ ذَلِكَ قَالَ " أُولَئِكَ قَوْم آمَنُوا بِالْغَيْبِ" هَذَا حَدِيث غَرِيب مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْه .
وَيُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَقَالَ اِبْن عَبَّاس وَيُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاة أَيْ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاة بِفُرُوضِهَا وَقَالَ الضَّحَّاك عَنْ اِبْن عَبَّاس إِقَامَة الصَّلَاة إِتْمَام الرُّكُوع وَالسُّجُود وَالتِّلَاوَة وَالْخُشُوع وَالْإِقْبَال عَلَيْهَا فِيهَا وَقَالَ قَتَادَة إِقَامَة الصَّلَاة الْمُحَافَظَة عَلَى مَوَاقِيتهَا وَوُضُوئِهَا وَرُكُوعهَا وَسُجُودهَا . وَقَالَ مُقَاتِل بْن حَيَّان : إِقَامَتهَا الْمُحَافَظَة عَلَى مَوَاقِيتهَا وَإِسْبَاغ الطَّهُور بِهَا وَتَمَام رُكُوعهَا وَسُجُودهَا وَتِلَاوَة الْقُرْآن فِيهَا وَالتَّشَهُّد وَالصَّلَاة عَلَى النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَهَذَا إِقَامَتهَا . وَقَالَ عَلِيّ بْن أَبِي طَلْحَة وَغَيْره عَنْ اِبْن عَبَّاس " وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَ " قَالَ زَكَاة أَمْوَالهمْ وَقَالَ السُّدِّيّ عَنْ أَبِي مَالِك وَعَنْ أَبِي صَالِح عَنْ اِبْن عَبَّاس وَعَنْ مُرَّة عَنْ اِبْن مَسْعُود وَعَنْ أُنَاس مِنْ أَصْحَاب رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ " وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَ " قَالَ نَفَقَة الرَّجُل عَلَى أَهْله وَهَذَا قَبْل أَنْ تَنْزِل الزَّكَاة وَقَالَ جُوَيْبِر عَنْ الضَّحَّاك : كَانَتْ النَّفَقَات قُرْبَانًا يَتَقَرَّبُونَ بِهَا إِلَى اللَّه عَلَى قَدْر مَيْسَرَتهمْ وَجَهْدهمْ حَتَّى نَزَلَتْ فَرَائِض الصَّدَقَات سَبْع آيَات فِي سُورَة بَرَاءَة مِمَّا يُذْكَر فِيهِنَّ الصَّدَقَات هُنَّ النَّاسِخَات الْمُثْبِتَات وَقَالَ قَتَادَة " وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَ " فَأَنْفِقُوا مِمَّا أَعْطَاكُمْ اللَّه هَذِهِ الْأَمْوَال عَوَار وَوَدَائِع عِنْدك يَا اِبْن آدَم يُوشِك أَنْ تُفَارِقهَا . وَاخْتَارَ اِبْن جَرِير أَنَّ الْآيَة عَامَّة فِي الزَّكَاة وَالنَّفَقَات فَإِنَّهُ قَالَ وَأَوْلَى التَّأْوِيلَات وَأَحَقّهَا بِصِفَةِ الْقَوْم أَنْ يَكُونُوا لِجَمِيعِ اللَّازِم لَهُمْ فِي أَمْوَالهمْ مُؤَدِّينَ - زَكَاة كَانَتْ ذَلِكَ أَوْ نَفَقَة مَنْ لَزِمَتْهُ نَفَقَتُهُ مِنْ أَهْل أَوْ عِيَال وَغَيْرهمْ مِمَّنْ يَجِب عَلَيْهِمْ نَفَقَتُهُ بِالْقَرَابَةِ وَالْمِلْك وَغَيْر ذَلِكَ لِأَنَّ اللَّه تَعَالَى عَمَّ وَصْفهمْ وَمَدَحَهُمْ بِذَلِكَ وَكُلّ مِنْ الْإِنْفَاق وَالزَّكَاة مَمْدُوح بِهِ مَحْمُود عَلَيْهِ " قُلْت " كَثِيرًا مَا يَقْرُن اللَّهُ تَعَالَى بَيْن الصَّلَاة وَالْإِنْفَاق مِنْ الْأَمْوَال فَإِنَّ الصَّلَاة حَقّ اللَّه وَعِبَادَته وَهِيَ مُشْتَمِلَة عَلَى تَوْحِيده وَالثَّنَاء عَلَيْهِ وَتَمْجِيده وَالِابْتِهَال إِلَيْهِ وَدُعَائِهِ وَالتَّوَكُّل عَلَيْهِ وَالْإِنْفَاق هُوَ مِنْ الْإِحْسَان إِلَى الْمَخْلُوقِينَ بِالنَّفْعِ الْمُتَعَدِّي إِلَيْهِمْ وَأَوْلَى النَّاس بِذَلِكَ الْقَرَابَات وَالْأَهْلُونَ وَالْمَمَالِيك ثُمَّ الْأَجَانِب فَكُلّ مِنْ النَّفَقَات الْوَاجِبَة وَالزَّكَاة الْمَفْرُوضَة دَاخِل فِي قَوْله تَعَالَى " وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَ " وَلِهَذَا ثَبَتَ فِي الصَّحِيحَيْنِ عَنْ اِبْن عُمَر رَضِيَ اللَّه عَنْهَا أَنَّ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ " بُنِيَ الْإِسْلَامُ عَلَى خَمْس : شَهَادَة أَنْ لَا إِلَه إِلَّا اللَّه وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُول اللَّه وَإِقَام الصَّلَاة وَإِيتَاء الزَّكَاة وَصَوْم رَمَضَان وَحَجّ الْبَيْت " وَالْأَحَادِيث فِي هَذَا كَثِيرَة وَأَصْلُ الصَّلَاة فِي كَلَام الْعَرَب الدُّعَاء . قَالَ الْأَعْشَى : لَهَا حَارِس لَا يَبْرَح الدَّهْرَ بَيْتَهَا وَإِنْ ذُبِحَتْ صَلَّى عَلَيْهَا وَزَمْزَمَا وَقَالَ أَيْضًا : وَقَابَلَهَا الرِّيح فِي دَنّهَا وَصَلَّى عَلَى دَنّهَا وَارْتَسَمْ أَنْشَدَهُمَا اِبْن جَرِير مُسْتَشْهِدًا عَلَى ذَلِكَ وَقَالَ الْآخَر وَهُوَ الْأَعْشَى أَيْضًا : تَقُول بِنْتِي وَقَدْ قَرَّبْت مُرْتَحِلًا يَا رَبّ جَنِّبْ أَبِي الْأَوْصَاب وَالْوَجَعَا عَلَيْك مِثْل الَّذِي صَلَّيْت فَاغْتَمِضِي نَوْمًا فَإِنَّ لِجَنْبِ الْمَرْء مُضْطَجَعًا يَقُول عَلَيْك مِنْ الدُّعَاء مِثْل الَّذِي دَعَيْته لِي . وَهَذَا ظَاهِر ثُمَّ اُسْتُعْمِلَتْ الصَّلَاة فِي الشَّرْع فِي ذَات الرُّكُوع وَالسُّجُود وَالْأَفْعَال الْمَخْصُوصَة فِي الْأَوْقَات الْمَخْصُوصَة بِشُرُوطِهَا الْمَعْرُوفَة وَصِفَاتهَا وَأَنْوَاعهَا الْمَشْهُورَة . قَالَ اِبْن جَرِير وَأَرَى أَنَّ الصَّلَاة سُمِّيَتْ صَلَاة لِأَنَّ الْمُصَلِّي يَتَعَرَّض لِاسْتِنْجَاحِ طُلْبَته مِنْ ثَوَاب اللَّه بِعَمَلِهِ مَعَ مَا يَسْأَل رَبّه مِنْ حَاجَاته وَقِيلَ هِيَ مُشْتَقَّة مِنْ الصَّلَوَيْنِ إِذَا تَحَرَّكَا فِي الصَّلَاة عِنْد الرُّكُوع وَالسُّجُود وَهُمَا عِرْقَانِ يَمْتَدَّانِ مِنْ الظَّهْر حَتَّى يَكْتَنِفَانِ عَجْب الذَّنَب وَمِنْهُ سُمِّيَ الْمُصَلِّي وَهُوَ التَّالِي لِلسَّابِقِ فِي حَلَبَة الْخَيْل وَفِيهِ نَظَر . وَقِيلَ هِيَ مُشْتَقَّة مِنْ الصَّلَى وَهُوَ الْمُلَازَمَة لِلشَّيْءِ مِنْ قَوْله تَعَالَى " لَا يَصْلَاهَا " أَيْ لَا يَلْزَمهَا وَيَدُوم فِيهَا" إِلَّا الْأَشْقَى " وَقِيلَ مُشْتَقَّة مِنْ تَصْلِيَة الْخَشَبَة فِي النَّار لِتَقُومَ كَمَا أَنَّ الْمُصَلِّي يُقَوِّم عِوَجه بِالصَّلَاةِ" إِنَّ الصَّلَاة تَنْهَى عَنْ الْفَحْشَاء وَالْمُنْكَر وَلَذِكْرُ اللَّه أَكْبَرُ " وَاشْتِقَاقهَا مِنْ الدُّعَاء أَصَحّ وَأَشْهَر وَاَللَّه أَعْلَم . وَأَمَّا الزَّكَاة فَسَيَأْتِي الْكَلَام عَلَيْهَا فِي مَ

[Khaldun]

:sl:

I have been requested several times to join this debate. But to be honest I find it utterly futile. A big portion of the miracle of the Qur'aan lies in the language itself that is why the eluqent arabs at the time of the Prophet called him a sourcer and could not produce the likes of it.

Now for me to sit down and discuss the Qur'aan with people who do not even understand arabic grammar nor the language at all and rather rely on translation then that is a waste of time. The miracle is the Qur'aan and by censensus a translation of the Qur'aan is not the Qur'aan thus the biggest part of the miracle is lost in translation.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

:sl:

I have been requested several times to join this debate. But to be honest I find it utterly futile. A big portion of the miracle of the Qur'aan lies in the language itself that is why the eluqent arabs at the time of the Prophet called him a sourcer and could not produce the likes of it.

Now for me to sit down and discuss the Qur'aan with people who do not even understand arabic grammar nor the language at all and rather rely on translation then that is a waste of time. The miracle is the Qur'aan and by censensus a translation of the Qur'aan is not the Qur'aan thus the biggest part of the miracle is lost in translation.

So the omniscient creator of the universe decided to deliver his ultimate message to humanity in a language that most people would never understand. Does that really sound like the action of an all-knowing, all- powerful deity?

Peace

[Khaldun]

:sl:

The omniscient creator of the universe gave you a brain did He not? What stops you from learning and understanding? Where you born knowing english?

If you are serious about knowning what is so special about the Qur'aan then learn and study arabic, if you just want to talk aimlessly then do not bother, simple as that.

[Danah]

So my starting question is why are Muslim so concerned and to me it obsessively so, about proving the Qu'ran is the word of God, proving its is unchanged etc etc and often it seems as if what it say is of little importance

Interesting question!!!!

Its because Non Muslims are so eager to waste their time proving that its not the word of God.
i.e: your thread!

The Qur’an uses the same notion of weight (mithqal) even with regard to a grain of mustard in the following verse so this example debunks any allegations about the foreknowledge of the sub-atomic particles in the Qur’an.

I think you gotta find the literal meaning from the dictionary for the word (zarah)ذرة first before making any argument

:sl:

Now for me to sit down and discuss the Qur'aan with people who do not even understand arabic grammar nor the language at all and rather rely on translation then that is a waste of time. The miracle is the Qur'aan and by censensus a translation of the Qur'aan is not the Qur'aan thus the biggest part of the miracle is lost in translation.

Exactly! I find that hard sometimes with some other people who don't know the language. Its exactly like describing how different colors looks like to a blind person.

[Uthman]

:salamext:

I don't believe that it's necessary to know the Arabic language as a prerequisite to understanding that the Qur'an is a miracle.

The linguistic aspect (and indeed there are many other aspects) of the Qur'an's miraculous nature can still be explained in other languages by giving examples, as in the video I posted earlier on in the thread.

It can also be demonstrated to non-Arabs from a historical perspective by showing, for example, the reaction of such people as the companion 'Umar bin al-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) who converted to Islam upon simply hearing the Qur'an, such was it's literary excellence. He was previously one of the staunchest enemies of Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) and his message but when he heard it, he realised that this Qur'an can only have originated from a divine source. All of this despite the fact that the Arabs at the time had already reached the peak of linguistic eloquence. Truly then, when the Qur'an was revealed, they were well-placed to appreciate it's miraculous nature by recognising it's linguistic superiority beyond anything even they could have ever imagined.

Of course, 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was not the only person to have realised it's miraculous nature upon simply hearing the Qur'an. Many other people also realised it including:

- Tufail ibn 'Amr
- al-Waleed ibn al-Mugheerah
- 'Utbah ibn Rabee'
- Unays al-Ghifaaree
- Jubayr ibn Mut'im

The list goes on.

So far, we seem to have been focusing on Qur'an as a literary miracle in this thread but it must be remembered that there are other aspects of the Qur'ans miraculous nature as well which do not get lost in translation. These aspects include:

- Prophecies contained in the Qur'an which later became fulfilled. These prophecies were not vague and general, but rather they were clear and specific.

- The fact that the Qur'an contains stories of the previous prophets even though Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) had no recourse to this information.

- That the Qur'an contains accurate information which is consistent with scientific facts established centuries later. This aspect is exaggerated by some Muslims no doubt but nevertheless it definitely has a place as one aspect of the Qur'an's miraculous nature.

This list is not exhaustive and I haven't yet substantiated them in detail at this stage. There are several other aspects which I may mention later on.

[Sampharo]

Barak Allahu Feek brother Khaldun,

If there is interest in finding out whether it is true or not, people would explore it with honesty and deligent approach. This thread approach is more of sitting back and blindfolding oneself and saying "I dare you to show me the light".

Can the Quran be proven to be the word of God? Absolutely, and has been already, liguistically (by professional linguists) and scientifically (by scientists of all different fields who found that the information in the Quran achieved 100% accuracy till today, NOTHING was ever revised, while most of the hypothesis and theories suggested by greeks, christians, jews, romans always had failures and many of them were disproven later on). Demanding to satisfy philosophical standards of absolute truth and conditions of proof in matters of natural common sense is as futile and senseless as demanding people to be exonerated of a crime not by forensic evidence and analysis, but by tarot cards.

Four people arrive at a spot in the desert and notice several indications that a group was camping in the area. One points towards the hoofprints in the sand as proof that a camel exists and passed through, along with the various prints of humans obviously walking about in the area before continuing along side the camel's. Another points to the ashes in a hole in the ground as proof that there was a deliberate controlled camping fire. A third points to chicken bones and other leftovers littering the area as proof that they had a meal.

Fourth says he doesn't believes any creature can survive in such a place and decides that their "hypothesis" does not satisfy philosphical burdens of proof.

His choice.

[Sampharo]

In think this is a fair response because it sets out clearly the Islamic position and this is the question we are exploring here. I have no issues with you stating this but showing it to be true absolutely is quite another story.

Quite a manufactured obstacle in my opinion. There is truth and its evidence. footprints in the sand are indicative proof that someone walked this path, and details of the print can describe his weight and gender and foot characteristics (professional trackers can get more information and even judge whether a woman is pregnant or not). If you wish to discount that because you only live on absolute truth, then you'll need to prove Christianity is true, and absolutely true. Otherwise you're contradicting yourself.

and of course Jesus told his followers to go into all the world and preach the Gospel and it would seem obvious he did not mean just for that time else there seems little point in such a command.

No he didn't, not only by Islamic sources, but by christian ones as well:

"After Jesus has equipped His disciples with authority, He sends them out and charges them: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5,6)"

"To a Canaanite woman, seeking help for her daughter, Jesus says: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24)"

One further difficulty is that we have to consider is what about all the people who never had the Qu'ran so it could not have been a message for them?

People refusing to look at the quran does not qualify for not having had it. It has been written in one full book during the generation of the prophet's companions and printed and carried by muslim merchants and scholars all over the World. It reached the furthest points of Earth and today it's in every library and is available online in original form as well as translated in every conceivable language for free download.

If someone was remote enough and disconnected enough from the rest of the World not to have heard of Islam or Quran, the consensus is that he is not held liable for it. It was still a message to him, but he did not receive it without fault of his.

[Sampharo]

- Prophecies contained in the Qur'an which later became fulfilled. These prophecies were not vague and general, but rather they were clear and specific.

- The fact that the Qur'an contains stories of the previous prophets even though Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) had no recourse to this information.

- That the Qur'an contains accurate information which is consistent with scientific facts established centuries later.

Specifically also that NOT A SINGLE ONE turned out false. This is important to consider and understand because of the useless arguments that come flicking philosophical theories of ancient greece as also prophecies and scientific hypothesis, some of which was correct.

The miracle is PERFECTION, no error, no reviews, no updates. Greek hypothesis was right one time out of ten, and christian and jewish scripture was rewritten many times by the declaration of the churches and religious authorities themselves.

[Woodrow]

Greetings,


So the omniscient creator of the universe decided to deliver his ultimate message to humanity in a language that most people would never understand. Does that really sound like the action of an all-knowing, all- powerful deity?

Peace

Another thought to add. If it had been in a universaly understood language in a very short period of time it would have only been spread by family tradition. Few people ould actually study it. In this manner there will be a steady stream of people who will constantly study and scrutinize it be accepting it. The fact that some people will put in considerable work to understand it, will help keep it from becoming simple family tradition. Seems like Allaah(swt) took the best action to assure it would be sprad from knowledge and not from tradition.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

:sl:

The omniscient creator of the universe gave you a brain did He not? What stops you from learning and understanding? Where you born knowing english?

If you are serious about knowning what is so special about the Qur'aan then learn and study arabic, if you just want to talk aimlessly then do not bother, simple as that.

Irrelevant to the question I asked, but thanks for trying anyway.

Another thought to add. If it had been in a universaly understood language in a very short period of time it would have only been spread by family tradition. Few people ould actually study it. In this manner there will be a steady stream of people who will constantly study and scrutinize it be accepting it. The fact that some people will put in considerable work to understand it, will help keep it from becoming simple family tradition. Seems like Allaah(swt) took the best action to assure it would be sprad from knowledge and not from tradition.

But it has spread through tradition, hasn't it? I'm not sure I see what point you're making here.

Peace

[Khaldun]

:sl:

Please tell me how it is irrelevant? To me it seems like you are just brushing of what I said since you do not have a good enough reply.

But all the best anyway

[czgibson]

Greetings,

:sl:

Please tell me how it is irrelevant? To me it seems like you are just brushing of what I said since you do not have a good enough reply.

But all the best anyway

I am asking whether you really think that sending a message that is supposedly for all of humanity in a language that most of humanity will never understand sounds like the action of an omniscient deity. Maybe you could explain why you think your answer is relevant?

Peace

[Khaldun]

:sl:

I already did but you just brushed it aside, saying thanks for trying?

Anyway, Allah choose a language from amongst the languages of the earth to convey the message, and since there is not one universal language that everyone speaks then regardless of what language the Qur'aan had been revealed in you would have said the same thing, if Allah had choosen chinese you would have said the same thing, why has Allah picked this language and so forth. This is even echoed in the Qur'aan iitself

And if We had made it a Quran in a foreign tongue, they would certainly have said: Why have not its communications been made clear? What! a foreign (tongue) and an Arabian! Say: It is to those who believe a guidance and a healing; and (as for) those who do not believe, there is a heaviness in their ears and it is obscure to them; these shall be called to from a far-off place.

In a similar fashion Allah bestowed upon you a great intellect and the ability to learn various tongues if you truly and sincerely want to see what the fuss about the Qur'aan is why not study arabic? Then you can judge for yourself.

But it is true what brother Uthmaan said one does not have to be knowledgable in arabic to convert, most of the people who convert to Islaam do not know arabic at all. What I am saying however is if you truly want to appreciate the miracle of the Qur'aan you have to learn the arabic language and stop relaying upon the translations.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

:sl:

I already did but you just brushed it aside, saying thanks for trying?

You didn't, but never mind. I've got used to people missing the point when trying to discuss their religion.

Anyway, Allah choose a language from amongst the languages of the earth to convey the message, and since there is not one universal language that everyone speaks then regardless of what language the Qur'aan had been revealed in you would have said the same thing, if Allah had choosen chinese you would have said the same thing, why has Allah picked this language and so forth. This is even echoed in the Qur'aan iitself

Correct. The point is, why would Allah deliver his message in a way that is only ever accessible to those who've learned Arabic? That is not particularly universal, and only adds to the suspicion that the text was in fact created by Arabic people. He could presumably have delivered perfect versions in English, French, Hebrew or Japanese at any time during the last few centuries, but for some reason has decided not to do so. How serious do you think god is about getting his message to everyone? It sounds like he's hardly trying.

In a similar fashion Allah bestowed upon you a great intellect and the ability to learn various tongues if you truly and sincerely want to see what the fuss about the Qur'aan is why not study arabic? Then you can judge for yourself.

Reading the Qur'an is the only good reason for someone like me learning Arabic. In terms of world literature, there are many languages with much more significant bodies of work - Arabic is some way down the list.

But it is true what brother Uthmaan said one does not have to be knowledgable in arabic to convert, most of the people who convert to Islaam do not know arabic at all.

I've always found this baffling. I cannot understand how a translation could convince anybody. Still, people must have their reasons, so good luck to them. All the English translations I have seen not only don't look like anything other than the work of human hands, they don't even qualify as good pieces of writing.

What I am saying however is if you truly want to appreciate the miracle of the Qur'aan you have to learn the arabic language and stop relaying upon the translations.

To appreciate god's universal message to humanity, you have to learn Arabic. I am surprised you still can't see the absurdity of this state of affairs.

Peace

[Khaldun]

:sl:

Wow so much text yet you didnt bring anything useful to the debate!

I usually look forward to your posts czgibson since they are intellectually stimulating, but you have fallen flat on your face I am afraid.

First of all you start of like a little kid and say You didnt, when I say I did, and then you back it up by saying people usually miss the point, and I am sure you get the point?

Yes ofcourse Allah could have sent down the Qur'aan in every language known to man, why not even Tolkiens own made up language? I am baffled that you do not see the abdsurdity in that.

I am not here to talk about other literature and things, I said if you want to see what the Qur'aan is about then learn arabic. If you consider Arabic to be somewhere down the list then Im not really bothered.

Yes you are right about the translations, this shows the weakness of the english language not the Qur'aan. Please do not get confused.

Also please avoid placing words in my mouth since you tend to do this alot, what I said is and I repeat it and pray that you understand it. If you are serious about knowning why people see the Qur'aan as so amazing and you are sincere about this then you will try to learn arabic.

Peace

[czgibson]

Greetings,

:sl:

Wow so much text yet you didnt bring anything useful to the debate!

I usually look forward to your posts czgibson since they are intellectually stimulating, but you have fallen flat on your face I am afraid.

Thanks for that.

First of all you start of like a little kid and say You didnt, when I say I did, and then you back it up by saying people usually miss the point, and I am sure you get the point?

It was a simple statement of fact.

Yes ofcourse Allah could have sent down the Qur'aan in every language known to man, why not even Tolkiens own made up language? I am baffled that you do not see the abdsurdity in that.

How about just the top ten? What would be the problem with that?

I am not here to talk about other literature and things, I said if you want to see what the Qur'aan is about then learn arabic. If you consider Arabic to be somewhere down the list then Im not really bothered.

Fine. You're still missing the point.

Yes you are right about the translations, this shows the weakness of the english language not the Qur'aan. Please do not get confused.

The world's mostly widely spoken language is weak? How do you work that one out?

Presumably French, German, Japanese and Russian are also weak, since none of those languages can carry the meaning of the Qur'an either.

Also please avoid placing words in my mouth since you tend to do this alot,

This is very important: what I'm actually doing is revealing to you the logical connections between different statements of yours. You are not aware of this, but your position is self-contradictory. Trying to demonstrate this to you is not easy, as you seem to prefer repeating the same point and filling the rest of your posts with irrelevance.

what I said is and I repeat it and pray that you understand it. If you are serious about knowning why people see the Qur'aan as so amazing and you are sincere about this then you will try to learn arabic.

And there it is again. My response is: why should I? God is the one who is all-powerful - why can't he deliver his universal message in a way that most of the population can understand?

Peace

[YusufNoor]

Greetings,

So the omniscient creator of the universe decided to deliver his ultimate message to humanity in a language that most people would never understand.

see below

Does that really sound like the action of an all-knowing, all- powerful deity?

just to clarify, how does an "atheist" recognize the action of an all-knowing, all- powerful deity?
Peace

i don't know Arabic.

HOWEVER

the "Message to humanity" that you claim that people cannot understand is:

No god is God, but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger.

it MAY be tough, but i think i get it!

Islam's most important and crucial element is Tawheed, the Oneness of Allah:

Say, He is Allah, THE Eternal One
He is dependent nothing and everything is dependent on Him
He begets not, nor is He begotten
and nothing is comparable to Him

Alhumdulillah Rabbil Alamin = all true heart and heartfelt praise and worship is for Allah, the Creator, Nourisher, Sustainer, Protector ans Healer of ALL that exists.

and to sum up Islam, in regard to Rabbil Alamin:

Iyyka na'budu wa Iyyaka nesta'een, which translates:

You Alone we worship and You Alone we seek help.

i can't read a single word of Arabic, but Islam is VERY SIMPLE

to AVOID confusion, the Message is preserved in it's language of Revelation. the MORE you learn, the MORE you know.

when ones sees bird-droppings, one knows a bird has passed by. when one sees footprints, one knows a person has passed by.

if bird poop needs a cause and a beginning, what about the Universe?

cheers

[Khaldun]

:sl:

You do not adress anything that I say rather you just push them aside. Whenever you dont find a good enough answer you claim what I say is irrelevent or that I do not understand the point, is this really how you debate?

Caliph Ali certainly spoke the truth when he said:

Whenever I argue with a fool, I lose

This is what I meant by wasting my time.

All the best.

[جوري]

:sl:

You do not address anything that I say rather you just push them aside. Whenever you dont find a good enough answer you claim what I say is irrelevant or that I do not understand the point, is this really how you debate?

Caliph Ali certainly spoke the truth when he said:



This is what I meant by wasting my time.

All the best.

:sl:

I don't like to gang up on people since I find it atheistic and juvenile, but I second you completely on your statement.
He teaches English! apparently that is a crowning achievement with which he and a couple of others use as a badge of armor to weasel away from topics that are too stressful or clearly over their head.

Then have the audacity to speak of five dollar words, when obviously projecting their own inadequacies--when push comes to shove they can't write a lucid refutation to save their dear life.
TheYoungest member here is already two or three languages plus an actual career ahead of them I think it is better they tuck their tail between their legs and shut up than tighten the noose around their neck and cement that sentiment more still with each successive member-- It isn't a defect in your opponent at all to put an e before I, but a clear flaw in you to have missed the actual subject matter to fixate on syntax!

it is a waste of time isn't? Makes you wonder, why perfectly 'lucid' human beings would spend three~four~five years of their life on a forum, not having learned anything or parted wisdom in return.

:wa:

[MSalman]

Greetings,


I am asking whether you really think that sending a message that is supposedly for all of humanity in a language that most of humanity will never understand sounds like the action of an omniscient deity. Maybe you could explain why you think your answer is relevant?

Peace

whether Message is in binary or alien language that is beside the point but you athiests always need to dance around the issue to stasify yourself that you are on truth. Why would a language matter when the teachings and practices of religion has reached to you? Suppose that the Qur'an has been revealed in all languages to come, would you then have believed in it? What evidence do you have for this?

What criteria do you use to say "Action X of God doesn't suit Him"?

[Supreme]

es you are right about the translations, this shows the weakness of the english language not the Qur'aan. Please do not get confused

I don't mean to get involved in this debate, but why would God's perfect revelation seem weak in some languages? If the revelation is so powerful and strong, surely it would come across as such in every language, regardless of what that language is?

[جوري]

Al-Serat Islam, the Qur'an and the Arabic Literature Elsayed M.H Omran Vol XIV No. 1 , Spring 1988

Since the advent of Islam and the revelation of the Qur'an in the early years of the seventh century AD, the Muslim Holy Book has been the subject of many extensive analytical studies. The focus of the great majority of these studies has been the theological and legislative aspects of the Holy Book, for the Qur'an provides Muslims with detailed guidance on their everyday problems. Together with the sayings, actions, and recommendations of Muhammad, the Qur'an has been the ultimate source of legal authority for Muslims over the past fourteen centuries. Muslim scholars have painstakingly examined, analyzed and interpreted the various verses of the Holy Book, detailing the requirements the Qur'an imposes on Muslims in order for them to achieve spiritual purity. Thus, in addition to its legislative and theological value, the Qur'an has also served as a source of spiritual guidance for the followers of Islam.
There is, however, another aspect of the Qur'an which has received far less attention than its theological and legislative guidance, namely its linguistic significance, for the Qur'an was undoubtedly the first book to be composed in Arabic. The advent of Islam and the revelation of the Qur'an have had far-reaching effects on the status, the content, and the structure of the Arabic language. [1] This paper will examine the linguistic influence of the Qur'an and the impact of its revelation on Arabic. It will be argued that, while the Arabic language was extremely effective as the medium for the revelation of the Holy Qur'an and the dissemination of the new faith, the language benefited enormously from the new role it acquired with the advent of Islam.
Islam and Arabic: a unique relationship
The revelation of the Qur'an in Arabic set the scene for a unique and lasting relationship between the language and Islam. On the one hand, Arabic provided a very effective medium for communicating the message of the religion. On the other hand, Islam helped Arabic to acquire the universal status which it has continued to enjoy since the Middle Ages, emerging as one of the principal world languages. It has been argued that Arabic has not simply remained 'ancilliary to Islam' [2] but that it has also been significant as a means of 'cultural and national revival in the Arabic-speaking countries.' [3] Arabic is a rich and expressive language and has played an important role in the cultural preservation of the Arabic-speaking people. However, without the bond it has had with Islam, Arabic would probably not have undergone the internal revolution it did, nor expanded beyond the borders of the Arabian Peninsula with such speed and magnitude.
The relationship of Islam and the Qur'an to Arabic involves more than just the use of a language to communicate a divine message. There are a number of factors which set this relationship apart from that which exists between other holy books and the languages in which they appeared, for Arabic has come to be closely associated with Islam, and in this way has acquired a semi-official status. It is implicit that anyone professing Islam cannot ignore the role Arabic plays in his faith. Embracing Islam, therefore, entails exposure to, and familiarity with, the Arabic language. Such familiarity is necessitated by the fact that memorization and recitation of Qur'anic verses in their original language is necessary for the performance of the daily rituals. Other holy books may have had an impact on the languages in which they originally appeared, but the impact that Islam and the Qur'an have had on Arabic appears to be unique in its extent and durability. It has often been the case that a holy book appears in a given language and is then translated into other languages, in which it continues to be read and recited during the performance of rituals, but, in the case of the Qur'an, although it has been translated into many languages, these translations cannot replace the original language as a language of worship, which continues to be Arabic for all Muslims, native speakers and others.
Other holy books also came to be associated with specific languages, such as the Torah with Hebrew, and, perhaps less intimately, the New Testament with Greek and Latin. However, the nature of the relationship between the Qur'an and Arabic is still unique for reasons to be given below.
The Qur'an: Muhammad's strongest argument
It has often been argued that the Qur'an is not only the first book, and the highest linguistic achievement, of the Arabic language, but that it is also Muhammad's strongest argument against those who doubted his Message. The question that needs to be addressed here concerns the reason why a holy book, a composition of language, should be hailed as Islam's (and Muhammad's) strongest argument. [4] The point has sometimes been made that other prophets had more tangible miracles. In the case of Muhammad, however, the miracle was not comparable to Moses' staff or Christ's healing powers, but was simply the expression in language of the Qur'an.
To understand why Muhammad's strongest argument or miracle was a book, the Holy Qur'an, it is necessary to understand the role language and linguistic composition played in the lives of the pre-Islamic Arabs. It is also important to understand the nature of the Arabic language itself during the pre-Islamic period. This understanding will help to show why the revelation of the Qur'an through Muhammad found attentive ears among his contemporaries, who not only were articulate users of the language but held those skilled in the arts of linguistic composition in high esteem. [5]
The role played by language in pre-Islamic Arabia
Before the rise of Islam, Arabic was mainly a spoken language with an oral literature of elaborate poetry and, to a lesser extent, prose. [6] Writing had not yet fully developed and memorization was the most common means of preserving the literature. [7] Both poetry and prose in the pre-Islamic era dealt with a rather limited range of topics which included in the case of poetry praise, eulogy (panegyric), defamation, and love, and in the case of prose superstition, legends, parables, and wisdom tales. [8]
Pre-Islamic Arabs took great pride in their language and in articulate and accurate speech, the latter being one of the main requisites for social prominence. On this particular point, Professor Hitti writes:No people in the world manifest such enthusiastic admiration for literary expression and are moved by the word, spoken or written, as the Arabs. Hardly any language seems capable of exercising over the minds of its users such an irresistible influence as Arabic. [9]
What made this phenomenon even more remarkable is the near absence of other forms of artistic expression such as music, painting, and drama. The sole elaborate form of artistic expression available to the pre-Islamic Arabs was the art of the spoken word. [10] Eloquence and the ability to compose articulate prose or poetry were foremost among the traits of a worthy bedouin. [11]
Other such traits included horsemanship, courage, and hospitality.With its very nature and structure, its abundance of imagery, vocabulary, and figures of speech, the Arabic language lent itself to elaborate poetic composition and sonorous prose. The tremendous quantity of poetry that we have inherited attests to the significant role language played in pre-Islamic Arabia. In fact, the role language and poetry played was so important that other fields of study which developed during the first centuries of the Islamic era were greatly influenced by the then established study of poetic literature. [12]
The importance of poetry for that era is clearly manifest in the writings of scholars from subsequent centuries. Al-Jahiz (d. 869), for instance, quotes poetic works in his famous al-Bayan wa l-Tabyin. [13] The grammarian al-Asma'i (d. c. 830) used the term fasih (articulate) in reference to the poets whom he quotes. The following quotation from Ibn Rashiq further illustrates the importance attached to linguistic skills in pre-Islamic Arabia. He writes:
Whenever a poet emerged in an Arab tribe, other tribes would come to congratulate, feasts would be prepared, the women would join together on lutes as they do at weddings, and old and young men would all rejoice at the good news. The Arabs used to congratulate each other only on the birth of a child and when a poet rose among them. [14]
In his 'Uyun al-Akhbar, Ibn Qutayba defined poetry as follows:
Poetry is the mine of knowledge of the Arabs and the book of their wisdom, the archive of their history and the reservoir of their epic days, the wall that defends their exploits, the impassable trench that preserves their glories, the impartial witness for the day of judgement. [15]
Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), a notable scholar of the fourteenth century, remarked on the importance of poetry in Arab life:
It should be known that Arabs thought highly of poetry as a form of speech. Therefore, they made it the archives of their history, the evidence for what they considered right and wrong, and the principal basis of reference for most of their sciences and wisdom. [16]
Almost four centuries earlier, Ibn Faris (d. 1005) elaborated on the same theme, but went further to comment on the quality of the poetry that was composed during the pre-Islamic era:
Poetry is the archive of the Arabs; in it their genealogies have been preserved; it sheds light on the darkest and strangest things found in the Book of God and in the tradition of God's apostle and that of his companions. Perhaps a poem may be luckier than another, and one poem sweeter and more elegant than another, but none of the ancient poems lacks its degree of excellence. [17]
Such was the role that the spoken word played in the life of pre-Islamic Arabs. With the emphasis placed on eloquent and articulate speech, the prominent position occupied by those who had the talent for linguistic composition, and the pride the early Arabs took in their language, it is little wonder that the Qur'an was revealed in the most eloquent, articulate, and elaborate style the Arabic language has known. The Qur'an has without doubt provided a level of linguistic excellence unparalleled in the history of the Arabic language. Theologians explain this phenomenon as God's wisdom in addressing the articulate Arabs through the medium in which they were most adept and with which they felt most comfortable. The effectiveness of the Qur'an was thus ensured by the fact that it represented a level of eloquence unattainable even by their most eloquent speakers. The Qur'an remains a book of inimitable quality, not only from a linguistic, but also from and intellectual, point of view. When Muhammad was challenged by his fellow countrymen to present a miracle, in keeping with the tradition of other prophets, he presented the Qur'an to them. The inimitability of the Qur'an is repeatedly emphasized in the Holy Book itself. Thus the Qur'an challenges the disbelievers:
And if you are in doubt as to what we have revealed, then produce a sura like unto it. (2: 23) [18]
A yet stronger challenge occurs in another chapter:
Or do they say: 'He forged it'? Say: 'Bring then a sura like unto it and call [to your aid] anyone you can. ' (10: 38)
The role of the poet in pre-Islamic Arabia
Except for a few proverbs, legends, and some magical and medicinal formulee, the bulk of the literary heritage from the pre-Islamic era was in the form of poetry. [19] Prose, which lacks the elaborate rhythm and formal structure of poetry, did not lend itself easily to memorization. Furthermore, in the absence of a developed system of writing, prose was much less easily preserved. Prose works from the pre-Islamic period were mainly genealogies (ansab) and legends dealing with inter-tribal wars (ayyam al-'arab). [20] Poetry therefore represents the main form of artistic expression during the pre-Islamic era.
The significance of poetry in pre-Islamic Arabia was underscored by the annual fairs, the most famous of which was the Suq Ukaz, in which poets competed for fame and recognition through recitations of poetry. The recitations constituted the main form of entertainment at the fairs. which were cultural as well as trading events.
The pre-Islamic poet, enjoying his enviable talent for composing poetry, played multiple roles. He was an artist, an entertainer, a journalist, and the spokesman for his tribe. Furthermore, he was the historian who kept alive the history and past glories of his tribe. His poetry provided a very effective means of propaganda and public relations. He was readily capable of influencing public opinion, and his poetry was sought by kings and tribal chiefs who generously rewarded him. In short, the poet enjoyed a very prominent status in pre-Islamic Arabia. [21]
The inimitability of the Qur'an
The inimitability of the Qur'an is not limited to its content. In fact, the Holy Book of Islam is held by Muslim scholars to be inimitable not only in its content but also in its language. The Qur'an, it has been constantly maintained, embodies linguistic and literary beauty which exceeds anything of human origin. This is borne out by the fact that no-one has ever been able to compose anything remotely resembling it in its linguistic, literary, or conceptual elegance. [22] This point is repeatedly emphasized in the Holy Book itself. Thus the Qur'an says:
If the whole of mankind and the jinn were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed each other up. (17:88)
The inimitable nature of the Qur'an was recognized by generation after generation of scholars. Al-Tabari (d. 923) dealt with this subject in his voluminous study of the Holy Book. [23] Al-Zamakhshari elaborated on this theme in his famous al-Kashshaf, [24] as did Baydawi in his Tafsir. [25] AlBaqillam, a prominent scholar, wrote a book which he devoted entirely to this subject and to which he gave the title I'jaz al-Qur'an (The Inimitability of the Qur'an). [26] Here he wrote:
The Qur'an is so wonderfully arranged and so marvellously composed, and so exalted is its literary excellence that it is beyond what any mere creature could attain. [27]
Al-Jawziyya, also a noted scholar, added that:
Whoever knows Arabic and is acquainted with lexicography, grammar, rhetoric, and Arabic poetry and prose recognizes ipso facto the supremacy of the Qur'an [28]
Ibn Khaldun also dealt with certain aspects of the style of the Qur'an:
The inimitability of the Qur'an consists in the fact that its language indicates all the requirements of the situation referred to, whether they are stated or understood. This represents the highest degree of speech. In addition, the Qur'an is perfect in the choice of words and excellence of arrangement. [29]
The inimitability as well as the linguistic significance of the Qur'an can be better understood within its pre-Islamic context and according to the role language played during that period. Furthermore, the linguistic significance of the Qur'an can also be better understood within that same context. The linguistic aspect of the Holy Book was brilliantly used by the Prophet in challenging and eventually prevailing upon his fellow Arabs who held in high esteem those who were eloquent and articulate. The eloquence of the Qur'an clearly impressed and overwhelmed them. This explains why the Qur'an has been referred to as 'Muhammad's miracle', or. as the 'miracle of Islam'. The use of the power of the Qur'an as a means of persuasion was admitted by the Prophet himself and was mentioned repeatedly in the Qur'an mostly in the form of a challenge to the disbelievers to produce something similar. On the need and justification for the Prophet to use a book such as the Qur'an, Ibn Qutayba wrote:
God offered the Qur'an as the Prophet's sign in the same way as He offered signs for all the other prophets. He sent the things most appropriate to the time in which they were sent. Thus Moses had the power to divide the sea with his hand and rod, and to let the rock burst forth with water in the desert, and all his other signs in a time of magic. And Jesus had the power to bring the dead back to life, to make birds out of clay, to cure those who had been blind from birth and the leprous, and all his other signs in a time of medicine. And Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him salvation, had the book and all his other signs in a time of eloquence. [30]
The impact of the Qur'an of the Arabic language
Structure and content
As has already been pointed out, scholars have gone to great lengths over the past thirteen centuries to describe and emphasize the inimitability of the verses of the Qur'an. However, the impact of the revelation of the Qur'an on the Arabic language, its structure and content, has certainly been the focus of fewer studies. Works on the inimitability of the Qur'an have mostly focused on the literary beauty of the Holy Book, its conceptual strength and precision. Another important aspect of the Qur'an, one not adequately addressed, lies in its linguistic impact on the form and content of the Arabic language.
The Holy Qur'an has undoubtedly helped reinforce and deepen the Arab people's awareness of the richness and beauty of their tongue. From a linguistic point of view, the revelation of the Qur'an was the most important event in the history of the Arabic language. It was an event with far-reaching and lasting consequence, for the Qur'an gave Arabic a form which it had hitherto lacked. In fact, it was due to the desire to preserve the Qur'an that efforts were made to develop and refine the Arabic alphabet. It was within the same context that Abu l-Aswad al-Du'ali developed the dot system in the first century of the Islamic era in his attempt to lay the basis for Arabic grammatical theory. [31] His efforts were among the first to establish a permanent form for the Arabic alphabet and hence the Arabic writing system. As deciphered from the earliest inscriptions, the Arabic alphabet was vague, unsystematic, and inefficient. The dot system as developed by al-Du'ah helped to clarify and establish distinctions which were otherwise unclear. In fact, it can be maintained that had it not been for the strong desire to preserve the Qur'an, its form, grammar, pronunciation, and accuracy, the Arabic alphabet and writing system might not have developed as quickly as they did.
The Arabic alphabet and writing system were only one aspect of the Qur'an's impact on the language; it also gave Arabic a rigidity of form and a precision of presentation which were novel to the language, as well as a host of new locutions, complex concepts, meanings, and arguments. Furthermore, the Qur'an enriched the lexicon of the language by bringing new words and expressions into use, and by introducing loan-words from foreign languages. It also presented a firm set of linguistic standards and directions which were instrumental in the subsequent documentation of Arabic grammar.
The Qur'an likewise helped to expand the scope of Arabic as it was known in the early years of the seventh century. Islam and the Qur'an helped to open new horizons and fields of study which included such disciplines as philology, Islamic law (the sharia), and Islamic philosophy. The Qur'an also introduced a host of new themes and linguistic forms not only to the Arabic language but to the Arab mind as well. Taha Husayn dealt with this particular aspect of the verses of the Qur'an when he wrote:
In its external form the Qur'an is neither poetry nor prose. It is not poetry because it does not observe the metre and rhyme of poetry, and it is not prose because it is not composed in the same manner in which prose was customarily composed. [32]
The Qur'an consists of verses which vary in length depending on their theme and the occasion for which they were revealed. What is most interesting about Qur'anic verses is the superb selection of words, a selection which helps to induce varying reading speeds, which render these verses most effective. On this particular point,
Taha Husayn wrote:
For example, those verses dealing with the dialogues that took place between the Prophet and the pagans as well as those dealing with legislation require the type of low reading speed appropriate to explanation and recapitulation. On the other hand, those verses in which the pagans are warned of the fate that awaits them require a higher speed appropriate to censuring and warning. [33]
The varying speeds which Taha Husayn mentions appear to be achieved with remarkable spontaneity, which is the result, in Taha Husayn's words, of 'a careful selection of words and expressions.' [34] He gives sura 26, al-Shu'ara', as an example of the type of verse requiring speedy reading, and sura 28, al-Qasas, as an example of that requiring slow reading.
Another aspect of the novelty of the Qur'an language has to do with its themes. These themes and topics represent a clear departure from those which had been hitherto familiar to the Arabs. As Taha Husayn explained:
It does not deal with any such things as ruins, camels, or long journeys in the desert; nor does it describe longing for the beloved, love, or eulogy, topics most familiar to pre-Islamic Arabs. But rather it talks to the Arabs about such things as the oneness of God, His limitless power, His knowledge, which is unattainable, His will, which is unstoppable, and His creation of heaven and earth. [35]
This passage underscores yet another innovative aspect of the Qur'an, namely the presentation of novel themes through an abundance of examples all aimed at illustration and persuasion. The use of illustration is one of the most effective stylistic techniques of the Qur'an. One can hardly read a verse without experiencing the impact of this technique.
The art of narrative style represents another innovative aspect of the Qur'an. It relates in astounding detail the stories of Noah Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and Jesus, among others. It presents the dialogues that took place in such stories and the claims and counter-claims made by each of the opposing parties. Story-telling may not have been totally novel in pre-Islamic Arabia given the significant quantity of parables, epics, and myths that were inherited from that period. What was novel, however, was the type of integrated, elaborate story involving such essential items as theme, plot, well-developed characters, and denouement which are to be found in the Qur'an, which refers itself to the benefit in telling such stories:
We do relate unto thee the most beautiful stories, in that We reveal unto thee this [portion of the] Qur'an. Before this thou too were among those who knew it not. (1: 3)
Lexical borrowing
Lexical borrowing is another area in which the Qur'an established precedent. The Holy Book draws freely on words of non-Arabic origin, including Persian, Sanskrit, and Syriac. The importance of the Qur'an in this respect can be better understood against a deep-seated theme which can be discerned in the writings of scholars of preand early Islam, namely, that the Arabian Peninsula was, during the pre-Islamic era, more or less isolated from the rest of the world, and that the Arabic language, and consequently the Qur'an, was the unique product of the Arabian desert. Inherent in this theme is a belief in the 'purity' of the Arabic tongue and hence the scholars' reluctance to agree with the fact that in its attempt to illustrate the breadth of human religious experience the Qur'an drew on the lexicons of other languages and religions. [36] The verse: Thus have We sent down this Arabic Qur'an is often cited in support of this view. [37] It is obvious from the literature that the majority of the earlier scholars, for example, al-Shafi'i, Ibn Jarir, Abu ' Ubayda, al-Qadi Abu Bakr, and Ibn Faris, rejected the theory that some of the words of the Qur'an were not of Arabic origin. [38] The question of lexical borrowing and the existence of foreign words in the Qur'an was viewed differently by different scholars. Thus the earlier scholars maintained that the existence of foreign words implied and inadequacy of the language. Al-Suyuti quoted Ibn Aws as saying:
If the Qur'an had contained anything other than Arabic, then it would be thought that Arabic was incapable of expressing those things in its own words. [39]
Later scholars, however, viewed lexical borrowing differently. Thus, al-Suyuti explained that the adoption of some non-Arabic words in the Qur'an took place because such words denoted objects or ideas for which no Arabic words were readily available. [40] Examples include the Persian words 'istibraq' (a thick, silky brocade), 'ibriq' (a water jug); the Nabatean word 'akwab' (goblets); the Aramaic word 'asfar' (a large book); the Hebrew borrowing 'rahman' (merciful); and the Syriac words 'zayt' (olive oil) and 'zaytun' (the olive tree). The Qur'an has several hundred such foreign borrowings. Earlier generations of Muslim scholars maintained that such words were either ancient Arabic words that had gone out of use until the revelation of the Qur'an, or that such words were ancient borrowings introduced into Arabic long before the Revelation which had since then acquired an Arabic pattern. [41]
Whether we agree with the view that foreign words in the Qur'an are direct borrowings from other languages or with the view that the majority of these words were ancient borrowings which occurred in pre-Islamic poetry and which had been in use long before the revelation of the Qur'an, it is a fact that the Qur'an contains words that are not of Arabic origin. Such words come from a host of languages including Ethiopic, Persian, Greek, Sanskrit, Syriac, Hebrew, Nabatean, Coptic, Turkish, and Berber. [42] By adopting words of non-Arabic origin, the Qur'an may have helped to legitimize a very important linguistic process, that of lexical borrowing. The importance of this practice derives particularly from the fact that the use of foreign words was viewed unfavourably by a large number of Arab scholars at that time. [43] The term 'ajami (Persian, foreign) was used strictly in reference to non-Arabic words to set them aside from native Arabic words. During the documentation of the grammar in the first three centuries of the Islamic calendar, the same term was used to refer to less-than-native pronunciations of Arabic. In their attempt to document the grammar, the early scholars considered the speech of the bedouins in the heart of the desert to be the most reliable and purest, apparently due to their belief that the bedouins seldom left the desert or mixed with speakers of other languages. [44] Likewise, the early grammarians did not look favourably upon the adoption of foreign terms into Arabic, apparently in the belief that borrowing would indicate certain gaps or deficiencies in the language.
Since it contained words of non-Arabic origin, the Qur'an established a precedent for lexical borrowing as a tool whereby languages may enrich themselves. This was clearly one of the most innovative aspects of the Qur'an. It is particularly important given the unfavourable climate that prevailed among the early Muslim scholars with respect to lexical borrowing.
Structure and style
The Qur'an has made remarkable contributions to the structure and style of the Arabic language. It combines within its covers the first documentation of the sentence patterns of Arabic, and it was instrumental in the documentation of Arabic grammar which began in the first Islamic century. From the time of Sibawayh (d. c. 793) up to the present day there is hardly a page in any manual of Arabic grammar which does not contain one or more verses from the Qur'an. Furthermore, the strong interest in Qur'anic studies brought with it an equally strong interest in Arabic linguistic studies.
The style of the Qur'an helped to develop and enrich the Arabic language. As the first book in the Arabic language, it introduced stylistic innovations which greatly influenced trends in subsequent generations. Foremost among such trends is the Qur'an's abundant use of figures of speech in place of simple words. The Qur'an makes extensive use of illustrations, imagery, and metaphor, thus adding beauty, life, and colour to plain words In fact, the ubiquity of figures of speech in the Qur'an has led Sayyid Qutb to conclude that 'the use of imagery and figures of speech is the Qur'an's preferred style.' [45] The preference for figures of speech over plain words appears to be a general trend that permeates the entire Book. Thus, the Qur'an affirms the impossibility of the disbelievers' entry into paradise:
Nor will they enter the Garden until a thick rope can pass through the eye of a needle. (7: 40)
Confirming that the disbelievers' actions will be in vain, the Qur'an conveys this notion in the following way:
The parable of those who reject their Lord is that their works are as ashes on which the wind blows furiously as on a tempestuous day. (14: 18)
Another idea, that of those who do charitable acts yet spoil what they have done by gloating and reminding others of such acts is conveyed thus:
they are in a parable like a hard, barren rock on which is a little soil: on it falls heavy rain which leaves it just a bare stone. (2: 265)
The opposite case, namely that of those who spend for God's sake rather than in order to boast, is also expressed through imagery:
as a garden, high and fertile; heavy rain falls on it but makes it yield a double increase of harvest. (2: 265)
Earlier in the same sura, the same idea is conveyed through a different figure of speech:
The parable of those who spend their money in the way of God is that of a grain of corn: it groweth seven ears and each ear hath a hundred grains. (2: 261)
Criticizing those who worship gods other than Allah, the Qur'an likens their actions to that of a spider building a web:
The parable of those who take protectors other than God is that of the spider building for itself a house; but, truly, the flimsiest of houses is the spider's house. (29: 41)
Doomsday is one of the frequent themes of the Qur'an. The description of the horrors of that day is also presented through figures of speech:
for the convulsion of the Hour will be a terrible thing! The day ye shall see it, each mother giving suck shall forget her suckling-babe, and each pregnant female shall deliver her load. Thou shalt see mankind as in a drunken riot, yet not drunk. (22: 2)
Another very characteristic stylistic device of the Qur'an is that of anthropomorphization. Thus it describes dawn as breathing away the darkness (78: 10), the night as concealing the sun and veiling the day, the wind as fecundating, causing the rain to fall (15: 22). The sea is likened to ink which, if used, will not suffice to write the words of God:
Say: If the ocean were ink wherewith to write out the words of my Lord, sooner would the ocean be exhausted, even if we added another ocean like it. (18: 109)
Slandering is likened to eating another persons's flesh:
Nor speak ill of each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother. (49: 12)
The rhythmic patterns of speech found in Qur'anic recitations is yet another remarkable aspect of the language of the Qur'an. These patterns are a reflection of the special array of words and arrangement of phrases found in the Book. In the view of many scholars such verses combine the characteristics of both poetry and prose. [46] Unlike some poetry, the verses of the Qur'an do not have one single rhyme, thus there is more room for flexibility and freedom of expression. The Qur'an does, however, reflect certain aspects of poetry, especially with respect to its use of words with identical numbers of syllables. This 'music' is more noticeable in short verses than it is in long ones. [47] Sayyid Qutb cites sura 53
(al-Najm) as an excellent example of prose rhythm produced by words similar in length and all ending in the same sound, in this case the long a [48] There is another type of internal rhythm which is inherent in the structure of the single sentence. This is seen when the length of words varies within the same sura. A good example of this is sura 19 (Maryam), which begins with short words and phrases, then changes to longer ones. Furthermore, the rhythms of the various segments are enhanced by the use of two main rhymes throughout the entire sura. These rhymes end either in nun or mim preceded by either ya' or wa'w.
The narrative aspect of Qur'an style remains one of the most creative and innovative of the Holy Book, one which has profoundly influenced and enriched the Arabic language. Whatever narrative style the language had in pre-Islamic times were relatively crude and primitive. Even though the narrative parts of the Qur'an were clearly put to the service of the main theme of the Book, i.e., religion, the narrative was so highly developed and integrated that it became a work of art in itself. The Qur'an is remarkably innovative with respect to its method of presentation, which involves four different techniques. One common technique is that if beginning a story with a short summery, followed by the details from beginning to end, as in sura 18 (al-Kahf). The second technique is that of beginning a story by presenting the conclusion first, then the lesson to be derived from it, and then the story from beginning to end, as in the story of Moses in sura 28 (al-Qasas). The third technique presents the story directly without introduction, as in that of Mary following the birth of Jesus in sura 19 (Maryam), and the story of King Solomon and the ants in sura 27 (al-Naml). The fourth, and perhaps most innovative, technique is that of presenting the story through dramatization. This technique gives only a brief introduction signalling the beginning of the scene, followed by a dramatization of the story with a dialogue among the various characters, as in the story of Abraham and Ismail in sura 2.
An important element in the structure of Qur'anic narrative is the varied use of the element of surprise. In some cases the anticlimax is kept from the main players and spectators, and is unfolded for both simultaneously towards the end, as in sura 18 in the story of Moses and the scholar. Another use of the element of surprise reveals the anticlimax to the audience but conceals it from the characters, who act in total ignorance. The Qur'an commonly uses this technique in situations where satire is intended (satire which is directed at the actors and their behaviour) as in the story in sura 68 (al-Qalam). A third technique reveals part of the anticlimax to the audience while keeping part of it concealed from both the audience and the characters, as in the story in sura 27 (al-Naml).
The structure of Qur'anic narrative displays the well-developed elements of an integrated literary work. One of the elements indispensable to dramatized narrative is change of scenery, which the Qur'an utilizes fully. In the story of Joseph in sura 12, the reader is presented with a succession of scenes, each of which leads to the next, picking up the main thread of the narrative. Joseph's story comprises some twenty-eight scenes, each of which leads to the next in a manner which maintains the organic unity of the entire narrative. All such scenes are presented through dialogues replete with details and ideas. The result of such a well-knit passage is that the reader finds himself drawn to the narrative, moving anxiously from one scene to another. This effect is achieved through a coherent series of events which sustain his curiosity and interest. In one scene, for example, we find one of Joseph's brothers entering the king's court in Egypt where Joseph is the keeper of the store-house. In this scene, Joseph stipulates to his brothers that they should bring their younger brother to the king's court in order to receive provisions. The next scene presents the brothers deliberating among themselves, which is followed by a scene in which they have returned to face their father, Jacob. The following scene takes the brothers back to Egypt to confront Joseph. The presentation of the narrative in dramatic form involving a succession of scenes brings home effortlessly the main theme and the lessons to be derived from the whole narrative. The use of dialogue makes the scenes more vivid and closer to life. This is an art in which the Qur'an excels, and an art in which it is remarkably innovative. It is clearly a form of literary composition which the Qur'an, the first book in Arabic, introduced to the language.
The portrayal of personalities is a very significant element of the narrative; here, again, the Qur'an sets a precedent. The depiction of personalities in the various narratives manages to convey to the reader the precise dimensions and traits of such figures. This is done through the words and actions of the personalities portrayed. In the story of Moses, for example, the reader is readily able to discern, through Moses' actions, the type of aggressive yet emotionally sensitive person he was meant to portray. Conversely, in the story of Abraham, the Qur'anic verses carefully depict a calm, peaceful, and patient personality. This careful and accurate delineation of personality is effected largely through dialogue which skillfully brings out the traits of such personalities. The dialogue, in turn, is rendered even more effective by a very careful choice of words.
Islam, the Qur'an, and the internationalization of the Arabic language
The revelation of the Quran in Arabic in the early part of the seventh century AD helped the language to acquire and international status which it has continued to enjoy until the present day. It has been argued that Arabic has not simply remained ancilliary to Islam but that it has been significant as a 'means of cultural and national revival in the Arabic-speaking countries.' [49] It is true that Arabic has played an important role in the life and history of the Arab people, but without the bond it has with Islam it would not have been likely to have acquired the type of international status it has acquired through Islam. It was under the banner of religion that Arabic spread beyond the borders of the Arabian Peninsula. The early Muslims who emerged from the north-western part of the Arabian Peninsula brought with them not only the Islamic religion but Arabic as well. This phenomenon was so remarkable that, within a few centuries after the revelation of the Qur'an, Arabic became the common language of government, correspondence, business, and literary expression.
The speed and facility with which Arabic was first accepted and then eventually absorbed in the new countries was remarkable, and it was largely due to its association with Islam. Converts to the new religion looked with great interest towards the original language of their Holy Book. [50] They were clearly fascinated by the new religion and its language. The desire on the part of the new converts to identify with the resourceful pioneers emerging from the Arabian Peninsula was yet another factor in their adoption of the language.
Arabic was able to replace such languages as Greek and Syriac in Syria and the Fertile Crescent, Coptic, Greek, and Latin in Egypt, and Pahlavi in Persia. Syriac, a dialect of the ancient Aramaic language, had a flourishing literature until it gave way to Arabic in the seventh century AD, and was subsequently limited to being a vehicle for translating Greek literature and philosophy into Arabic. In Egypt, the languages used until the early seventh century were Coptic and Greek; both languages, however, gave way to Arabic, which became the common language of the country, with Coptic as the language of the local Christian Church. By the end of the ninth century, Arabic was already being used in churches alongside Coptic. [51] In Persia, Pahlavi, the language of the Sassanian dynasty (224 640 AD), used the Arabic alphabet and contained a large number of Arabic loan-words. Following the Arab conquest in 640, Pahlavi gave way to New Persian, which adopted the Arabic script and which was greatly influenced by Arabic. It is estimated that one third of the vocabulary of modern Persian (Farsi), is of Arabic origin. [52] Persian scholars engaged in the field of Islamic studies wrote mostly in Arabic. Among these were such prominent figures as Ibn Sina (980 1037), al Ghazzali (1058-1111), and Abu Bakr al-Razi of the twelfth century AD who wrote more than thirty books in Arabic. Even though Farsi began to develop its own identity and become gradually independent from Arabic around the tenth century AD, [53] the language is still written in the Arabic script. [54]
Similarly, the Arabic script was adopted for the Turkic languages following the conversion to Islam of speakers of these languages, which include, in the Southern Division, Turkish, Azerbaijani, Turkoman, and Chuvash, and, in the Eastern Division, Kinghiz, Kazakh, and Tatar. The Turkic languages continued to use the Arabic script until the early part of this century. The Turkish language, the most important of the Turkic languages, was doubly influenced by Arabic; first, through conversion to Islam, the adoption of the Arabic script, and the adoption of a large number of Arabic loan-words, and secondly through the medium of Farsi. As in the case of the latter, Arabic was the language of composition for many Turkish scholars, notably in the fields of religious and philological studies. [55]
In the Indian subcontinent, the introduction of Arabic was similarly largely due to the adoption of the Islamic faith. It was the language of government during the reign of the sultan Jalal al-Din (963-1014 AH). There is evidence, however, that Arabic reached India prior to the tenth Islamic century through Farsi, which was the language of the court in India prior to the advent of Islam. Urdu, a written variety of Hindustani with a substantial quantity of Arabic words, is the language used by Muslims; it employs the Arabic alphabet. A great majority of the Urdu scholars of the twelfth Islamic century used the medium of Arabic for their writings. Prominent among them were Wali Allah al-Dihlawi, Shibli al-Na'mani, and Karamat Husayn. [56] Arabic gained more and more ground with the increasing Muslim influence in India. Urdu, which has a vocabulary of which at least thirty per cent is of Arabic origin, continues to the present to be the foremost among the dialects spoken among the Muslims of India and Pakistan. The impact of Arabic extended to other Indic languages such as Hindi and Sindhi, the latter using the Arabic alphabet.
In south-east Asia, the arrival of Islam in the fourteenth century AD brought with it the Arabic language, whose alphabet was subsequently adopted by the Malayo-Polynesian languages. These languages are spoken by the inhabitants of the Malay Peninsula, Madagascar, Taiwan, Indonesia, New Guinea, the Melanesian, Micronesian, and Polynesian islands, the Phillipines, and New Zealand. These languages employ writing systems based on the Roman, Hindic, and Arabic alphabets. [57]
The impact of Islam and the Arabic language was not confined to these parts of Arabia, Africa, and Asia. Indeed, the spread of Islam into the European continent led to the subsequent introduction of Arabic. Less than a century later, the impact of Arabic began to be felt on such languages as Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, English, and German. The impact was most noticeable in Spain and Portugal, where Arabic existed alongside the native languages and was used in church liturgy and in business transactions. It was generally through Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian that Arabic influenced other European languages, including the Scandanavian languages. The number of Arabic loan-words in Spanish is in the thousands. Many names of cities, rivers, villages, and provinces in Spain have retained their Arabic forms, as in place-names which begin with the words bani, wadi, and al('son', 'valley', and 'the', respectively), as in Bani al-Madina, Wadi al-Kabir, and al-Qasr. [58] Among the Arabic loan-words in European languages there is a host of scientific terminology. The existence of scientific words of Arabic origin in European languages is attributed to the pioneering efforts of Muslim scholars in the fields of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and medicine. In their works, Muslim scholars had to coin an entirely new terminology to introduce their innovations, which included such novel concepts as algebra, the algorithm, alkali, alchemy, and alcohol. In addition to scientific terms, European languages contain many everyday words of Arabic origin, e.g., coffee, sugar, saffron, admiral, arsenal. Arabic numerals are another case in point.
Conclusion
The Arabic language has without doubt served as a very effective medium for the communication of the message of Islam, and as the Prophet's strongest argument against the challenges of his articulate and eloquent contemporaries. It has also served as a means for preserving the cultural and religious heritage of Arabic-speaking and Muslim peoples. In this sense, the language has been extremely useful to the religion. However, in its role as the language of the Qur'an, Arabic has benefited enormously. There is a clear legitimacy to the claim that Islam and the Qur'an have helped to preserve Arabic from decay and deterioration, for it was mainly due to the need to preserve the accuracy and pronunciation of the verses of the Qur'an that efforts were instigated towards refining the Arabic alphabet. Subsequently, the Qur'an was instrumental in the codification of Arabic grammar in the second the third Islamic centuries. Furthermore, the need for Muslims, whether native or non-native speakers of Arabic, to memorize and recite verses from the Qur'an in their daily worship has helped to keep the Arabic language alive. It was due to its association with Islam and the Qur'an that Arabic gained a good deal of prestige as the language of a young faith, a faith that was gaining more and more followers with each new day. The interest in the new faith this brought with it interest in the language of that faith. It was under the banner of Islam that Arabic spread beyond the borders of the Arabian Peninsula to far-off areas in Europe, south-east Asia, and Africa.
From literary, structural, and stylistic points of view, the Qur'an added immeasurably to the beauty of the language, introducing new styles, forms of expression, figures of speech, and structures. The Qur'an also enriched and expanded the vocabulary of the Arabic language by employing hundreds of words of foreign origin, thus demonstrating the legitimacy of lexical borrowing as a linguistic device. The Qur'an similarly presented Arab scholars with a higher criterion of literary excellence and set new and more rigid standards for literary composition for subsequent generations of Arab scholars. The model that the Qur'an provided, while remaining inimitable, has sharpened the literary skill and kindled the talent of generations of scholars in their attempts to emulate the style and literary excellence of the Qur'an, the first book in the Arabic language. Interest in the Qur'an, its language, and its exegesis gave rise to a number of related disciplines, which include philological, religious, and linguistic studies. There is no doubt that the Arabic language was extremely useful as a medium for the revelation of the Holy Qur'an and for communicating God's final message to the pre-Islamic Arabs of the seventh century. It is, however, the conclusion of this paper that the Arabic language underwent drastic changes in its structure, content, and status due to its association with Islam and the Qur'an, changes that the language would not have undergone had it not been for the new role it acquired in its bond with Islam and the Qur'an.
Footnotes:
[1] See, for this view, 'Abbas Hasan, Al-Lugha wa-l-nahw bayn al-qadim wa-l-hadith, Cairo, 1966, and Ibrahim Anis, Min asrar al-lugha, Cairo, 1970.
[2] Anwar Cheyne, The Arabic language: its role in history, Minnesota, 1969, ch. 4,pp. 53 ff.
[3] Ibid.
[4] On this subject, see Taha Husayn's excellent argument in his Mir'at al-Islam, pp. 125 ff., and Sayyid Qutbs Al-Taswir al-fanni fi l-Qur'an, chs. 1-3.
[5] Philip K. Hitti, History of the Arabs, London, 1967, pp. 87 ff.
[6] Cheyne, Op. Cit., ch. 4, pp. 52 ff.
[7] Ibid. ,ch.4,pp.52ff.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Hitti, Op. Cit., pp. 90 ff.
[10] Ibrahim Anis, Fi l-lahajat al'arabiyya, Cairo, 1962, ch. 2, pp. 33 ff.
[11] Vicente Cantarino, Arabic poetics in the golden age, Leiden, 1975, pp. 17 ff.
[12] Ibid., ch. 1, pp. 9 ff.
[13] Al-Jahiz, Kitab al-Bayan, Cairo, 1965
[14] Ibn Rashiq, 'Umda, Cairo, 1934, vol. 1, 65; also in al-Suyuti, Muzhir,Cairo, n.d., vol. 2, 203.
[15] Ibn Qutayba, 'Uyun al-akhbar, Cairo, 1964, vol. 2, 185.
[16] Ibn Khaldun, Al-Muqaddima, vol. 3, 375.
[17] Al-Suyuti, Op. Cit., vol. 2, 291.
[18] All Qur'anic quotations are taken, with some modification, from the translation of Yusuf A. Ali, The Holy Qur'an, London, 1983.
[19] Hitti, Op. Cit., pp. 90-91.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Cheyne. Op. Cit.. pp. 56 ff
[22] A number of excellent works were devoted entirely to this aspect of tne Qur'an, e.g., al-Suyiti, al Itqan, and al-Baqillani, I'jaz al-Qur'an, Beirut, 1979.
[23] Abu Ja far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Qur'an.
[24] Mahmud b. Umar al-Zamakhashari (d. 1143).
[25] Nasr al-Din al-Baidawi (d. 1286)
[26] Al Baqillan, Op. Cit.. pp 45 ff
[27] Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Kitab al-Fawai'id al-mushawwig ila •ulum al-Qur'an wa'ilm al-bayan, Cairo, 1909, pp. 7, 246.
[28] Ibn Khaldun, Op. Cit., vol. 3, 338
[29] Ibn Qutayba, Kitab Ta'wil mushkil al-Qur'an, Cairo, 1954, p. 10.
[30] Ibn Khaldun, Op. Cit., vol. 3, 1266
[31] Taha Husayn, Op. Cit., p. 129.
[32] Ibid., pp. 130 ff.
[33] Ibid., pp. 129 ff.
[34] Ibid., p. 125
[35] Arthur Jeffrey, The Foreign vocabulary of the Qur'an. Lahore, 1977, pp. 5 ff.
[36] Ibid., pp. 6 ff.
[37] Al-Suyuti, al Itqan, vol. 1, § 38, p. 136.
[38] Ibid., p. 136.
[39] Ibid., pp. 136 ff.
[40] Ibid., pp. 137 ff.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Ibid., pp. 138 ff.
[43] Al-Suyuti, Itqan
[44] 'Abbas Hasan, Op. Cit., pp. 72 ff.
[45] Sayyid Qutb, Op. Cit., pp. 34 ff.
[46] Ibid., pp. 87 ff.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Cheyne, Op. Cit., pp. 5 ff.
[50] Anwar al-Jindi, Al-Fusha lughat al-Qur'an, Beirut, n.d., p. 31.
[51] Ibid, p. 45.
[52] Ibid., p. 72.
[53] Ibid., p. 72. See also Cheyne, Op. Cit., p. 1.
[54] Al-Jindi, Op Cit.,p. 77
[55] In a discussion with Dr Baynurza Hayit, a prominent Turkistani scholar who lives and writes in West Germany, at the third annual meeting of the American Council for the Study of Islamic Societies held at Villanova University in May 1986, he informed me that Turkic languages enjoyed a high degree of mutual intelligibility and interaction during that period in which the Arabic script was in use, and that this feature began to disappear following the switch of writing system in some of these languages.
[56] Al-Jindi, Op. Cit., p. 81.
[57] William H. Harris and Judith S. Levy, The New Columbia Encyclopedia, New York and London, 1975, p. 1670.
[58] Banilmadina is a large resort on the Costa del Sol in southern Spain, Guadalquivir is a river which runs through the ancient city of Seville, and the Alcazar is the famous palace in that city.

http://www.*************/al-serat/Arabic.htm

The bible needing a thousand theologian to decode and still make no better sense of it is a testament as to why language is very important in preserving a message!

all the best

[Supreme]

is a testament as to why language is very important in preserving a message!

I'm not at contention with that here. What both I and czgibson fail to understand, is why the exact same message could not have been preserved in other languages other than Arabic? Language is undoubtedly very important for a book such as the Quran, so surely God would want to publicize His universal message in every language available? Maybe I'm missing the point here, I'm tired.

Also, I doubt very much people will bother reading more than a few lines of the huge text you posted. I've got a job, partner and life you know...

[جوري]

I'm not at contention with that here. What both I and czgibson fail to understand, is why the exact same message could not have been preserved in other languages other than Arabic? Language is undoubtedly very important for a book such as the Quran, so surely God would want to publicize His universal message in every language available? Maybe I'm missing the point here, I'm tired.

Also, I doubt very much people will bother reading more than a few lines of the huge text you posted. I've got a job, partner and life you know...

The world's oldest language of which there are records is written in Sumerian-- thus it is only natural that from the birth place of civilization the divine code for man-kind would be revealed in Semitic tongue and such indeed was the case for all monotheistic/Abrahamic religions-- whether Hebrew/Aramaic or Arabic.. Of them Arabic is the most evolved (If you have bothered read the article above)!

It is a matter of what is the most effective way to get your message across, I don't think revealing a divine message in Inuktitut would have served the purpose. It is divine judgment, and considering that said divine judgment is still at work millenniums later to expand the globe, as the world's fastest growing and second largest if not the largest religion, then I'd consider that divine judgment is indeed sound!

You'll always find a way to point out a dislike, even if completely asinine and nonsensical, in such regard you are no better than an atheist.

True as Allah swt stated in the most noble of books!

[Pickthal 18:54] And verily We have displayed for mankind in this Qur'an all manner of similitudes, but man is more than anything contentious.


all the best

p.s: if you don't want to read and learn, then don't waste your time or anyone else.. right? If you want a thoughtless response, the like which is somewhat popular on this forum, then don't ask deep and philosophical questions that require thought, timetable and outlines!

I don't need to waste my time when someone is here for jest!

[Supreme]

The world's oldest language of which there are records is written in Sumerian-- thus it is only natural that from the birth place of civilization the divine code for man-kind would be revealed in Semitic tongue and such indeed was the case for all monotheistic/Abrahamic religions-- whether Hebrew/Aramaic or Arabic.. Of them Arabic is the most evolved (If you have bothered read the article above)!

So it's natural for God to be only undestood by speakers of a language merely because that language is old? How does that make sense?

It is a matter of what is the most effective way to get your message across, I don't think revealing a divine message in Inuktitut would have served the purpose. It is divine judgment, and considering that said divine judgment is still at work millenniums later to expand the globe, as the world's fastest growing and second largest if not the largest religion, then I'd consider that divine judgment is indeed sound!

For non Arabic speakers the language of the Quran may as well have been Inukitut. But please explain how a message with the intent of being recieved by the entirity of mankind can only be properly understood in its native form is in any way 'effective'.

You'll always find a way to point out a dislike, even if completely asinine and nonsensical, in such regard you are no better than an atheist.

Ooops, I know how inferior atheists are on your hate list.

p.s: if you don't want to read and learn, then don't waste your time or anyone else.. right? If you want a thoughtless response, the like which is somewhat popular on this forum, then don't ask deep and philosophical questions that require thought, timetable and outlines!

I've got to go somewhere in a minute,I couldn't read the article anyway! But feel free to break it down into digestible chunks, I'll be happy to learn.

I don't need to waste my time when someone is here for jest!

You've already wasted so much on your time with jestful members anyway, you may as well continue!

[جوري]

So it's natural for God to be only undestood by speakers of a language merely because that language is old? How does that make sense?

How does your logic apply to the bible when Jesus spoke Aramaic?

For non Arabic speakers the language of the Quran may as well have been Inukitut. But please explain how a message with the intent of being recieved by the entirity of mankind can only be properly understood in its native form is in any way 'effective'.

The fact that there are 1.86 billion Muslims and growing speaks to the efficacy of the message!

Ooops, I know how inferior atheists are on your hate list.

Composing hate lists seems to be more in concert with your views than mine.. wo/man chooses to make him/herself inferior with choice of beliefs!

I've got to go somewhere in a minute,I couldn't read the article anyway! But feel free to break it down into digestible chunks, I'll be happy to learn.

I am not here to spoon feed you, that is what your wife or mother is for!

You've already wasted so much on your time with jestful members anyway, you may as well continue!

All that needed to be said is written.. you are very ineffectual at making a solid argument and I rather think, you need to take care of that on your own private time!

all the best!

[Uthman]

Allah is all-knowledgeable and all-wise and, in his infinite wisdom, he decided to reveal this as an Arabic Qur'an. I can certainly see some wisdom in it, but due to my limitations, I cannot know the real reasons behind Allah's decision. Allah is also all-powerful and, had he wished, he could have revealed the Qur'an in all languages. So the answer to questions starting with "Why couldn't God have..." are that he could have but, in his infinite wisdom, decided not to. This answer may not satisfy some people, but I am completely confident and secure with providing this as an answer.

From the benefits of having the Qur'an in a single language is that the language serves as a uniting factor of the Muslims. Consider what the orientalist Philip DeTrazy writes:

Due to the power of the Qur'an, the Muslims have become a united nation in their language, religion, laws and politics. For the Qur'an has combined all the Arabs, and it is inconceivable that, were it not for the Qur'an, classical Arabic would have spread among them...And were it not for the Qur'an, numerous peoples would not have taken up the language, and learnt how to read and write it, and studied it and worked with it. And were it not for the Qur'an, every nation among the nations of Muslims would have had their own language...So the Qur'an has been the source of preserving communcation between the Islamic and Arab nations. [1]

Also, consider the advice given to the French government by its consulate in Algeria during the French occupation of Algeria:

We will never be able to overpower the Algerians as long as they read the Qur'an and speak Arabic. Therefore, we must remove the Arabic Qur'an from their midst, and abolish the Arabic language from their tongues. [2]

Be that as it may, it isn't true that a person simply cannot understand the Qur'an at all by reading a translation. They can gain a good understanding by reading a translation alongside a good, reliable commentary (such as that of Ibn Katheer or At-Tabari). The truth is that a person cannot fully understand and appreciate the depth of meaning behind what the Qur'an says without knowledge of the Arabic language. I myself do not know Arabic but I have read around the topic and have read an explanation of several verses from a linguistic point of view and I can honestly say that it is a fascinating area of study.

Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, it isn't necessary to know the Arabic language to realise the miraculous nature of the Qur'an. The Qur'an as a literary miracle can still be appreciated by explanation and by looking at it from a historical perspective. The other aspects of the Qur'an's miraculous nature (such as the fulfillment of specific prophecies) do not get lost in translation anyway. A person who is sincere, logical and open-minded can absolutely grasp that the Qur'an was not an invention by Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) - a cursory analysis of whose life and behaviour shows quite clearly that he had no motive to lie about such a thing, and that he was somehow 'mistaken' about receiving revelations is plainly an absurd suggestion - but a revelation from Allah. Indeed, many intelligent people have grasped this and have converted to Islam. Unfortunately, there are others who, despite clear explanation upon clear explanation, will remain forever persistent in their disbelief and it is these people that, as much as we want to, we cannot help.

[1] An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'aan by Yasir Qadhi, p. 354 who translated it from Aboo Ubaadah, p. 15.

[2] An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'aan by Yasir Qadhi, p. 355 who translated it from Aboo Ubaadah, p.44

[Supreme]

How does your logic apply to the bible when Jesus spoke Aramaic?

Irrelevant, although the fact that Jesus' message has been translated into almost every language many times with little problem means that such obstructive language barriers do not exist in Christianity. Jesus never intended His message to be understood fully by a select few.
.

The fact that there are 1.86 billion Muslims and growing speaks to the efficacy of the message!

Not really. There may be one million admirers of Shakespeare worldwide, but Shakespeare was hardly very effective in modern terms if only around 5% of the people who admire his work actually understand his scripts in their original form, which is how most people agree they should be read. The other 95% would only admire him because they've seen good films of his work, or have read the synopsis of his work in modern language- not because they admire his original scripts.

Composing hate lists seems to be more in concert with your views than mine.. wo/man chooses to make him/herself inferior with choice of beliefs!

I'm a liberal Christian. I hate no one.

I am not here to spoon feed you, that is what your wife or mother is for!

Incidentally, it is neither my wife nor mother posting lengthy articles on the off chance that someone may read them and hopefully back up their argument. You post the article, you explain the article.

[جوري]

Irrelevant, although the fact that Jesus' message has been translated into almost every language many times with little problem means that such obstructive language barriers do not exist in Christianity. Jesus never intended His message to be understood fully by a select few.

.
Quite relevant since the god you pray to is a west asian one who spoke one of the languages you find exclusive. The Quran likewise is translated to every language. One however can always go back to the source and make sure that men don't turn into gods by chinese whispers. And to the contrary Jesus meant that his message be understood by a select few:

New International Version (©1984)
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."New Living Translation (©2007)
Then Jesus said to the woman, "I was sent only to help God's lost sheep--the people of Israel."
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
International Standard Version (©2008)
But he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel."
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus responded, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel."
King James Bible
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
American King James Version
But he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
American Standard Version
But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Bible in Basic English
But he made answer and said, I was sent only to the wandering sheep of the house of Israel.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel.
Darby Bible Translation
But he answering said, I have not been sent save to the lost sheep of Israel's house.
English Revised Version
But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Webster's Bible Translation
But he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Weymouth New Testament
"I have only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," He replied.
World English Bible
But he answered, "I wasn't sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Young's Literal Translation
and he answering said, 'I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'

Not really. There may be one million admirers of Shakespeare worldwide, but Shakespeare was hardly very effective in modern terms if only around 5% of the people who admire his work actually understand his scripts in their original form, which is how most people agree they should be read. The other 95% would only admire him because they've seen good films of his work, or have read the synopsis of his work in modern language- not because they admire his original scripts.

This is a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it, we are not talking about Shakespeare we are talking about the religions that have influenced and continue to influence history .. try to focus on a topic even when at a loss of a cohesive response!

I'm a liberal Christian. I hate no one.

That is akin to saying, I am a shoe maker, I love all sandals.. another nonsequitur..

Incidentally, it is neither my wife nor mother posting lengthy articles on the off chance that someone may read them and hopefully back up their argument. You post the article, you explain the article.

The article has been explained in full, your indolence and ridiculous expectations from members doesn't exempt you from doing the bare minimum!
When you are assigned homework with the expectations of some formal discussion you are expected to read it before you show up for discussion!

Thanks for today's funnies as always relaxing and virtually appealing!

[Eliphaz]

Consider what the orientalist Philip DeTrazy writes:
[INDENT]Due to the power of the Qur'an, the Muslims have become a united nation in their language, religion, laws and politics. For the Qur'an has combined all the Arabs, and it is inconceivable that, were it not for the Qur'an, classical Arabic would have spread among them...

Yes, I agree (to some extent) that the Qur'an has combined all the arabs but look outside of the Arabs or Arabic-speaking peoples or those whose ancestors lived under the former Islamic Empire and they have no means to access the Qur'anic message in its intended form, with ignorance of Islam and not speaking Arabic being their default position. To say these people will be 'judged differently' is to me a cop-out and immediately undermines the claim of a 'Message for all Humanity', which the Qur'an is supposed to be.

Be that as it may, it isn't true that a person simply cannot understand the Qur'an at all by reading a translation. They can gain a good understanding by reading a translation alongside a good, reliable commentary (such as that of Ibn Katheer or At-Tabari). The truth is that a person cannot fully understand and appreciate the depth of meaning behind what the Qur'an says without knowledge of the Arabic language. I myself do not know Arabic but I have read around the topic and have read an explanation of several verses from a linguistic point of view and I can honestly say that it is a fascinating area of study.

But do you not see that by invoking the need for commentary you are saying that God did not say all He had to say in the Qur'an and needed men to clarify his message?

Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, it isn't necessary to know the Arabic language to realise the miraculous nature of the Qur'an. The Qur'an as a literary miracle can still be appreciated by explanation and by looking at it from a historical perspective.

I disagree that the literary miracle can be appreciated by explanation and looking at it from a historical perspective. The challenge of the Qur'an is to produce a single verse like it, but if you cannot appreciate the literary beauty of the verse in the first place, then what use is such a challenge? No amount of people telling you 'this verse is really beautiful' can move you unless you know Arabic - and not just Arabic but Classical Arabic. The flaw of a book for all times and places being limited to knowledge of a single language and in the style of a particular time period is that it inherently cannot be appreciated beyond those constraints and the impact of any claim to it being a literary miracle is lost.

The other aspects of the Qur'an's miraculous nature (such as the fulfillment of specific prophecies) do not get lost in translation anyway. A person who is sincere, logical and open-minded can absolutely grasp that the Qur'an was not an invention by Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) - a cursory analysis of whose life and behaviour shows quite clearly that he had no motive to lie about such a thing, and that he was somehow 'mistaken' about receiving revelations is plainly an absurd suggestion - but a revelation from Allah.

The reason Prophet Muhammad did or did not invent the Qur'an is not relevant, if the message itself is not the word of God. It is similar to say that if any man could not have had a motive to do something he must have been acting on God's will.

Conclusion

The Arabic language has without doubt served as a very effective medium for the communication of the message of Islam, and as the Prophet's strongest argument against the challenges of his articulate and eloquent contemporaries. It has also served as a means for preserving the cultural and religious heritage of Arabic-speaking and Muslim peoples. In this sense, the language has been extremely useful to the religion. However, in its role as the language of the Qur'an, Arabic has benefited enormously. There is a clear legitimacy to the claim that Islam and the Qur'an have helped to preserve Arabic from decay and deterioration, for it was mainly due to the need to preserve the accuracy and pronunciation of the verses of the Qur'an that efforts were instigated towards refining the Arabic alphabet. Subsequently, the Qur'an was instrumental in the codification of Arabic grammar in the second the third Islamic centuries. Furthermore, the need for Muslims, whether native or non-native speakers of Arabic, to memorize and recite verses from the Qur'an in their daily worship has helped to keep the Arabic language alive. It was due to its association with Islam and the Qur'an that Arabic gained a good deal of prestige as the language of a young faith, a faith that was gaining more and more followers with each new day. The interest in the new faith this brought with it interest in the language of that faith. It was under the banner of Islam that Arabic spread beyond the borders of the Arabian Peninsula to far-off areas in Europe, south-east Asia, and Africa.

What this (and much more of this essay) tells us more than anything is that Islam helped Arabic to spread, rather than Arabic helping Islam to spread.

Interest in the Qur'an, its language, and its exegesis gave rise to a number of related disciplines, which include philological, religious, and linguistic studies. There is no doubt that the Arabic language was extremely useful as a medium for the revelation of the Holy Qur'an and for communicating God's final message to the pre-Islamic Arabs of the seventh century.

Yes, of course, I think everyone here agrees with this. The Arabic format of the Qur'an was extremely useful for that particular group in that particular time, namely the pre-Islamic Arabs of the seventh century.

It is, however, the conclusion of this paper that the Arabic language underwent drastic changes in its structure, content, and status due to its association with Islam and the Qur'an, changes that the language would not have undergone had it not been for the new role it acquired in its bond with Islam and the Qur'an.

Again, this is telling us how Islam benefitted Arabic, not the other way around.

[جوري]

What this (and much more of this essay) tells us more than anything is that Islam helped Arabic to spread, rather than Arabic helping Islam to spread.

Even if that were the natural conclusion, what is your point? Muslims around the world from china to the U.S indeed use the Arabic in the Quran to perform prayers reciting it as it was once recited millenniums ago 17 times a day. Whereas Hebrew and Aramaic are essentially dead or apply to a handful for non-religious rituals. Arabic is very much alive and well with us so long as there is Islam in the world!

Yes, of course, I think everyone here agrees with this. The Arabic format of the Qur'an was extremely useful for that particular group in that particular time, namely the pre-Islamic Arabs of the seventh century.

Only folks who have a vested interest in twisting facts to other than they actually are see the Quranic format of relevance to a particular group. The fact that the largest Muslim populations in the world don't happen to be in Arabic speaking countries paints a different picture.. hmm what is more weighty a statement of generality or actual facts? I don't think it is a difficult choice!

Again, this is telling us how Islam benefitted Arabic, not the other way around.

Again, a non-point (see previous paragraphs)

all the best

[Eliphaz]

Even if that were the natural conclusion, what is your point? Muslims around the world from china to the U.S indeed use the Arabic in the Quran to perform prayers reciting it as it was once recited millenniums ago 17 times a day. Whereas Hebrew and Aramaic are essentially dead or apply to a handful for non-religious rituals. Arabic is very much alive and well with us so long as there is Islam in the world!

I agree that Hebrew and Aramaic (or more to the point Greek) are essentially dead languages, but even if they weren't, the Bible also could not be the words of God because it is limited to knowledge of one particular language, as is the Qur'an.

Only folks who have a vested interest in twisting facts to other than they actually are see the Quranic format of relevance to a particular group. The fact that the largest Muslim populations in the world don't happen to be in Arabic speaking countries paints a different picture.. hmm what is more weighty a statement of generality or actual facts? I don't think it is a difficult choice!

The fact that the largest Muslim populations are not Arabic is similarly a non-point - as I said before, geographic circumstance with relation to the former Islamic Empire is also a factor in determining whether one is descended from Muslim ancestors or not. Even though Indonesia was not ruled under the Islamic Empire, it is still by token of its proximity to the Empire and its trade links with the Empire that it is today a Muslim country, and that most of those born there today are, by default Muslims.

Again, a non-point (see previous paragraphs)

If it is a non-point (and the only real conclusion of the entire essay), then why post the essay?

It is also an easy argument ot say that those who have a vested interest to twist facts see the limitations of the Qur'an, but I say it is equally twisting of the facts to use population sizes to argue the truth of a religion, for if we are to go by populations, is Christianity not the true religion?

[جوري]

I agree that Hebrew and Aramaic (or more to the point Greek) are essentially dead languages, but even if they weren't, the Bible also could not be the words of God because it is limited to knowledge of one particular language, as is the Qur'an.

There in no comparisons between the Quran or the Bible, I fail to understand your desire to hammer in a moot point-- anyone subjecting the Quran to some scrutiny by having a number of criteria afore hand with which they can deem a book authentic or not will arrive to the conclusion that it is divine in origin!.
folks like Dr. Gary Miller who wanted a sincere rebuttal to Quranic content from his christian perspective and after twenty years of research then presented us with his book, 'The Amazing Quran' -- I know it is a difficult feat, dedicating an X number of years to you life to a study, but again, in face of a statement of generality, which one would find more weighty? Someone stating the Quran is akin to the bible and failing to give us an objective comparison..or someone dedicating 20 years of his life to study?
Again, me thinkus that it isn't a difficult decision!

The fact that the largest Muslim populations are not Arabic is similarly a non-point - as I said before, geographic circumstance with relation to the former Islamic Empire is also a factor in determining whether one is descended from Muslim ancestors or not. Even though Indonesia was not ruled under the Islamic Empire, it is still by token of its proximity to the Empire and its trade links with the Empire that it is today a Muslim country, and that most of those born there today are, by default Muslims.

The point of opposition is trying to prove Arabic so insular as to be of relevance only to a select few in pre-Islamic Arabia, and we have proven that it isn't the case, regardless of whether their ancestors were Muslim or not. Islam is practiced as was intended and Arabic spoken by all they who practice even if in limited quantities!

If it is a non-point (and the only real conclusion of the entire essay), then why post the essay?

Just because you fail to arrive to the correct conclusion doesn't denote that the post is not of relevance to our purposes here..

It is also an easy argument ot say that those who have a vested interest to twist facts see the limitations of the Qur'an, but I say it is equally twisting of the facts to use population sizes to argue the truth of a religion, for if we are to go by populations, is Christianity not the true religion?

Ah, but I never argued that population size is the truth of the religion, rather, the religion isn't restricted to a particular population because of language.. which has been the point of this ridiculous exercise!

It isn't difficult to dismiss what you write as having no credibility as you arrive to the wrong conclusion so often..

all the best

[czgibson]

Greetings,

just to clarify, how does an "atheist" recognize the action of an all-knowing, all- powerful deity?

The clearest thing would be that it wouldn't have any obvious flaws. Unlike, for example, creating the world and putting some of the holiest sites of three major world religions right next to each other. Seriously bad planning, that.

i don't know Arabic.

HOWEVER

the "Message to humanity" that you claim that people cannot understand is:

No god is God, but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger.

it MAY be tough, but i think i get it!

You are right, of course - that is the central message of Islam. Are we supposed to just accept that and be quiet, though? Surely we have to have some convincing reasons to believe it? As soon as anyone starts to question the further details of the message of the Qur'an, we are told "learn Arabic then try asking your question again". It's the ultimate way of closing down an argument when you have no better answer.

if bird poop needs a cause and a beginning, what about the Universe?

It is certainly natural to assume that the universe had a cause. What that cause is remains unknown.

You do not address anything that I say rather you just push them aside. Whenever you dont find a good enough answer you claim what I say is irrelevant or that I do not understand the point, is this really how you debate?

With people who make irrelevant points and labour under blatant misunderstandings, what else should I do? If you'd rather not pursue the discussion, that is up to you. I am not the only one asking these questions, however.

So far, the most intelligent response to the question of why Allah would have decided to deliver his final message to humanity in one language only has been given by Osman:

Allah is all-knowledgeable and all-wise and, in his infinite wisdom, he decided to reveal this as an Arabic Qur'an. I can certainly see some wisdom in it, but due to my limitations, I cannot know the real reasons behind Allah's decision. Allah is also all-powerful and, had he wished, he could have revealed the Qur'an in all languages. So the answer to questions starting with "Why couldn't God have..." are that he could have but, in his infinite wisdom, decided not to. This answer may not satisfy some people, but I am completely confident and secure with providing this as an answer.

That sums up the situation very well.

Peace

[YusufNoor]

I don't mean to get involved in this debate, but why would God's perfect revelation seem weak in some languages? If the revelation is so powerful and strong, surely it would come across as such in every language, regardless of what that language is?

so in English, please explain the Trinity the way that Jesus did in Aramaic.

You are right, of course - that is the central message of Islam. Are we supposed to just accept that and be quiet, though? Surely we have to have some convincing reasons to believe it?

the signs are all around us, you don't need the Qur'an for that.

As soon as anyone starts to question the further details of the message of the Qur'an, we are told "learn Arabic then try asking your question again". It's the ultimate way of closing down an argument when you have no better answer.

you want to waste the time of folks who DO study Arabic. you seem to want to know "just enough" of the Qur'an so you can trash it. you should have more respect for those Muslims and take them up on their challenge. you shouldn't be so bitter about you refusal to recognize your Creator. actually, as you seem to believe that you are wiser and more intelligent than God, you have taken yourself as a god beside God. an odd thing for an atheist, eh?

It is certainly natural to assume that the universe had a cause. What that cause is remains unknown.

refusing to accept and declaring god unknown is not the same thing. Paul believed in the unknown god! are you part Christian?

cheers

[Ramadhan]

I disagree that the literary miracle can be appreciated by explanation and looking at it from a historical perspective. The challenge of the Qur'an is to produce a single verse like it, but if you cannot appreciate the literary beauty of the verse in the first place, then what use is such a challenge? No amount of people telling you 'this verse is really beautiful' can move you unless you know Arabic - and not just Arabic but Classical Arabic. The flaw of a book for all times and places being limited to knowledge of a single language and in the style of a particular time period is that it inherently cannot be appreciated beyond those constraints and the impact of any claim to it being a literary miracle is lost.

I understand very little arabic, but I am able to read/recite Al Qur'an. The beauty of reciting the verses (without knowing the meaning) moved me to tears so many times, and this is before i read the translation.

I've read so many books in several languages, so I am very confident to say that I am quite well-versed in literature, and I can say that Al Qur'an is so complex with so many layers both in meanings and styles that it is not like any other book ever written, and it is not possible that an illiterate man in a desert in Arab peninsula wrote it in 7th century.

I have also met countless people who acknowledge the beauty of the Qur'an, and they don't even know arabic.
The fact that non-arabic speaking people today appreciating the beauty of Qur'an defeats your assertion that the literary miracle of the Qur'an only applied to 7th century Arabia.

The Arabic format of the Qur'an was extremely useful for that particular group in that particular time, namely the pre-Islamic Arabs of the seventh century.

who is more qualified to say when and where Al Qur'an format is useful, you or a billion practicing muslims who live their life based on the Qur'an?

My question to you:
Have you try to read the Qur'an in Arabic?

It is very strange if you haven't and yet you are not shy in voicing such baseless opinions about the Qur'an.

[جوري]

I understand very little arabic, but I am able to read/recite Al Qur'an. The beauty of reciting the verses (without knowing the meaning) moved me to tears so many times, and this is before i read the translation.

Very true.. back in grad school my non-muslim roommate used to insist I insert a Quranic CD while I drive us to the hospital every morning....

these two suras were her favorite..

Media Tags are no longer supported

Media Tags are no longer supported

:wa:

[Chuck]

Why can't God reveal his message in one language that suits the purpose.

Interesting thing is, message was suppose to come to the progeny of Ismael (pbuh) that God promised to Abraham (pbuh) and it was possible that Arabic could have never evolved into a language that could have been used objectively to assess whether the language is from a human or God at the time of the revelation fitting the overall theme finalization of revelations from God, yet it did. That sheds some interesting light regarding Omniscience.

[Eliphaz]

My question to you:
Have you try to read the Qur'an in Arabic?

It is very strange if you haven't and yet you are not shy in voicing such baseless opinions about the Qur'an.

I have read the Qur'an in Arabic and in English in several translations, although I only understand the translation and have found many discrepancies between each translation. I have also studied Arabic, both modern and more recently classical, part-time for about two years or so, having learned to recite the Arabic of the Qur'an (without understanding) as a child.

I do not disagree that the Qur'an sounds beautiful when recited in Arabic, but with having a life (studying, work) it is quite difficult for the average person to find time to learn enough Arabic to actually get beyond that. Many of my Arabic-speaking friends even tell me that they understand very little of the Qur'an when they hear it recited.

[Supreme]

Quite relevant since the god you pray to is a west asian one who spoke one of the languages you find exclusive. The Quran likewise is translated to every language. One however can always go back to the source and make sure that men don't turn into gods by chinese whispers. And to the contrary Jesus meant that his message be understood by a select few:

Yes, but Christians seldom claim that one can only understand the Bible in its original form. Therefore, the language barrier is very much non existence. Also, the quote of Jesus was during Jesus' ministry and His fulfillment of the Messiah of the Jews, where he was preaching to Jews in Jewish lands (unsurprisingly). The time after His ministry and the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ did not merely fulfill His purpose as the Messiah of the Jews, but the true son of God and also as the son of Man, sent to all mankind. Although this is getting rather off topic.

This is a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it, we are not talking about Shakespeare we are talking about the religions that have influenced and continue to influence history .. try to focus on a topic even when at a loss of a cohesive response!

It's called an analogy dear, Jesus used them in the form of parables to get His message across to those more arrogant/less intelligent.

That is akin to saying, I am a shoe maker, I love all sandals.. another nonsequitur..

No, it is akin to saying I am an open minded follower of a religion that preaches love and good deeds as one of its central tenets...

so in English, please explain the Trinity the way that Jesus did in Aramaic

Again, see the top of my post... no Christian claims Jesus' message and teachings are only fully understood in their native form. I am testament to this, I couldn't possibly imagine how my KJV Bible could sound or be interpreted better than I already find it!

do not disagree that the Qur'an sounds beautiful when recited in Arabic, but with having a life (studying, work) it is quite difficult for the average person to find time to learn enough Arabic to actually get beyond that. Many of my Arabic-speaking friends even tell me that they understand very little of the Qur'an when they hear it recited.

I second that, very soothing.

[جوري]

Yes, but Christians seldom claim that one can only understand the Bible in its original form. Therefore, the language barrier is very much non existence. Also, the quote of Jesus was during Jesus' ministry and His fulfillment of the Messiah of the Jews, where he was preaching to Jews in Jewish lands (unsurprisingly). The time after His ministry and the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ did not merely fulfill His purpose as the Messiah of the Jews, but the true son of God and also as the son of Man, sent to all mankind. Although this is getting rather off topic.

Arabic is crucial to the understanding one aspect of the Quran indeed which is its linguistics, however, people who don't speak Arabic or came to learn Arabic have produced the best scholars of Islam. Imam Bukhari who has given us the compendium of hadiths for instance was from Uzbekistan! Again, you are completely un-educated in Islamic studies you can't hold a conversation of reason on the topic!
A message that isn't well preserved leaves plenty of room for error!
As such, the rest of your statement is subjective. Later addendum to the bible doesn't change its purpose or reason as per bible itself and in contrast to the Abrahamic messages that have always been!

It's called an analogy dear, Jesus used them in the form of parables to get His message across to those more arrogant/less intelligent.

Perhaps you can demonstrate (as Jesus did) how Shakespeare fits into this topic?

No, it is akin to saying I am an open minded follower of a religion that preaches love and good deeds as one of its central tenets...

No it doesn't --it says that you are a liberal thus you hate no one! Does that mean conservative christians who are followers of this religion that allegedly 'preaches love and good deeds' hate everyone?


all the best

[Supreme]

Arabic is crucial to the understanding one aspect of the Quran indeed which is its linguistics, however, people who don't speak Arabic or came to learn Arabic have produced the best scholars of Islam. Imam Bukhari who has given us the compendium of hadiths for instance was from Uzbekistan! Again, you are completely un-educated in Islamic studies you can't hold a conversation of reason on the topic!
A message that isn't well preserved leaves plenty of room for error!
As such, the rest of your statement is subjective. Later addendum to the bible doesn't change its purpose or reason as per bible itself and in contrast to the Abrahamic messages that have always been!

I don't profess to be educated in Islamic studies; to learn was my reasoning for joining this forum. I am simply explaining how it seems to an outsider, how absurd learning an entire language just for one 'preserved' book is, especially if you are not a Muslim. If you care to further educate me, do so at your own leisure, but with less of the childish insult please!

Perhaps you can demonstrate (as Jesus did) how Shakespeare fits into this topic?

Sure:



There may be one million admirers of Shakespeare worldwide, but Shakespeare was hardly very effective in modern terms if only around 5% of the people who admire his work actually understand his scripts in their original form, which is how most people agree they should be read. The other 95% would only admire him because they've seen good films of his work, or have read the synopsis of his work in modern language- not because they admire his original scripts. This is similar to the Quran in that people would claim that only its original manuscripts in its original language is the most 'effective' way of learning it, despite the majority of its admirers (followers) not actually understanding its original form, instead relying on other sources and/or interpretations to appreciate the book.

No it doesn't --it says that you are a liberal thus you hate no one! Does that mean conservative christians who are followers of this religion that allegedly 'preaches love and good deeds' hate everyone?

Not necessarily, although conservatives are ten times out of ten less open minded, and conservative Christians are undoubtedly more ill aware and mindful of Jesus' moral teachings than liberals. That is a subjective, empirical observation, feel free to disagree.

[جوري]

I don't profess to be educated in Islamic studies; to learn was my reasoning for joining this forum. I am simply explaining how it seems to an outsider, how absurd learning an entire language just for one 'preserved' book is, especially if you are not a Muslim. If you care to further educate me, do so at your own leisure, but with less of the childish insult please!

So you are not educated and you don't reach the correct conclusion even after repeated attempts.. is that intellectual integrity? You can't possibly profess your reasons for joining as the desire to learn and miss the point entirely even after repeated accounts from more than one person. Again, the number of Muslims world wide of whom the best scholars emerged weren't Arabic speakers.. I can't possibly break it down to simpler terms.. is it that you don't understand or unwilling to? I don't see any insults so far, in fact I really believe that is an adequate assessment of your own approach!

Sure:



There may be one million admirers of Shakespeare worldwide, but Shakespeare was hardly very effective in modern terms if only around 5% of the people who admire his work actually understand his scripts in their original form, which is how most people agree they should be read. The other 95% would only admire him because they've seen good films of his work, or have read the synopsis of his work in modern language- not because they admire his original scripts. This is similar to the Quran in that people would claim that only its original manuscripts in its original language is the most 'effective' way of learning it, despite the majority of its admirers (followers) not actually understanding its original form, instead relying on other sources and/or interpretations to appreciate the book.

There is absolutely no contrast, aside from your incongruous simile your statistics are as well concocted, how do you expect anyone to loan any weightiness to what you write when you don't have the slightest integrity in your approach to the topic?

You are comparing literary work to divine work? entertainment to a spiritual message?

let's have a look as to why the Quran is regarded as divine:


Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
I'll try to give you a comprehensive answer as to why the Qur'an is regarded the way it is by so many people.

1. The Power of the Qur'anic Message:

-it is universal, unrestricted by time and applicable to any nation/culture. The Qur'an is by far the most widely followed and acted-upon book in the world. As for the Bible, most Christians follow the Church over the Bible, and each denomination has its own bible anyway. The fact that there is no other book in the world that forms the constitution of the lives of billions of followers is itself a sign.
-it is practical and logical, it can be established practically in society and is logically able to address the fundamental questions relating to all aspects of our universe.
-it is comprehensive, addressing all fundamental sectors of human life, be it spritual, physical, mental, social/societal, politcal, environmental, economic, etc.
-it is natural, in concordance with a person's nature and what they feel deep inside to be the truth.
-it is clear and consistent, free of the changes in worldview and understanding that dominate the works of human beings.
-it is deep, having provoked thousands upon thousands of volumes of exegesis, expounding upon its meaning and revealing fascinating details that many people otherwise miss in their reading of the Qur'an.

2. The Power of the Qur'anic Style:

-it is Interactive, the text seems alive as it responds to the very questions that arise in one's mind at that moment. It speaks to the reader and delivers specific yet universal advice.
-it is Inerrant, free from contradictons and discrepancies, or other errors that would normally be found in the works of human beings.
-it is Memorizable; the Qur'an is the only book in the world which is continuously being memorized by millions of people and recited daily. No other book has been committed to memory by so many followers, as though it fits in one's mind as a key in a lock.
-its Language, the Qur'anic arabic is a stunning miracle in itself, its style is powerful and its recitation is melodious. More info: Here, Here, Here.

3. The Power of the Qur'anic Text:

-it is Preserved, even after fourteen and a half centuries, the Qur'an is recited today exactly as it was first revealed. Thus it was free of the tampering that befell other religious scriptures.
-its other Remarkable features; many Muslims find a striking concordance between many Qur'anic statements and established scientific truths, which could not have been known by any normal human being 14 centuries ago. (see here). Many Muslims have also found the Qur'anic perfection extends even to various mathematical miracles within the text (see here for discussion of word repetitions). As well, there are the Qur'anic Prophecies.
-its Authorship; the context in which the Qur'an was revealed leaves the reader with no other conclusion than the fact that it could only be the word of God.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-word-god.html

Now, you go ahead and demonstrate likeness to Shakespearean plays with the above and correct statistics!

Not necessarily, although conservatives are ten times out of ten less open minded, and conservative Christians are undoubtedly more ill aware and mindful of Jesus' moral teachings than liberals. That is a subjective, empirical observation, feel free to disagree.

I already have, when I made my first observation!

all the best

[Hugo]

The Quran is the word of God, written by scribes!

Hugo - in the context of this thread it is not a proof on any kind to make such a statement.

well, when you have christian folks thinking the earth was flat in the 12th c. it would indeed seem miraculous that an atom or smaller is mentioned 600AD.

Hugo - and this proves what in the context of the claim about the Qu'ran mentioning sub-atomic particles? The earliest references to atoms is from India 6BCE, later Democritus in 450 BCE coined the term atom (uncuttable) or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter" though it is obviously possible to imagine or say smaller that an atom. Your argument if that is what is is suuposed to be is a fallacious one of the kind known as Ad Hoc Rescue - look it up. (600AD - 600BCE = I leave you to work it out)

Mohsin Khan translation isn't a substitute for what is actually written in Arabic.. he providing his own rendition or his own interpretation in brackets doesn't make it a substitute for what God dictated and preserved!

Hugo - why is it then that literally hundreds of Muslim web sites use his or another translation to talk about the verse in question and yet again you use Ad hoc rescue.

the term used in the Quran is the same term used today by modern Muslim physicists and chemists who have gone on to win the Nobel prize:

Hugo - one could say the term as used by democritus - work out how many years before teh Qu'ran he coined the phrase. Here again you resort to Ad Hoc Rescue as its of no signifucance to the argument who uses the term. Since you are so keen to refer to Muslim scientists you might like to consider a biography called "Cosmic Anger Abdus Salam - The First Muslim Nobel Scientist" by Gordon Fraser (ISBN13: 9780199208463). This is a biography of Abdus Salam, the first Muslim to win a Nobel Prize for Science (Physics 1979), who was nevertheless excommunicated and branded as a heretic in his own country. Perhaps you will now do a little research and find out why he was excommunicated?

I don't understand the point you are making here.. mithqal zhara is a different weight from a mithqal khardal.. what is your point?

Hugo - the point was that the word atom and weight are used many times and alsmost always the meaning of the verse is clear and wild speculation about it being God hiding scientific secrets in the Qu'ran is to me nonsense.

Not at all, different examples are given all throughout the quran to address all levels of intellect. You can go as deep or as superficial.. That is why it is said that the wonders of the Quran never cease!

If this is the best you can do as proof regarding the point in question then we will never get far in this thread, you offer nothing but Ad Hoc Rescue areguments.

[Supreme]

let's have a look as to why the Quran is regarded as divine

...by Muslims. No other religion considers it divine.

You are comparing literary work to divine work? entertainment to a spiritual message?

No, I'm comparing what is (in my opinion) a piece of good literature to a another piece of good literature.

I'm sorry, but I'm yet to be conviced. The Quran is free of error, contradictions and relevant, as is Harry Potter. Just because a book contains such qualities, it does not mean that the only logical conclusion is that it is the work of God- merely that it is a good literary achievement.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

I've just had a quick skim of this thread and wanted to say:

It is important to understand at the very outset of the discussion that our life here on earth is merely a test. If Allaah (swt) wanted, He could have revealed Himself to us and caused everyone to believe, but of course that would defy the purpose of having a test. It is also important to understand what Br. Uthman mentioned earlier about the infinite Wisdom of Allaah (swt). If these concepts are understood, many questions become unneccesary such as, 'why isn't the Qur'an revealed in every language?'

Furthermore, Allaah (swt) has sent countless signs to mankind and still people turn away. This indicates that the barrier to accepting truth is in people's own hearts, not a shortcoming in the sign that is presented to them.

Regards.

[Hugo]

Having looked through these postings there is almost nowhere a serious attempt at proof so I thought I might post some things to think about if you are serious about the idea of proof. The ideas I give here are common in all kinds of research and can unquestionable be weaknesses of huge significance. Here I use the terms typical to the scientific community but they are of course not necessarily universal.

1. Cherry Picking - this occurs when you are selective or very selective about the data so you only choose examples that support your particular case or stance. I would feel almost 100% certain that any example you give here about scientific claims in the Qu'ran were copied from a website - in simple terms you did not do any research of your own, you took a short cut instead.

2. Torturing the Data - "torture the data and it will confess to anything", as they say at Guantanamo Bay. Once you get fixed in you brain that the Qu'ran contains scientific miracles then you start seeing them everywhere; every line, every word, - the Qu'ran mentions thunder in the heavens and it becomes the Big Bang, the Qu'ran mentions storms at sea it must be a miracle because Prophet Mohammed was a desert dweller etc

The fact seems to be, and I mean no disrespect, that if you are a Muslim and someone comes along with a claim of the sort we have been talking about you will automatically believe it - or do you subject it to searching test and trials; only you know the truth about your attitude.

3. Methodology - nowhere (well I have not found one so far) can you find a description of the methodology, the research method, the research plan used to extract these claims from the data (the Qu'ran). Be honest, would you trust a research study outcome if the study owners refused to tell you how they got their results? There are ways of assessing methodologies - for example, in medical research there are the so called Jadad scores

4. Authority - are you taken in by claims that the people who generate a claim are experts, well qualified so it must be right? Now of course we want to check on credentials but if we simply rely on those you will be making a big mistake. Sadly, the literature in almost every discipline it littered with well-qualified charlatans. By all means check on qualifications but don't fall into the trap of thinking that is enough for a result to be correct.

5. Journals and Review Sites - I don't know the answer to this but so far I have not found a single reputable journal that has published a definitive study into these kinds of supposed Qu'ranic miracles. If there are such articles I would be more than happy to read them. Since I used a medical example above, what I would like to see is a review site such as the Cohrane Collaboration.

6. Interpretation - in research it is often said that getting the data is easy, precessing its is hard and interpreting is where we give up and lie down in a dark room and hope the problem will go away. Finding meaning is always going to be hard work because the results may not be all that clear, they may be far too clear which should always make you think you have made a mistake (some thing are just too good to be true), if you look at any set of data long enough you will find patterns, it is all too easy to be biased or lazy and look for what we want to see - so finding meaning means you need to be really knowledgeable in your area and you have to be absolutely honest. Be very wary of statistics and always get an expert to help you decide what stats you want and how to make sense of them - sadly this is often not done.

Richard Feynman, undoubtedly one of the finest brains in the world started a lecture with a very salutatory story. If you cannot understand the point he is making here with respect to this thread and more generally to research then you really do need to do a lot of reading and thinking.

You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the licence plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of licence plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing....

7. Over or Inappropriate Generalizations - this is just another way of making sure you understand the notion of not arguing from the particular to the Universal. That is you get one result and conclude it now applies everywhere and sadly it usually occurs when you are desperate to prove your point at any cost. A good example was created in this thread by skye and czgibson.

Skye - Certainly the magnitude of work from that time speaks volume, if historians can claim we have wiped out banu quryza using Islamic primary sources, then by the same token, they can find the man or men who have dictated the Quran to the prophet in such an unparalleled style!

Czgibson - So because there is historical evidence for one event, there must be historical evidence for all events in the Prophet's (pbuh) life? Is that what you're saying?

To give a more mundane example, this faulty logic would lead to you say after research: Ford cars have good brakes, therefore Honda cars must also have good brakes - this might be true but it does not logically follow. follow.

[جوري]

Hugo - in the context of this thread it is not a proof on any kind to make such a statement.

Ah, but the thread is stellated with methods with which you can subject it to the test by similar means of those used in the more esoteric branches of science such as psychiatry, sociology or anthropology!

when you have christian folks thinking the earth was flat in the 12th c. it would indeed seem miraculous that an atom or smaller is mentioned 600AD.

Hugo - and this proves what in the context of the claim about the Qu'ran mentioning sub-atomic particles? The earliest references to atoms is from India 6BCE, later Democritus in 450 BCE coined the term atom (uncuttable) or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter" though it is obviously possible to imagine or say smaller that an atom. Your argument if that is what is is suuposed to be is a fallacious one of the kind known as Ad Hoc Rescue - look it up. (600AD - 600BCE = I leave you to work it out)

You stated and please allow me to re-quote:

there is no miracle of any kind here.

to which indeed I have shown that in face of christian ignorance that continued centuries later that it is miraculous and very relevant today! Where was demacritus when the christian world was delighting in the blissful ignorance of the dark ages?.. and I have established for you in the thread as well that there is something smaller than an atom as an atom indeed is capable of splitting, that is what we call the transcendent nature of the Quran which the Quran itself mentions of its nature--that it is relevant for every century not just one century and that is exactly why you don't need a group of priests to convene every few years and throw parts of it out or add some in to make sense of it (unfortunately for the central tenet of christianity that is yet to evolve) .. nonetheless, something that might not have been relevant to someone in 7th century Arabia would make excellent sense to someone in 13th century and so on and so on..
miracles of the Quran, some have happened:

Prophecies Made in the Qur’an that Have Already Come True

By Living Shari`ah Staff

Site of the Battle of Badr

There are some things which Allah mentioned in the Qur’an which were yet to come, and which did in fact happen. These include the following: The defeat of the Persians by the Romans within a number of years
Allah said: “The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine), and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after (these events) is only with Allah, (before the defeat of the Romans by the Persians, and after the defeat of the Persians by the Romans). And on that day, the believers (i.e. Muslims) will rejoice (at the victory given by Allah to the Romans against the Persians).” [Ar-Rum: 2-4]
Imam Al-Shawkani said: The scholars of Tafseer said: the Persians defeated the Romans, and the disbelievers of Makkah rejoiced because of that and said, “Those who do not have a Book have defeated those who do have a Book,” and they gloated over the Muslims and said, “We will also defeat you as the Persians defeated the Romans.” The Muslims wanted the Romans to prevail over the Persians because they were People of the Book… “and they, after their defeat, will be victorious” means that the Romans, after having been defeated by the Persians, would defeat the people of Persia.
Al-Zajjaj said: This is one of the verses that prove that the Qur’an is from Allah, because it is foretelling something that was yet to come, and this is something which no one could know except Allah.
Fath al-Qadeer, 4/214
Enmity among the Christian sects until the Day of Resurrection
Allah said: “And from those who call themselves Christians, We took their covenant, but they have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. So We planted amongst them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection (when they discarded Allah’s Book, disobeyed Allah’s Messengers and His Orders and transgressed beyond bounds in Allah’s disobedience); and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.” [Al-Ma’idah: 14]
Ibn Katheer said: “So We planted amongst them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection” means, We sowed amongst them enmity and hatred of one another, and they will remain like that until the Hour begins. Hence the Christian groups, no matter what their types, will continue to hate one another and denounce one another as disbelievers and curse one another. So each group forbids the others to come to its place of worship, and the Byzantines denounced the Jacobites as disbelievers, and the Nestorians denounced the Arians, and so on. Each group denounces the others as disbelievers in this world and will do so on the Day of Judgment.
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 2/34
Allah promised His Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, that his religion would prevail over all others.
Allah said: “It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions” [At-Tawbah: 33]
Al-Qurtubi said: Allah indeed did that. Whenever Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) sent his armies out on a campaign, he would remind them of what Allah had promised them, that He would cause His religion to prevail, so that they would be confident of victory and certain of success. `Umar used to do likewise, and their conquests continued east and west, by land and sea.
Tafseer al-Qurtubi, 1/75
The Conquest of Makkah
Allah says: “Indeed Allah shall fulfill the true vision which He showed to His Messenger [i.e. the Prophet saw a dream that he has entered Makkah along with his Companions, having their (head) hair shaved and cut short] in very truth. Certainly, you shall enter Al?Masjid Al?Haram, if Allah wills, secure, (some) having your heads shaved, and (some) having your head hair cut short, having no fear. He knew what you knew not, and He granted besides that a near victory.” [Al-Fath: 27]
At-Tabari said: Allah says: Allah is confirming as true the vision which He showed to His Messenger Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), that he and his companions would enter the sacred House of Allah in very truth, not fearing the mushrikeen (polytheists), some of them having their heads shaved and some of them with their hair cut short.
The scholars of tafseer said something similar to that which we have said.
Tafseer At-Tabari, 26/107
The Battle of Badr
Allah said: “And (remember) when Allah promised you (Muslims) one of the two parties (of the enemy, i.e. either the army or the caravan) that it should be yours; you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours, but Allah willed to justify the truth by His Words and to cut off the roots of the disbelievers (i.e. in the battle of Badr).” [Al-Anfal: 7]
Ibn Al-Jawzi said: What this means is: Remember when Allah promised you one of the two parties. The two parties were: Abu Sufyan and the wealth that was with him, and Abu Jahl and the people of Quraysh who were with him. When Abu Sufyan went ahead with the wealth that was with him, he wrote to Quraysh saying, if you have already gone out to save your caravan, I have already saved it for you (i.e., so go back). Abu Jahl said, By Allah, we will not go back. Then the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) set out, heading for the people (i.e., to confront the disbelievers’ army), but his companions were not happy about that, wishing that they had caught up with the group from whom they could capture the booty without fighting. Hence Allah said, “you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours”.
Zad Al-Maseer, 3/324.
Sources:

• 
  
  • The defeat of the Persians by the Romans within a number of years
  • Enmity among the Christian sects until the Day of Resurrection
  • Allah promised His Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, that his religion would prevail over all others
  • The Conquest of Makkah
  • The Battle of Badr
  
  

• 
  
  • www.islam-qa.com
  
  

#AOLMsgPart_2_3736be34-47cb-491e-b99a-6e5f3b1e9736 td{color: black;} #AOLMsgPart_2_3736be34-47cb-491e-b99a-6e5f3b1e9736 .tipDiv{display:none;position:absolute;width:350px ;border:1px solid #000000;padding:2px;text-align:justify;background-color:#FFFFF0;font-family:"verdana";font-size:8pt;color:#47473D;}#AOLMsgPart_2_3736be34-47cb-491e-b99a-6e5f3b1e9736 .tipLink{font-family:"verdana"; font-size:8pt; font-weight:normal; color:#000099;cursor: pointer;}

what is this?

and some will continue to happen, thus not very difficult to imagine something smaller than an atom!

Mohsin Khan translation isn't a substitute for what is actually written in Arabic.. he providing his own rendition or his own interpretation in brackets doesn't make it a substitute for what God dictated and preserved!

Hugo - why is it then that literally hundreds of Muslim web sites use his or another translation to talk about the verse in question and yet again you use Ad hoc rescue.

Why not use them a translation ? Does using a translation preclude one from looking at the source, and in your mind are translators scholars of mere humans who can with their best sources give the best rendition. Not an ad hoc rescue, it is called common sense..

how many meaning do you have for a word such as--well
''Translation''?

1- A written communication in a second language having the same meaning as the written communication in a first language
2- A uniform movement without rotation
3-The act of changing in form or shape or appearance
4-mathematics) a transformation in which the origin of the coordinate system is moved to another position but the direction of each axis remains the same
5-(genetics) the process whereby genetic information coded in messenger RNA directs the formation of a specific protein at a ribosome in the cytoplasm
6-Rewording something in less technical terminology

etc etc.

words don't make scholars of linguists..
look at suret an-nazi'3at and (79) and how many different renditions to it by each translator!

Hugo - one could say the term as used by democritus - work out how many years before teh Qu'ran he coined the phrase. Here again you resort to Ad Hoc Rescue as its of no signifucance to the argument who uses the term. Since you are so keen to refer to Muslim scientists you might like to consider a biography called "Cosmic Anger Abdus Salam - The First Muslim Nobel Scientist" by Gordon Fraser (ISBN13: 9780199208463). This is a biography of Abdus Salam, the first Muslim to win a Nobel Prize for Science (Physics 1979), who was nevertheless excommunicated and branded as a heretic in his own country. Perhaps you will now do a little research and find out why he was excommunicated?

This is completely irrelevant to the topic, we've already discussed Demecritus in light of christianity, and one would think that christians had Greek ancestry and readily their work, rather you have no mention of their work during the dark ages as science is at odds with religion and the any opposition burnt as heretics.. So how can you make the comparison between Demetrius and Muslim scientists? Shouldn't the birth place of Demetrius continue on his traditions rather than be imitated and instilled in a book by Bedouins a desert and an ocean away?
Also although it is a complete digression on your part, Islamic science and scientists have existed long before Nobel prizes -- Prizes don't make scientists out of people .. there are a handful of Muslim Nobel winners for the same reasons there are a handful of Chinese scientists or are you also going to deny them achievement for politico/religious reasons? You want to talk nonsense, it is reaching in for your hat to conjure up completely unrelated topics to prove a moot point!

Hugo - the point was that the word atom and weight are used many times and alsmost always the meaning of the verse is clear and wild speculation about it being God hiding scientific secrets in the Qu'ran is to me nonsense.

Mithqal and zharra aren't the same word, zharra and khirdal aren't the same word, if it is nonsense to you, it is more a refusal to accept the obvious rather than the actuality of what is written and what it translates!

If this is the best you can do as proof regarding the point in question then we will never get far in this thread, you offer nothing but Ad Hoc Rescue areguments.

See paragraph one and the ones subsequent-- btw I really wish you'd stop inserting your responses into one huge quote, it has crashed my computer twice from the constant cuts and pastes and conforming the words in a non italicized manner which doesn't seem to straighten that I had to send this to myself in an email as to not lose content.. try putting quotes around the paragraphs you wish to reply to using this

...by Muslims. No other religion considers it divine.

What does this mean? that Muslims don't consider other religions divine, or that non-Muslims don't consider Islam to be divine in origin? and either circumstance what does it matter?

No, I'm comparing what is (in my opinion) a piece of good literature to a another piece of good literature.

We have set the criteria for you with which to compare literature based on content.. if you can't follow guidelines, then don't waste your time and mine!

I'm sorry, but I'm yet to be conviced. The Quran is free of error, contradictions and relevant, as is Harry Potter. Just because a book contains such qualities, it does not mean that the only logical conclusion is that it is the work of God- merely that it is a good literary achievement.

Go ahead then and point out the contradictions instead of concocting cockamamie analogies from which no one is amused apparently except you!

all the best

[Hugo]

Yes, Qur'an is the false book written by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), you are correct..

I assure you it is not first time, Unbelievers like you are still exists today as before. I expect that.

Even idol Unbelievers drowned easily during Noah (PUBH)
Unbelievers argued against Abraham (PBUH)
Unbelievers argued against Moses (PBUH)
More clown Unbelievers still argued against Jesus (PBUH)
More crazy Unbelievers still argued wasting time against Muhammad (PBUH)

Prophet Jacobs, Lot, Adam, David, Solomon, Job, Jonah, Joseph, Aaron, so on...... All the messages are SAME and different role models.
.
Amazingly, some people still unable to perceive the simple messages of the Qur'an (last reminder of testament) before your time expire.

I don't think I have said and I cannot recall anyone else saying its is a false book only that it is in my view impossible to prove that one way or the other - it is a matter of personal believe. It is easy just to re-arrange your words to show how shallow your argument is:

Amazingly, some people still unable to perceive the simple messages of the Bible (last reminder of testament) before your time expire.

[Hugo]

Indeed, you can reject the null hypothesis or fail to reject it. has this been applied to any books of philosophy though? I mean how do you think the bible will do in comparison?

Hugo - I don't want to be picky for the sake of it but one cannot have a hypothesis in a formal sense about the Bible or Qu'ran because it would be impossible to construct a trial to test it. For example, you might say then Qu'ran existed before time began or if you like you could construct an informal hypothesis that states that but its worthless because it cannot be tested.

I agree again, and even though the Quran is filled with signs for us to ponder and reflect the very second chapter states:

Muhsin Khan - 2:2 This is the Book (the Quran), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqun [the pious and righteous persons who fear Allah much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allah much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)].

Hugo - as others have pointed out this amounts to circular reasoning and if your logic was sound ANY book can make the same claim and is hence devine.

as in believe in the unseen, the things that one doesn't know, by placing some measure of confidence in the rest you can then reject or fail to reject!
and that is really what you'd do in any experiment with a P value, a confidence interval, types I or II errors. There is no book more studied or memorized or recited than the Quran, it has been scrutinized by every possible mean, and it resolute and falsifiable!

This last section is just mumbo-jumbo nonsense because you cannot conduct experiments which involve God. It is interesting you say it is falsifiable so you presumably have a trail of some kind that involves God - what is it? I would say that it is unfalsifiable and that mean it is not possible to prove it is from God and not possible to prove it is not. I have made no claims about the Qu'ran so there is nothing to crumble - it's you who are making claims.

[جوري]

Hugo - I don't want to be picky for the sake of it but one cannot have a hypothesis in a formal sense about the Bible or Qu'ran because it would be impossible to construct a trial to test it. For example, you might say then Qu'ran existed before time began or if you like you could construct an informal hypothesis that states that but its worthless because it cannot be tested.

See my very last paragraph on this!
However I agree, there are some parts that have to be taken purely on faith and I have already quoted from the second chapter some several posts ago addressing that very point which you have kindly quoted.. (speak of circular logic)!

Hugo - as others have pointed out this amounts to circular reasoning and if your logic was sound ANY book can make the same claim and is hence devine.

The Entire Quran isn't contingent on three verses, as surely just as some of its contents happened and we can only glean a lesson, some are yet to happen from which we are to draw wisdom, some concerned with daily affairs from which we are to take heed, some concerned with govt. which we are to follow. Some concerned with inheritance from which we are to be studied, some numerical wonders from which we are to marvel. etc etc etc.
The Quran doesn't deal with one aspect of human life, rather every aspect of human life and in many parts can its divinity be elucidated, if nothing else at all, the mere rhyme and beauty of its language where verses revealed decades apart to be placed in almost a computerized fashion in their right place to match in meaning, context, rhyme, syntax would smack in the face the most indolent of researchers!

This last section is just mumbo-jumbo nonsense because you cannot conduct experiments which involve God. It is interesting you say it is falsifiable so you presumably have a trail of some kind that involves God - what is it? I would say that it is unfalsifiable and that mean it is not possible to prove it is from God and not possible to prove it is not. I have made no claims about the Qu'ran so there is nothing to crumble - it's you who are making claims.

You can't conduct experiments to prove that someone has a headache or depression, pain or schizophrenia, yet with every field you can set up criteria which maybe in part subjective but agreed upon by the majority.. you can't prove or falsify anything even in science-- I believe we have already established that!-- t why keep dancing around the same moot point? I can't do your homework for you, and I don't want to write ad nauseam on topics that you prefer to merely scratch the surface of than address content of which you can't later exonerate yourself given the very title of the thread!


(again, I kindly ask you not to write in huge quotes as they are hard to follow and re-quote)

all the best!

[Hugo]

The Quran likewise is translated to every language. One however can always go back to the source and make sure that men don't turn into gods by chinese whispers. And to the contrary Jesus meant that his message be understood by a select few:Thanks for today's funnies as always relaxing and virtually appealing!

The line in Bold cannot be true or did you mean the rather obvious 'it can be translated'.

[Predator]

Amazingly, some people still unable to perceive the simple messages of the Bible (last reminder of testament) before your time expire.

What message are you talking about ? Jesus never said that "I am God" in the Bible.He said " My father is greater than I , My father is greater than All and I can of my ownself do nothing . John 5:30. Jesus isnt not worthy of being god making these sort of statements

Christ didnt die for anybody sins.Nobody dies for another person sin . God doesnt sacrifice an innocent man( his own "son" or prophet) to please the guilty . This is against his justice , because he says according your bible the soul that sinneth it shall die

Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

[جوري]

The line in Bold cannot be true or did you mean the rather obvious 'it can be translated'.

Semantics?

This is what I meant:

http://quran.nu/

all the best

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Having looked through these postings there is almost nowhere a serious attempt at proof so I thought I might post some things to think about if you are serious about the idea of proof.

There must be some people here who are serious about the idea of 'proof', as the word is used here very often. The trouble is, it's often used by people whose definition of the word is much less rigorous than 'proof' as used by scientists or mathematicians.

I don't think many of the Muslims who've responded so far are interested in even considering the questions that have been put to them in this thread, let alone answering them. The one who's come closest, as I mentioned before, is Osman, who at least said he didn't know and would just trust in Allah's infinite wisdom. That is the honest approach, instead of the defensive appeals to irrelevance that have flooded the thread.

Peace

[Hugo]

You can't conduct experiments to prove that someone has a headache or depression, pain or schizophrenia, yet with every field you can set up criteria which maybe in part subjective but agreed upon by the majority.. you can't prove or falsify anything even in science-- I believe we have already established that!-- t why keep dancing around the same moot point? I can't do your homework for you, and I don't want to write ad nauseam on topics that you prefer to merely scratch the surface of than address content of which you can't later exonerate yourself given the very title of the thread!

I have already spoken at length about the dangers of using criteria and how easy it is to end up with a biased set and I am surprised you set such store by it - for example, the Mayo clinic have a set of criteria for depression and it might be useful but tomorrow or next year the set might be different - it is also true that it must be possible to create a completely different set of criteria to do the same task. At best then all this can do is give an indication that someone might be depressed. We can do surveys to seek views and calculate various starts, we could try to correlate it with blood results and so on but none of this amounts to proof only to an increased or decreased confidence level in the criteria but we would not know if there were a better set.

There is a sense in which you cannot prove something absolutely but that is not the point - the point is we can at least work out HOW it might be proved and so conduct and experiment - or more precisely we can work out how it might be falsified. So I am not an expert in depression but I would say there is no way such a set of criteria might be falsified. All we know is that it is or is not a useful indicator.

However, there is an old saying that 'applause is not a form of proof' and because many Muslims in the Board think that for example the Qu'ran records scientific ideas is not in any way a proof.

[Hugo]

What message are you talking about ? Jesus never said that "I am God" in the Bible.He said " My father is greater than I , My father is greater than All and I can of my ownself do nothing . John 5:30. Jesus isnt not worthy of being god making these sort of statements

Christ didnt die for anybody sins.Nobody dies for another person sin. God doesnt sacrifice an innocent man( his own "son" or prophet) to please the guilty . This is against his justice , because he says according your bible the soul that sinneth it shall die

Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

There is a verse that says John 14:10 (NIV)

10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

This if OFF topic but if you wish to consider the Christian idea of the trinity start a new thread. While you doing that consider this who does Allah forgive sins - is it because you are good, you store up good works, he might be merciful to you - how does he do it.

[جوري]

Greetings,


There must be some people here who are serious about the idea of 'proof', as the word is used here very often.

Peace

Including by non-Muslim folks who start threads? What do we call that? baiting?

I have already spoken at length about the dangers of using criteria and how easy it is to end up with a biased set and I am surprised you set such store by it - for example, the Mayo clinic have a set of criteria for depression and it might be useful but tomorrow or next year the set might be different - it is also true that it must be possible to create a completely different set of criteria to do the same task. At best then all this can do is give an indication that someone might be depressed. We can do surveys to seek views and calculate various starts, we could try to correlate it with blood results and so on but none of this amounts to proof only to an increased or decreased confidence level in the criteria but we would not know if there were a better set.

If you set stringent criteria for depression today, you may set likewise stringent criteria for other types/branches/studies/texts tomorrow.. I don't see any danger in that or why it should be exempt..
I'd love to see the blood test where you can correlate subjective impressions to interpret for us beyond a reasonable doubt level of pain from a headache or its intensity, or location, or even duration--

There is a sense in which you cannot prove something absolutely but that is not the point - the point is we can at least work out HOW it might be proved and so conduct and experiment - or more precisely we can work out how it might be falsified. So I am not an expert in depression but I would say there is no way such a set of criteria might be falsified. All we know is that it is or is not a useful indicator.

You'll always have trials for or against anything.. studies that milk is good for you, studies that milk isn't good for you, studies that circumcision is good for you studies that circumcision is bad for you .. God has given us reason and hopefully the tools to sort through waste and find a good nugget!

However, there is an old saying that 'applause is not a form of proof' and because many Muslims in the Board think that for example the Qu'ran records scientific ideas is not in any way a proof.

applause is usually a demonstration to work that has moved us in some way.. and Just because you weren't moved by it or find it remarkable in every sense should it denote that it isn't moving and remarkable in every sense...


all the best


p.s

thanks for writing in this style.. not only do I have poor vision but am not very dexterous with computers.. making someone's life easier is a commendable trait..

[Hugo]

when you have christian folks thinking the earth was flat in the 12th c. it would indeed seem miraculous that an atom or smaller is mentioned 600AD.

Hugo - do you seriously think that no one else thought the world was flat except Christians? It is reported reliably that Bin Bas in the 90s supported the idea that he later denied it what possible relevance can it have to cite stupidity as an argument.

I have established for you in the thread as well that there is something smaller than an atom as an atom indeed is capable of splitting, that is what we call the transcendent nature of the Quran which the Quran itself mentions of its nature--that it is relevant for every century not just one century and that is exactly why you don't need a group of priests to convene every few years and throw parts of it out or add some in to make sense of it

Hugo - you established nothing, you simple STATED a supposed truth about the Qu'ran, I think you would do well to be honest and look at how often the Muslim community dammed its scientists - I gave you one example in an earlier post about the first Muslim Nobel laureate.

Prophecies Made in the Qur’an. The defeat of the Persians by the Romans within a number of years, Allah said: “The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine), and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after (these events) is only with Allah, (before the defeat of the Romans by the Persians, and after the defeat of the Persians by the Romans). And on that day, the believers (i.e. Muslims) will rejoice (at the victory given by Allah to the Romans against the Persians).”[/B] [Ar-Rum: 2-4]

Hugo - some translation don't use the word 'Romans' at all and Dawood suggests it about Greeks and Persian in 615AD so I think there is a little doubt here.

We have set the criteria for you with which to compare literature based on content.. if you can't follow guidelines, then don't waste your time and mine!
Go ahead then and point out the contradictions instead of concocting cockamamie analogies from which no one is amused apparently except you!

In think this last section is talking about someone else's is post as I have no idea what criteria and I cannot recall making an analogy so what are you are talking about

[dragonofzenshu]

Your personal truth is defined by what you believe is right in your heart.

you cant really prove god actually wrote the quran its like telling someone to close their eyes in a dark room and saying' ok, ok.... what is in the space here????" and he cant see cuz of the darkness of the space in the room

[cat eyes]

Your personal truth is defined by what you believe is right in your heart.

you cant really prove god actually wrote the quran its like telling someone to close their eyes in a dark room and saying' ok, ok.... what is in the space here????" and he cant see cuz of the darkness of the space in the room

:sl:Then you should read holy Qur'an dragon and then after words try and write something like it thats your challenge :D

[dragonofzenshu]

:sl:Then you should read holy Qur'an dragon and then after words try and write something like it thats your challenge :D

maybe, but you must pay me $250000 money in exchange :raging::raging:

[جوري]

Hugo - do you seriously think that no one else thought the world was flat except Christians? It is reported reliably that Bin Bas in the 90s supported the idea that he later denied it what possible relevance can it have to cite stupidity as an argument.

I have no idea who bin bas is, but I am sure he wasn't in charge of a sovereign nation putting scholars foreign or domestic to crushing defeat or death because it contradicted biblical beliefs!

Hugo - you established nothing, you simple STATED a supposed truth about the Qu'ran, I think you would do well to be honest and look at how often the Muslim community dammed its scientists - I gave you one example in an earlier post about the first Muslim Nobel laureate.

Making a sentence of generality isn't in and of itself a rebuttal. A heretic doesn't represent the Muslim community, nor is he the subject of the specific subject of this discussion. We are speaking atoms as mentioned in the Quran, and I have gone ahead and shown you that modern day Muslim scientists from that region whether Nobel winners or not go on to use the same term as mentioned in the Quran.. you reaching in to a bag to being a topic of no relevance either to the term or to the one who has gone on to win a Nobel and is known to his countrymen and fellow Muslims as 3alim zharra doesn't follow fro the premise.. it is a bizarre addendum that doesn't belong, or has any sort of relevance to the subject!

Hugo - some translation don't use the word 'Romans' at all and Dawood suggests it about Greeks and Persian in 615AD so I think there is a little doubt here.

again, I ask why should I go for the rendition of a translator and not that of scholars or the Quran itself? the doubt is only yours to keep as the chapter itself is entitled (AR'Rum) surely if you would simply pronounce it you'd know whom it is addressing!

In think this last section is talking about someone else's is post as I have no idea what criteria and I cannot recall making an analogy so what are you are talking about

That is true, I am addressing the other fellow who said there are contradictions but failed to point them out!

all the best

[جوري]

you cant really prove god actually wrote the quran

God didn't write the Quran, he authored it through his servants. If you have doubts of that, then you can bring us your substantiated proofs of otherwise with dates and names and whys!

all the best!

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

Regarding the topic of this thread - 'is it possible to prove the Qur'an is the very Words of God?'

It has been Allaah the Most High's way that whenever He sends a prophet, He gives that prophet certain miracles and signs to prove his prophethood to his people (for example, the miracles of Moses and Jesus).

In the case of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he was given the Qur'an as the ultimate proof of his prophethood. Note, however, that it wasn't the only miracle of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but it is the only one which is permanent i.e. not restricted to a particular time or place. It is a miracle for all generations after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to see and realise.

We can therefore appreciate that there must be something about the Qur'an that makes it stand out from all other scriptures proclaimed to be divine, something that indicates it is the truth, something that proves it is indeed the very Words of Allaah (swt).

The beauty of the Qur'an is that it is not miraculous in only one facet, but rather from all facets and angles that one can look at it. Thus the miraculous nature of the Qur'an cannot be limited to one list. In this thread it seems we have attempted to begin examining two or three of these aspects. However, many more exist, and it is important to consider all of the miraculous facets in combination, as the miraculous nature of the Qur'an is not by any one of them only. Examples of these are the following:

1. The language and style of the Qur'an
2. The incapability to produce anything similar to it by the disbelievers during the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) time and those after them.
3. The stories and accounts of the nations and prophets of old, since the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had no recourse to such information.
4. The predictions which occurred in the Qur'an, and which later came true
5. The perfect belief of Monotheism - the attribution of all that befits Allaah and the negation of all that does not befit Him, and the call of the Creator to the created to worship Him. All of this is not possible for a human to bring forth unless he was inspired by Allaah.
6. The laws and sharee'ah that the Qur'an came with, and the morals and conduct that it called for. All of this leads to the betterment of life in this world and in the Hereafter. The perfection of a set of laws that can be applied to any society at any time and place is humanly impossible, and the sharee'ah is the only example of such a set of laws.
7. Scientific facts mentioned in the Qur'an that were unknown at that time.
8. The fact that it has been protected and remained unchanged over such a long period of time, despite the fact that all other religious books have been distorted.
9. The compilation of the Qur'an and the diligence with which all the knowledge essential for its understanding has been preserved (such as the causes of revelation behind specific verses, verses revealed in Makkah/Madeenah, abrogation etc.)
10. The miraculous nature of the various ways and manners of reciting the Qur'an (the ahruf and qira'aat).
11. The ease by which it is memorised, and this is known by experience and observance.This is in contrast to all other religious books, for none of them are memorised like the Qur'an.
12. The deep meanings that are present inside it, and the fact that a reader never tires of reading the Qur'an, no matter how many times he has heard it or read it. This is in contrast to any other book, since a person cannot read it more than a few times without it getting monotonous and mundane.
13. The impact that the Qur'an has on those who hear it and the euphonious quality of the Qur'an.

Taken from An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an, Yasir Qadhi, with slight modifications.


Each of these can be discussed in much greater detail, and the level of depth would be limited by the knowledge and research of those discussing it. But I hope it is apparent from looking at this list that the subject of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an is one that is very vast and that the previous pages of this thread have done little justice in that regard. Yet the sincere person who researches this issue adequately will soon find ample proof that the Qur'an is the very Words of Allaah (swt).


Regards.

P.S. Here is another link to a brief article by the same person whose lecture has been posted earlier: An Introduction to the Literary & Linguistic Excellence of the Qur’an.

[Predator]

There is a verse that says John 14:10 (NIV)

Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

You hit the nail on the head .Allah is using Jesus to do the work just like how he used other prophets to do their fair share of miracles . For eg: Moses to split the sea and turn his stick into snakes ,he made solomon understand animals language , he made Jonah escape the whale,he made Abraham resist fire, etc

And your bible proves that

JOHN 11:41-43 "And Jesus lifted up his eyes (towards heaven), and said,
Father, I thank thee that THOU HAST HEARD ME.
"And I know that THOU HEAREST ME ALWAYS: but
because of the people which stand by l said (my supplication
aloud), that THEY MAY BELIEVE that thou hast sent me.
"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice,
Lazarus, come forth.
"And he that was dead came forth . . ."

Who then gave life back to Lazarus? The answer is "GOD!" For God
heard the prayer of Jesus, as "always!"

You put on the switch , the power comes on and you supply electricity from the power house. similarly , jesus is talking and praying to god and he is getting the power from God



JESUS':POWER NOT HIS OWN:

MATTHEW 28:18
(a) "And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is
GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth."

The power that is given to Jesus belongs to god and he can take it from him and give it to somebody else

MATTHEW 19:16-I7
One came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing
shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
"And Jesus said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME
GOOD? there is NONE GOOD BUT ONE, THAT IS GOD

. .

He refuses you to even call him good , how would he ask you to call him god ?

While you doing that consider this who does Allah forgive sins - is it because you are good, you store up good works, he might be merciful to you - how does he do it

What do you mean how does god forgive ? Allah is most merciful . If you turn from your sins and repent and do good , he will forgive you. It cant be any simpler than than

Your bible supports this as well

Ezekiel 18:21

" But if wicked people turn away from all their sins and begin to obey my decrees and do what is just and right, they will surely live and not die."

[Uthman]

Let's stay on topic, now.

Remember, this thread is about proving that the Qur'an is the word of Allah. :)

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


If anyone's in doubt, just check this out;


http://www.islamicboard.com/quran/13...-ali-khan.html

a chapter of qur'an only a few lines long, yet its explanation can cover volumes.

[Khanurani]

I'm sorry, if someone's mentioned this but there are certain facts that refer to today, in the Qu'ran yet who could have figured it out then?
For example the amount on water on ther Earth,etc.

[Eliphaz]

1. The language and style of the Qur'an

Can you be more specific? We have gone over this several times in the thread and I am guessing you are a native Arabic-speaker because this miracle is lost on the rest of us.

2. The incapability to produce anything similar to it by the disbelievers during the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) time and those after them.

At the time no-one could or no-one would? The Qur'an is mostly written in the first-person majestic plural of God's own Direct Speech, and to replicate this style is blasphemy for any believer in any god, even in the eyes of the Makkans I imagine, who did have a god called Allah also.

3. The stories and accounts of the nations and prophets of old, since the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had no recourse to such information.

The Old Testament, particularly Genesis and Exodus, contains most of the Prophetic stories mentioned in the Qur'an, if not in more detail. Even if you could not read this book, recourse to this information is possible through oral means, and it is well-known that the Arabs had a strong oral tradition and ability to memorise what they heard.

4. The predictions which occurred in the Qur'an, and which later came true

I feel that most of the predictions are not clearly defined, and some are not even predictions but rather verses taken to mean something they clearly do not, as is the case with many of the science verses. In any case depend on a passage of time before they could be 'validated', again as in the case of the science in the Qur'an.

5. The perfect belief of Monotheism - the attribution of all that befits Allaah and the negation of all that does not befit Him, and the call of the Creator to the created to worship Him. All of this is not possible for a human to bring forth unless he was inspired by Allaah.

Why not? Once we have established the concept of God, then any human is entitled to believe in God, his attributes and to call others to worship him without being neccessarily inspired by God. How can this be interpreted as 'miracle'?

6. The laws and sharee'ah that the Qur'an came with, and the morals and conduct that it called for. All of this leads to the betterment of life in this world and in the Hereafter. The perfection of a set of laws that can be applied to any society at any time and place is humanly impossible, and the sharee'ah is the only example of such a set of laws.

I think you will find many Muslims and non-muslims who disagree with this.

7. Scientific facts mentioned in the Qur'an that were unknown at that time.

See 4 above.

8. The fact that it has been protected and remained unchanged over such a long period of time, despite the fact that all other religious books have been distorted.

So do many books remain unchanged but that doesn't make them holy or miraculous, it is only a testament to the regard in which they are held and the language in which they are printed.

10. The miraculous nature of the various ways and manners of reciting the Qur'an (the ahruf and qira'aat).

How is this miraculous? It seems that you are using a different definition of 'miracle' than many of us.

11. The ease by which it is memorised, and this is known by experience and observance.This is in contrast to all other religious books, for none of them are memorised like the Qur'an.

No other book claims to carry a reward of taking its memoriser and their family members to Paradise. It is well known that many parents encourage their children to memorise the Qur'an at a young age so that he can take them to Paradise.

12. The deep meanings that are present inside it, and the fact that a reader never tires of reading the Qur'an, no matter how many times he has heard it or read it. This is in contrast to any other book, since a person cannot read it more than a few times without it getting monotonous and mundane.

This is largely subjective - there are many books which I never tire of reading and which have a deep meaning to them, but this does not make them miraculous!

[HandOnHeart]

When I read quotes from the Qu'ran, I simply believe it. That feeling that forms inside you when you truely believe something, for example when someone someone says sorry, or says 'i promise', or says they love you, you know that it is the truth. It's that feeling of knowing something is right, that feeling that causes us make huge descitions. That feeling is really powerful, does this count as proof?

The creator of the entire world doesn't have to prove his own words are real to us.

[جوري]

I am sure brother Muhammad won't mind if I stole his thunder

Can you be more specific? We have gone over this several times in the thread and I am guessing you are a native Arabic-speaker because this miracle is lost on the rest of us.

You don't need to be a native Arabic speaker to appreciate its miraculous nature, in fact that has been addressed above by Muslims who are non-Arabic speaking..

At the time no-one could or no-one would? The Qur'an is mostly written in the first-person majestic plural of God's own Direct Speech, and to replicate this style is blasphemy for any believer in any god, even in the eyes of the Makkans I imagine, who did have a god called Allah also.

You mistake replication for plagiarism?
The challenge of the Quran is that you bring a book that will be a guidance for all mankind that matches the Quran in
1- linguistics /poetic style
2- transcendence
3- cover all aspects of human life, politics/economics/social structure/ beliefs/inheritance/ events that have happened with clear accuracy and those yet to happen with equal accuracy, be a guidance to man kind a way to cure an ill hear when recited with pure intent to name a few!

The Old Testament, particularly Genesis and Exodus, contains most of the Prophetic stories mentioned in the Qur'an, if not in more detail. Even if you could not read this book, recourse to this information is possible through oral means, and it is well-known that the Arabs had a strong oral tradition and ability to memorise what they heard.

Bring me then the story of A'ad, Thamud, Ahel al kahf, zhu el qarnyen, as7ab alfeel to name a few from the old testament or better yet from the oral traditions of Arabs who themselves failed to match the Quran on every level mentioned above!

I feel that most of the predictions are not clearly defined, and some are not even predictions but rather verses taken to mean something they clearly do not, as is the case with many of the science verses. In any case depend on a passage of time before they could be 'validated', again as in the case of the science in the Qur'an.

You make alot of statements of generalities, until such a time you can elucidate for us what you mean, your statements can be dismissed!

Why not? Once we have established the concept of God, then any human is entitled to believe in God, his attributes and to call others to worship him without being neccessarily inspired by God. How can this be interpreted as 'miracle'?

Until such a time you or someone like you brings us a perfect Quran and Sunnah both completely different in style, covering every aspect of life and going strong millenniums later can it be considered anything less than a miracle!

I think you will find many Muslims and non-muslims who disagree with this.

Disagreeing doesn't make it incorrect.. it is just your opinion..
in the eyes of a murderer capital punishment is incorrect.. it is a subjective opinion, has nothing to do with the perfection or lack of of the law!

See 4 above.

see reply to four!

So do many books remain unchanged but that doesn't make them holy or miraculous, it is only a testament to the regard in which they are held and the language in which they are printed.

which books are those? are they books of God or books of physics? a book should do what it claims!

How is this miraculous? It seems that you are using a different definition of 'miracle' than many of us.

Media Tags are no longer supported

No other book claims to carry a reward of taking its memoriser and their family members to Paradise. It is well known that many parents encourage their children to memorise the Qur'an at a young age so that he can take them to Paradise.

The Rewards for those who recite and practise the Qur'aan

Aboo Moosaa al-Ash'aree reported that the Prophet

said, "Part of Showing glory to Allaah is to show respect to a white-haired Muslim, and a carrier of the Qur'aan who does not exaggerate in it (i.e., overstep its bounds) nor ignore it (i.e., leave it), and a just ruler" (Aboo Dawoood)

'Aa'ishah reported that the Prophet

said, "The person who reads the Qur'aan fluently is with the honourable and obedient scribes (i.e. angels), and he who reads it with difficulty, (even) he shall get (at least) a double reward" (Aboo Dawood)

Ibn Mas'ood reported that the Prophet

said, "Whoever wishes to love Allaah and His Messenger, let him read the mus-haf" (Ibn Nu'aym in his Hilya).

Ibn 'Amr reported that the Prophet

said, "There is no cause to be envious except in two cases: (the first is of a) person whom Allaah has taught the Qur'aan, and he recites it in the day and night, and one of his neighbours hears him and says, 'Woe to me! I wish I had been given what he has been given, then I would do what he is doing! (The second is of a) person whom Allah has blessed with wealth, and he spends it in good causes, so a person (who sees him) says, 'Woe to me! I wish I had been given what he has been given, then I would do what he is doing!" (al-Bukhaaree)

Aboo Hurayrah reported that the Prophet

said, "The Qur'aan will be brought on the Day of Judgement, and it will say, 'O My Lord! Adorn him (the one who read and practised it)!' So he will be adorned with the crown of glory and honour . It will then say, 'O My Lord! Increase this!' So he will be clothed with the clothes of glory and honour. Then it will say, 'O My Lord! Be pleased with Him! So He (Allaah) will be pleased with him. It will be said, 'Recite! And rise!' and every verse he recites will bless him with a good deed" (at-Tirmidhee)

Ibn 'Amr reported that the Prophet

said, "It will be said to the companion of the Qur'aan after he has entered Paradise, 'Recite, and rise!' For every verse he recites he will rise one level (in Paradise), until he recites the last verse with him (i.e., in his memory)." (Aboo Dawood)

Ibn Mas'ood reported that the Prophet

said, "Recite the Qur'aan, for verily you will be rewarded for it. I am not saying that Alif-Laam-Meem will count as a word, but rather that Alif has ten (rewards), Laam has ten (rewards), and Meem has ten (rewards), so this is thirty (rewards)" (Khateeb al-Baghdaadee)

'Ismah Ibn Maalik reported that the Prophet

said "If the Qur'aan is enclosed by skin (i.e., if a person memorises the entire Qur'aan), then Allaah will never burn it in the Fire (of Hell) (al-Bayhaqee)

Aboo Hurayrah reported that the Prophet

said, "Never do a group of people gather together in one of the houses of Allaah, reciting the Book of Allaah and pondering over it, except that peace descends upon them, and mercy surrounds them, and the angels encircle them, and Allaah remembers them in His gathering" (Aboo Daawood)

Aboo Moosaa al-Asha'aree reported that the Prophet

said, "The believer who recites the Qur'aan is like a citrus fruit - its fragrance is pleasing and its taste is sweet. The believer who does not recite the Qur'aan is like a dry date - it has no fragrance but its taste is sweet. The hypocrite who recites the Qur'aan is like a basil - its fragrance is sweet, but its taste is bitter. The hypocrite who does not recite the Qur'aan is like a colocynth - it has no smell, and its taste is bitter" (Muslim)

[As found in "An Introduction To The Sciences Of The Qur'aan"]

This is largely subjective - there are many books which I never tire of reading and which have a deep meaning to them, but this does not make them miraculous!

not subjective if agreed upon by the majority of Muslims, what is subjective is however your own opinion on what you find deep... if you'd like a comparative study with what you have read and the Quran, by all means..
again, statements of generalities aren't very weighty!


all the best!

[جوري]

BTW the Pagan Arabs had no God names Allah (that is the problem when you get your insta smarts from evangies) Jewish and Christian Arabs knew God as Allah or derivatives of the name (Elohim) etc.
Pagan Arabs had Alat, al'ozza, and Manat.. look it up.. if you can't find it in evangie sites, they are certainly addressed in the Quran in suret An'Najm!


I guess the saying is true.. quality research isn't cheap!

[Hugo]

:sl:Then you should read holy Qur'an dragon and then after words try and write something like it thats your challenge :D

Suppose that some did this, would you then accept is as a refutation of Islam? It is a hopeless test because you would simply find some pretext for saying it not as good as or similar to the Qu'ran.

[Hugo]

:salamext:If anyone's in doubt, just check this out;
http://www.islamicboard.com/quran/13...-ali-khan.html

a chapter of qur'an only a few lines long, yet its explanation can cover volumes.

Would this amount to a refutation of the Qu'ran as the word of God - Muslim's say it Mubeem, clear; so if it requires volumes to explain then it is anything but clear.

[CosmicPathos]

Would this amount to a refutation of the Qu'ran as the word of God - Muslim's say it Mubeem, clear; so if it requires volumes to explain then it is anything but clear.

I can understand Quran without needing any voluminous exegesis. Hence it is mubeen for me. If I need to become a scholar and extract new meanings and interesting information then of course many have done so and millions of volumes have been expounded upon. Quran is mubeen because even a farmer in a remote village in Punjab can understand it and act upon it without needing voluminous commentaries . Anyways, no, its not a refutation.

[Hugo]

When I read quotes from the Qu'ran, I simply believe it. That feeling that forms inside you when you truely believe something, for example when someone someone says sorry, or says 'i promise', or says they love you, you know that it is the truth. It's that feeling of knowing something is right, that feeling that causes us make huge descitions. That feeling is really powerful, does this count as proof?

The creator of the entire world doesn't have to prove his own words are real to us.

It might count as assurance for you but it is not proof because no one else can test how you feel or think. Almost every other religion feels the same when they read their scriptures so again one is really talking about faith here not proof.

[Hugo]

I can understand Quran without needing any voluminous exegesis. Hence it is mubeen for me. If I need to become a scholar and extract new meanings and interesting information then of course many have done so and millions of volumes have been expounded upon. Quran is mubeen because even a farmer in a remote village in Punjab can understand it and act upon it without needing voluminous commentaries . Anyways, no, its not a refutation.

Interesting post but to me it would be very very odd that you can extract NEW meanings and that would to my mind be a definite refutation as it implies that there is really no meaning and one may extract whatever takes your fancy.

[CosmicPathos]

It might count as assurance for you but it is not proof because no one else can test how you feel or think. Almost every other religion feels the same when they read their scriptures so again one is really talking about faith here not proof.

same with that Holy Ghost/Spirit dude. I seem to never be possessed by this creature of Father.

[Hugo]

You mistake replication for plagiarism?
The challenge of the Quran is that you bring a book that will be a guidance for all mankind that matches the Quran in
1- linguistics /poetic style
2- transcendence
3- cover all aspects of human life, politics/economics/social structure/ beliefs/inheritance/ events that have happened with clear accuracy and those yet to happen with equal accuracy, be a guidance to man kind a way to cure an ill hear when recited with pure intent to name a few!

Replication is plagiarism if it does not cite the sources so not quite sure what you mean here - do you mean the Qu'ran replicates Biblical stories?.

Until such a time you or someone like you brings us a perfect Quran and Sunnah both completely different in style, covering every aspect of life and going strong millenniums later can it be considered anything less than a miracle!

What if I bring say the Bible, that has been around for millennia and long before the Qu'ran was available. It has all that is needed and if we simply think of literary merit, passages like the latter chapters of Isaiah (1,000 years older than the Qu'ran) or the sermon in the mount or Psalm 23 or 1 Corinthians 13 are far superior to anything found in the Qu'ran or Sunnah. So let me turn the challenge around - YOU find something that matches say the beauty and profundity of 1 Corinthians 13?

Disagreeing doesn't make it incorrect.. it is just your opinion..
in the eyes of a murderer capital punishment is incorrect.. it is a subjective opinion, has nothing to do with the perfection or lack of of the law!

What for you is the difference in the context of this thread between fact and opinion. You may think the Qu'ran unsurpassed in terms of say literary merit but others might not agree so its a matter of opinion not fact.

Ibn 'Amr reported that the said, "It will be said to the companion of the Qur'an after he has entered Paradise, 'Recite, and rise!' For every verse he recites he will rise one level (in Paradise), until he recites the last verse with him (i.e., in his memory)." (Aboo Dawood)

I have no comment really here but this sounds so absurd that I can hardly believe it can be taken literally. The whole, idea of merit through recitation seem antithetical to good works and deeds - that is Gods word should be alive in our hearts and actions not just on our lips.

[Hugo]

same with that Holy Ghost/Spirit dude. I seem to never be possessed by this creature of Father.

And what is you point here, because you have not experienced the Holy Spirit no one else has?

[Hugo]

I'm sorry, if someone's mentioned this but there are certain facts that refer to today, in the Qu'ran yet who could have figured it out then?
For example the amount on water on ther Earth,etc.

This is exactly the kind of point we might discuss here but you MUST give us the details so we can look at what you say the Qu'ran claims otherwise it's nothing but hearsay.

[CosmicPathos]

Interesting post but to me it would be very very odd that you can extract NEW meanings and that would to my mind be a definite refutation as it implies that there is really no meaning and one may extract whatever takes your fancy.

Those new meanings are not necessary to understand the Quran. Its like a new perspective. Everytime I read my favorite secular novel again and again, I get new perspectives. Does it refute the fact, assuming the novel was "mubeen," that the novel was coherent and well written? No.

[CosmicPathos]

And what is you point here, because you have not experienced the Holy Spirit no one else has?

You just mentioned that experience has no value. Please, for God's sake, do not contradict yourself. I just caught you in a loop? Can I proclaim success here?

[Hugo]

However, many more exist, and it is important to consider all of the miraculous facets in combination, as the miraculous nature of the Qur'an is not by any one of them only. Examples of these are the following:

1. The language and style of the Qur'an
2. The incapability to produce anything similar to it by the disbelievers during the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) time and those after them.
3. The stories and accounts of the nations and prophets of old, since the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had no recourse to such information.
4. The predictions which occurred in the Qur'an, and which later came true
5. The perfect belief of Monotheism - the attribution of all that befits Allaah and the negation of all that does not befit Him, and the call of the Creator to the created to worship Him. All of this is not possible for a human to bring forth unless he was inspired by Allaah.
6. The laws and sharee'ah that the Qur'an came with, and the morals and conduct that it called for. All of this leads to the betterment of life in this world and in the Hereafter. The perfection of a set of laws that can be applied to any society at any time and place is humanly impossible, and the sharee'ah is the only example of such a set of laws.
7. Scientific facts mentioned in the Qur'an that were unknown at that time.
8. The fact that it has been protected and remained unchanged over such a long period of time, despite the fact that all other religious books have been distorted.
9. The compilation of the Qur'an and the diligence with which all the knowledge essential for its understanding has been preserved (such as the causes of revelation behind specific verses, verses revealed in Makkah/Madeenah, abrogation etc.)
10. The miraculous nature of the various ways and manners of reciting the Qur'an (the ahruf and qira'aat).
11. The ease by which it is memorised, and this is known by experience and observance.This is in contrast to all other religious books, for none of them are memorised like the Qur'an.
12. The deep meanings that are present inside it, and the fact that a reader never tires of reading the Qur'an, no matter how many times he has heard it or read it. This is in contrast to any other book, since a person cannot read it more than a few times without it getting monotonous and mundane.
13. The impact that the Qur'an has on those who hear it and the euphonious quality of the Qur'an.

Taken from An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an, Yasir Qadhi, with slight modifications.

This is a useful post as it outlines some of the claims made for the Qu'ran. At this time I make two points.

1. There are 13 claims here and the writer says there are more so is this like a chain in that suppose I or anyone can refute any of the above claims will that mean that the Qu'ran is then shown to be not of God?

2. It is a principle well accepted in Science that a theory (let's call all 13 of the above theories) has to be falsifiable otherwise it cannot be regarded in anyway as scientific. Thus, it might sound odd but what we attempt to do in an almost brutal manner is to try to find something, some result that falsifies the theory - if you cannot work out how to do that unambiguously then we cannot show the theory to be true and we cannot show it to be false either. Another way of putting it as some have done is to re frame it into a question 'What does the theory imply which, if false, would show the whole theory to be false?'

Think about the famous white swan question - if we had a theory that all swans are white then we can easily see without ANT doubt immediately that IF we can find ONE non-white swan then the theory fails - that is we KNOW when the theory fails if a certain thing occurs and if we know that we know how it might be falsified. Be careful, this does not mean that the theory will fail but it does mean we can recognise it if it does. Two examples:

Being topical here, suppose we say that God exists then that only becomes a scientific theory IF we can say unambiguous when it fails to be true. Thus, someone might say "earthquakes" prove there is no God; although this MAY be true there is no way any one would feel certain of this test so that argument is fallacious.

Again, suppose someone says "he is lying because he is demon possessed" now this might be a true explanation of his lying but I cannot think (can you) of any way to show that it is UNTRUE (incompatible) so we therefore say it is in essence a logical fallacy.

[جوري]

Replication is plagiarism if it does not cite the sources so not quite sure what you mean here - do you mean the Qu'ran replicates Biblical stories?.

Indeed.. replication is plagiarism.. Early Arabs who tried to imitate the style of the Quran to take the Quran challenge used a complete verse and substituted two words of a verse for something else, that doesn't equate to a new better Quran that is a guidance for man kind it equals to plagiarized Quran:

Plagiarism looks like this:

"The Coconut Palm (Cocos nucifera) is a member of the Family Arecaceae (palm family). It is the only species in the genus Cocos, and is a large palm, growing to 30 m tall, with pinnate leaves 4-6 m long, pinnae 60-90 cm long; old leaves break away cleanly leaving the trunk smooth. The term coconut refers to the fruit of the coconut palm. "



highlighted and copied the information, pasted it in a word document and turned it ones own work. Surely you don't need to have that elucidated?
I challenge you to show me where the Quran plagiarized your bible and the name of the person or persons who translated Grecian stories to the prophet in perfect queryshi tongue to rest on seven ahruf!

What if I bring say the Bible, that has been around for millennia and long before the Qu'ran was available. It has all that is needed and if we simply think of literary merit, passages like the latter chapters of Isaiah (1,000 years older than the Qu'ran) or the sermon in the mount or Psalm 23 or 1 Corinthians 13 are far superior to anything found in the Qu'ran or Sunnah. So let me turn the challenge around - YOU find something that matches say the beauty and profundity of 1 Corinthians 13?

I don't think you can even comprehend the weightiness of what is requested of you here.. firstly you have never read the Quran nor recited it, nor listened to it to know of the lyricism and its profound effect on the believer.. I can't compare your Psalm of the lord being a sheep herder to even a poem of Antonio Machado which I believe far exceeds the bible in beauty!

by Antonio Machado
(1875 - 1939) Timeline
English version by
Robert Bly
Original Language
Spanish

Last night, as I was sleeping,
I dreamt -- marvelous error!—
that a spring was breaking
out in my heart.
I said: Along which secret aqueduct,
Oh water, are you coming to me,
water of a new life
that I have never drunk?

Last night, as I was sleeping,
I dreamt -- marvelous error!—
that I had a beehive
here inside my heart.
And the golden bees
were making white combs
and sweet honey
from my old failures.

Last night, as I was sleeping,
I dreamt -- marvelous error!—
that a fiery sun was giving
light inside my heart.
It was fiery because I felt
warmth as from a hearth,
and sun because it gave light
and brought tears to my eyes.

Last night, as I slept,
I dreamt -- marvelous error!—
that it was God I had
here inside my heart.

Also, you can't have an excerpt to represent your whole book.. I need every chapter to be unlike any other and be equally profound on all the criteria listed.. you need your bible to read collectively beautiful.. even the parts when Abraham marries his sister or Lut sleeps with his daughters and the psalms that you care not mention like this:
"My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him" (Song of Solomon 5:4).

frankly I find the tone of the bible downright misogynistic!
if you can edit or remove those parts (plus the central tenet) of God, born, confused and dying, .. and in the end have it needs to sound like this:

Media Tags are no longer supported

perhaps then can we have an object of comparison..

by the way find me this sura in the bible too (suret ad-dukhan) which discusses one of the signs of the end of the world amongst other things!

What for you is the difference in the context of this thread between fact and opinion. You may think the Qu'ran unsurpassed in terms of say literary merit but others might not agree so its a matter of opinion not fact.

The difference is in the criteria, and it has been listed for you all throughout here!

I have no comment really here but this sounds so absurd that I can hardly believe it can be taken literally. The whole, idea of merit through recitation seem antithetical to good works and deeds - that is Gods word should be alive in our hearts and actions not just on our lips.

I actually find what you just described more in concert with how Christians live their lives and in order to deflect from their overt hypocrisies they'd rather project what they are unto Muslims.. (all praise Jesus) but you can't get them to live an ounce in his shoes.. the most I have seen done is an attendance of Christmas mass or easter sunday where even that is jaded by some commercial gift giving and Noruz (pagan) offering!


by the way what is the point of this absurd exercise? How could you possible expect to discuss the Quran on a level with me or any Muslim?


all the best

[Hugo]

You just mentioned that experience has no value. Please, for God's sake, do not contradict yourself. I just caught you in a loop? Can I proclaim success here?

What loop is this - my comment is not about the nature of experience its about your logic.

[Hugo]

Those new meanings are not necessary to understand the Quran. Its like a new perspective. Everytime I read my favorite secular novel again and again, I get new perspectives. Does it refute the fact, assuming the novel was "mubeen," that the novel was coherent and well written? No.

Then perhaps we agree. Biblically, we would say that a verse for example has only ONE meaning but many applications in life. If that is what you are saying above then there is no difference between us.

[CosmicPathos]

What loop is this - my comment is not about the nature of experience its about your logic.

Well, my logic followed certain rules here. I dismissed the existence of Holy Ghost just because it is based on experience. Hence, I said that it does not exist. You used this argument to 'refute' one of the Muslimah who said that she just feels Quran is the word of God.

Now You said that just because I have not experienced the Holy Ghost, it does not mean that it does not exist. See, you are using two contradictory train of thoughts here? On one hand you completely shrug off the subjective experiential basis of proof. Fine, I agree. On the other hand you use the very same subjective experiential basis to tell me that Holy Ghost "might" exist even though I have not experienced it. I just have to say, wow. Muslim apologetic claims regarding "miracles" of Quran (I am in agreement with some of them while others are totally blown out of proportions) make much more sense than what you just said.

[Eliphaz]

I am sure brother Muhammad won't mind if I stole his thunder

You don't need to be a native Arabic speaker to appreciate its miraculous nature, in fact that has been addressed above by Muslims who are non-Arabic speaking..

So a non-Arabic speaking person has addressed the miraculous language and style of the Qur’an without actually having any knowledge of the Arabic language, let alone its structures or idioms? I find this not only hard to believe but worthy of a miracle in itself. It is more likely that you are talking of a revert who spent years studying Arabic, despite it not being their original tongue, before coming to this conclusion.

You mistake replication for plagiarism?
The challenge of the Quran is that you bring a book that will be a guidance for all mankind that matches the Quran in
1- linguistics /poetic style
2- transcendence
3- cover all aspects of human life, politics/economics/social structure/ beliefs/inheritance/ events that have happened with clear accuracy and those yet to happen with equal accuracy, be a guidance to man kind a way to cure an ill hear when recited with pure intent to name a few!

‘If you have doubts about the revelation We have sent down to Our servant, then produce a single sura like it - enlist whatever supporters you have other than God – if you truly think [that you can].’ The Cow, verse 23.

1. This is not difficult, as there many attempts of people who have done this, and in fact many works of poetry superior to the Qur’an
2. This is impossible for any book, even with the Qur’an
3. If the Qur’an covered all aspects of human life, there would be no need for ijtihad, ijma and qiyas, there would not be such disagreements over everything from drawing pictures to democracy.

Bring me then the story of A'ad, Thamud, Ahel al kahf, zhu el qarnyen, as7ab alfeel to name a few from the old testament or better yet from the oral traditions of Arabs who themselves failed to match the Quran on every level mentioned above!

I said most, not all. I was also not aware that Zhul Qarnayn (commonly thought to be Alexander the Great) or the People of the Cave were Prophets. But even if they were, consider Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Joseph, Solomon, Moses, Aaron and Jesus are all mentioned in the Old and New Testaments, that is, still more than two thirds of the Prophets mentioned in the Qur’an. The other stories, Hud/A’ad, Salih/Thamud, were, in my opinion, traditional stories well-known amongst at least some Arab and/or Assyrian people long before they were put into the Qur’an.

You make alot of statements of generalities, until such a time you can elucidate for us what you mean, your statements can be dismissed!

I feel it is necessary to generalise where there are many things in the book people call scientific but are not necessarily so, and to go into each one in detail would surely turn this into a debate on science, when it is clear to me that Muslims do not, or should not, rest their sole faith on the scientific merits of the Qur’an.

Until such a time you or someone like you brings us a perfect Quran and Sunnah both completely different in style, covering every aspect of life and going strong millenniums later can it be considered anything less than a miracle!

You are assuming that the default situation must be, for some reason, that there is a book somewhere sent from God. ‘Without a book how are we supposed to be guided, what is the purpose without such a book?’ Well I find that there are many non-Muslims living a decent, moralistic life without needing to follow any book, and in fact even Muslims believe that every soul has a fitrah or innate disposition, so it is clear that God has already guided us through instilling this within us and showing us His creation as inspiration for us.

Disagreeing doesn't make it incorrect.. it is just your opinion..
in the eyes of a murderer capital punishment is incorrect.. it is a subjective opinion, has nothing to do with the perfection or lack of of the law!

But there comes a point where, if a law is sent down from God, it should be seen as somewhat intuitive to his creation on some level, whereas most Muslims I have met agree that the huddud punishments of shariah are no longer applicable in any situation. Considering that some of this comes out of the Qur’an, is it not strange that its message now seems so counter-intuitive to its followers, let alone its dis-believers?

which books are those? are they books of God or books of physics? a book should do what it claims!

The brother was referring to the ‘miraculous’ qualities of the Qur’an, and I was simply saying that ‘remaining unchanged’ does not infer miracle from God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=536Til8zMEg

The Rewards for those who recite and practise the Qur'aan

Yes this is what I was saying. The Qur’an is the only book which claims to give a reward for being recited in this way and offering Paradise to the one who memorises it in its original form, along with his family members. Therefore the preservation of the Qur’an is a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that parents, particularly in my culture, place more importance on having their children memorising the Qur’an from a young age than their actual understanding of it, as a kind of ‘afterlife insurance’.

BTW the Pagan Arabs had no God names Allah (that is the problem when you get your insta smarts from evangies) Jewish and Christian Arabs knew God as Allah or derivatives of the name (Elohim) etc.
Pagan Arabs had Alat, al'ozza, and Manat.. look it up.. if you can't find it in evangie sites, they are certainly addressed in the Quran in suret An'Najm!

I guess the saying is true.. quality research isn't cheap!

It is well known that the pagan Makkans had more than 300 gods which pilgrims added to over the years, and that one of them was in fact called Allah. He is not mentioned in the Qur'an as are al-Lat and al-Uzza although he did exist. He was said to have sons and daughters and to be the ‘creator-god’. This is well-known amongst many Muslims, and indeed is written in many Muslim accounts of the Prophet’s life. Where do you think the name of Muhammad's father, who was a pagan, Abdallah (slave of Allah) came from?

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

:sl:

When the most notable, masterful and genius, masters of the language, the famous poets of 'Arabia during the golden age of the language such as Waleed b. Mughirah and others, who were known and accepted to be the best of the best in poetry and eloquence themselves succumbed to the Qur'aan and they themselves admitted that they could never match the Qur'aan, why would anyone want to take (for the lack of a better word) 'criticisms' on the Qur'aan by people who probably don't even know the basic branches of the Arabic language, let alone any rules of the language?

You can't blame them though for trying, even though it is a lame and sad attempt. Look at where they're coming from, they're coming from the standpoint of modern standard Arabic (that is, if they even know it in the first place!), which when compared to the Arabic of the time of the Qur'aan is but a simplified, water downed version of the language. If modern standard Arabic has 50 grammar rules, classical Arabic has 500+. The Qur'aan not only conformed to these grammar rules, it used them in a way that left the greatest masters of the language in awe - it became the apex, the crux and the standard of perfection in the language. It is an matched reference for anyone who studies the language. Any scholar of the language whose knowledge extends beyond modern Arabic and is aware at the very least of classical Arabic can tell you this. This is simple historical fact. It became and still is the reference on grammar, eloquence, and perfection in the language, even the Orientalists grudgingly admit to this, which is why they hardly ever tried to criticize the Qur'aan from this standpoint.

So honestly, knowing this it's very hard to take anyone seriously when they ignorantly come and attempt to criticize the Qur'aan from the language. Let them study the language first, educate themselves on the 7 branches of the Arabic language, study the science of balaagha (eloquence), study pre-Arabic poetry and then come and say something about the Arabic of the Qur'an, we can take them seriously then.

[Muhammad]

Greetings Eliphaz,

Thanks for your reply. As I said earlier, the subject of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an is one that is very vast and I am not qualified to do justice to this subject. But by providing a few examples here and there, it is hoped you will realise what I mean.

Can you be more specific? We have gone over this several times in the thread and I am guessing you are a native Arabic-speaker because this miracle is lost on the rest of us.

During the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), there was a pride that was prevalent among the Arabs in that tribes would compete with each other to produce the most skilled and eloquent poet. As the miracles that were given to each prophet were chosen so that they would have the greatest impact on that particular nation, the Qur'an was revealed in an Arabic that was so emotive and eloquent that the Arabs could clearly see it was a miracle from their Creator and were unable to meet the challenge of bringing forth something similar.

So this literary aspect of the Qur'an is the most strongest and most apparent of its miraculous nature, but obviously for one having little or no knowledge of Arabic, he is greatly limited in the extent to which he can appreciate it. Despite this, it is interesting how non-Arabs can still appreciate the beauty of the language of the Qur'an and how its words can still have a deep impact on the hearts of all people. But for the interested person, there is so much to extract from the study of the language and style of the Qur'an. I will quote some examples that have been given with regards to the literary miracle of the Qur'an, though there are many others:

- The placement of a particular word in perfect context, over its synonyms. The connotations given by the chosen word are better than those that would have been given by its synonyms.
- The unique sentence structure and syntax, which does not follow any one particular pattern but varies throughout the Qur'an. Each style is unique and its rhythm clear and resounding.
- The perfect combination of concisement and detail. When the subject requires elaboration, the Qur'an discusses the topic in detail, and when a short phrase will get the message across, it remains brief.

The eloquence and beauty of the Qur'an is so great that it is considered to be the ultimate authority and reference work for Arabic rhetoric, grammar and syntax, even by non-Muslim Arabs. Moreover, orientalists who have studied the Qur'an have acknowledged the literary excellence of the Qur'an. Dawood, an Iraqi Jewish Scholar in his translation of the Qur’an, comments on numerous literary qualities of the Quran, describing it as a ‘literary masterpiece’:

"The Koran is the earliest and by far the finest work of Classical Arabic prose… It is acknowledged that the Koran is not only one of the most influential books of prophetic literature but also a literary masterpiece in its own right… translations have, in my opinion, practically failed to convey both the meaning and the rhetorical grandeur of the original."

For more quotes like these and a brief discussion on the subject, you can read:http://www.islam21c.com/index.php?op...g=en&task=view

At the time no-one could or no-one would? The Qur'an is mostly written in the first-person majestic plural of God's own Direct Speech, and to replicate this style is blasphemy for any believer in any god, even in the eyes of the Makkans I imagine, who did have a god called Allah also.

Nobody could. What you said does not make sense, because the Makkan disbelievers did not acknowledge that the Qur'an came from Allaah, hence to them there would be no blasphemy involved. Moreover, there is a famous incident in which the person known as Musaylimah the liar did try to make up his own verses to imitate the Qur'an, yet his own fellow disbeliever at that time could tell how pathetic the attempt was.

The Old Testament, particularly Genesis and Exodus, contains most of the Prophetic stories mentioned in the Qur'an, if not in more detail. Even if you could not read this book, recourse to this information is possible through oral means, and it is well-known that the Arabs had a strong oral tradition and ability to memorise what they heard.

Yet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had no tutorage from a monk or other Christian or Jew to know of this history, whether by written or oral means. The Makkan disbelievers knew this because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had lived amongst them for forty years. Therefore for him to suddenly begin informing his people of the histories of the previous nations was a very powerful factor proving his prophethood. The Qur'an mentions,

This is of the news of the Unseen which We reveal unto you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم); neither you nor your people knew it before this... [11:49]

Not only this, but not everything in the Qur'an can be found in the Bible. There was even an incident where the disbelievers of Makkah sent word to the People of the Book (the Jewish Rabbis in Madeenah) and asked them for some information with which they could test the Prophet, which the Prophet later gave correctly, as revealed in Surah Al-Kahf.

I feel that most of the predictions are not clearly defined, and some are not even predictions but rather verses taken to mean something they clearly do not, as is the case with many of the science verses. In any case depend on a passage of time before they could be 'validated', again as in the case of the science in the Qur'an.

A number of predictions and scientific facts are very clear. The greatest prediction of the Qur'an is concerning its own miracle - that it will remain unrivalled and unimitated for the whole of eternity. It has also predicted that it will remain uncorrupted and preserved for all of eternity. Then there are the predictions related to worldly events, such as the outcome of a battle that would occur between the Romans and the Persians, the victory in the Battle of Badr, the eventual conquest of Makkah, and the establishment of Islam as the ruling authority in the land.

As for the scientific facts, these include the description of the formation of human life, formation of milk, the notion of orbits for the planets, and the description of the water cycle. It should be remembered though, that the Qur'an is not meant to be a book primarily devoted to science and therefore references to such subjects are typically brief. But even in these limited descriptions, the Qur'an conforms to modern science and imparts knowledge that was unknown during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Why not? Once we have established the concept of God, then any human is entitled to believe in God, his attributes and to call others to worship him without being neccessarily inspired by God. How can this be interpreted as 'miracle'?

Because no other religion even comes close to the Islamic concept of perfect monotheism. While countless people have established the concept of God, the true set of beliefs with regards to Him can only be known through inspiration. This is why other religions have attributed many things to God that are unbefitting His Glory, and those claiming to be monotheistic have shown their claim to be false by the presence of paganism and idolatory. The beliefs in the Islamic creed distinctly stand out in their purity and appeal to human rationale. For example, Islamic gives a sense of integrity and honour for the prophets as recipients of divine revelation, yet this is denied by the Christians and Jews who ascribe crimes such as murder, incest and drunkenness to them - allegations which Islam vehemently denies.

I think you will find many Muslims and non-muslims who disagree with this.

Only because they are ignorant of it. If one examines the laws of Islam, from the laws governing personal hygiene, familial life and societal roles to financial transactions and political dealings, the perfection and benefit is apparent. Islam encourages marriage and prohibits incest, adultery and sexual indecency, as well as the cruel treatment of women. And all of this bearing in mind the society in pre-Islamic Arabia where women had no rights whatsoever, sexual licentiousness prevailed and prostitution in all its forms was rampant. There is no system of man-made laws that has remained unchanged or provided a perfect set of rules for the betterment of society.

So do many books remain unchanged but that doesn't make them holy or miraculous, it is only a testament to the regard in which they are held and the language in which they are printed.

No other religious book can claim to be anywhere near as authentic as the Qur'an. If one studies how it was preserved, this will become more and more apparent.

How is this miraculous? It seems that you are using a different definition of 'miracle' than many of us.

The miraculous nature of it becomes very much apparent when one studies this aspect, as with any other. For instance, despite the thousands of differences between the qira'aat, not a single difference is contradictory. Moerover, each one adds to the meaning and beauty of the Qur'an in a complementary manner. They also facilitated the memorisation of the Qur'an so that different Arab tribes were able to memorise it. There are many other things surrounding the ahruf and qira'aat that leave one in awe regarding the miraculous nature of the Qur'an.

No other book claims to carry a reward of taking its memoriser and their family members to Paradise. It is well known that many parents encourage their children to memorise the Qur'an at a young age so that he can take them to Paradise.

So if the Bible had a reward for memorising it, do you think it would be memorised like the Qur'an is?

This is largely subjective - there are many books which I never tire of reading and which have a deep meaning to them, but this does not make them miraculous!

Yet when you compare that to the level of depth that the Qur'an has, you will realise the vast difference. One only has to look at the volumes of exegesis on the Qur'an to appreciate this and just a little bit of study will open one's eyes to how deep and profound the Words of Allaah are. Meanings can be extracted from the smallest of things like the particular order of words in a sentence, or particular forms chosen over others, and the examples are endless. As for never tiring to read - just the opening chapter of the Qur'an is recited at least seventeen times a day by Muslims in prayer. The Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would complete the entire Qur'an in a week, and some less than this. Some scholars have been known to complete the Qur'an in just three days, and some even less than this. During the month of Ramadan the Qur'an is recited in its entirety by countless Muslims across the world. The attachment that believers have with the Qur'an is undescribable. I am sure you will agree that no other book has this level of sanctity in the hearts of its followers.

And by the way, you didn't comment on aspects 9 and 13! :)

Peace.

P.S. The source I have used in compiling this post is as before: An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an, Yasir Qadhi.

[CosmicPathos]

@ Eliphaz: You still have to provide references of poetry which is "superior to the Quran." Not only that, you just severed your own neck. You are comparing Quran with poetical works? Lol. Quran is neither poetry nor prose. Why, o why, you ignoramus, decided to compare Quran with Arabic poetical works and not with the works of prose? I say, bring the prose in too!

You are so desperate to show something is superior than that and for doing so, you compare it with Arabic poetry. Not that Arabic poetry can supersede it, the attempt itself reeks of ignorance, frustration and arrogance. It is like comparing Shakespeare with T.S. Eliot. Quran is miracle in the nature that it carved a new genre in Arabic language. No one before wrote in this genre and no one after Quran was able to do so. That is one part of the miracle aside from literary superiority. While the poetry that you will bring, lol, it is poetry, and falls in the same genre and there is nothing miraculous about following tradition. Good luck.

I wish I could sip from the tea cup which is boiling due to the rage in your head. Ill let it cool down a bit.

[جوري]

Thanks Muhammad and the rest..

:wa:

[جوري]

So a non-Arabic speaking person has addressed the miraculous language and style of the Qur’an without actually having any knowledge of the Arabic language, let alone its structures or idioms? I find this not only hard to believe but worthy of a miracle in itself. It is more likely that you are talking of a revert who spent years studying Arabic, despite it not being their original tongue, before coming to this conclusion.

without further study even, Br. M. from this forum is a geneticist, and doesn't speak Arabic all that well, yet arrived to the same conclusion that many native speakers do. He is one of thousands... You'll keep tweaking a point and it is still not working for you!


‘If you have doubts about the revelation We have sent down to Our servant, then produce a single sura like it - enlist whatever supporters you have other than God – if you truly think [that you can].’ The Cow, verse 23.

1. This is not difficult, as there many attempts of people who have done this, and in fact many works of poetry superior to the Qur’an

A book of poetry is a book of poetry, The Quran though written in such a style is meant as a guidance for all man-kind not to while away your summer night.. and no, no one has produced anything remotely close to it!

2. This is impossible for any book, even with the Qur’an

I have told you to refrain from making statements you can't back up. Indeed all I have listed is but a sliver of all that is contained in the Quran. Your failure to acknowledge that is more your problem really than anyone else!

3. If the Qur’an covered all aspects of human life, there would be no need for ijtihad, ijma and qiyas, there would not be such disagreements over everything from drawing pictures to democracy.

ijtihad isn't a new law, it is basing judgment as the world changes on Quranic standard.
If you have contaminated water from cat feces, the commandment will always be that you not consume it until that well is clean.. back in the days, they had primitive methods, perhaps seeking to clean it by diluting it, or taking out 20 pails .. now a days, you can simply measure pollution (that is the role of ijtihad) not to give you new laws, but see how they are best implemented!

I said most, not all. I was also not aware that Zhul Qarnayn (commonly thought to be Alexander the Great) or the People of the Cave were Prophets. But even if they were, consider Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Joseph, Solomon, Moses, Aaron and Jesus are all mentioned in the Old and New Testaments, that is, still more than two thirds of the Prophets mentioned in the Qur’an. The other stories, Hud/A’ad, Salih/Thamud, were, in my opinion, traditional stories well-known amongst at least some Arab and/or Assyrian people long before they were put into the Qur’an.

If you are going to allege that one book copies from another then prove it?... show me who translated the OT/NY from Grecian/Hebrew and whispered them in a lyrical style over the span of decades so that verses ten years later and in a meccan revealed verse fits perfectly in syntax, style. lyricism into a medini sura..
I don't need an opinion-- everyone has an opinion (it doesn't make them facts)..

I feel it is necessary to generalise where there are many things in the book people call scientific but are not necessarily so, and to go into each one in detail would surely turn this into a debate on science, when it is clear to me that Muslims do not, or should not, rest their sole faith on the scientific merits of the Qur’an.

The Quran is a book of signs not a book of science, however it helps, that when God describes his creation or anything else that it is done in an accurate fashion for those who reflect and isn't at odds with science!

You are assuming that the default situation must be, for some reason, that there is a book somewhere sent from God. ‘Without a book how are we supposed to be guided, what is the purpose without such a book?’ Well I find that there are many non-Muslims living a decent, moralistic life without needing to follow any book, and in fact even Muslims believe that every soul has a fitrah or innate disposition, so it is clear that God has already guided us through instilling this within us and showing us His creation as inspiration for us.

Abraham didn't need a book and neither did Jesus, nor Mohammed (PBUT) but they had something you lack.. if you are not a pioneer (in science) your bet in (science) is to learn from the research of scientists.. when you sign up for a physics course, you usually purchase a book and study it.. if you don't agree with content than challenge them, come up with your own theories, but if you want to become a physicist or anything else you'll have to go through academia and look at the text of those who preceded you..
I don't particularly care if you lead a moral life or not.. how does this affect me or anyone else? What you do that is good is for your own being, it isn't a community effort! If you lead a moral life you'll be rewarded for it surely in this one.. religion is also concerned of the after life.. if the after life doesn't concern you then just lead your regular every day moral life..

There is science outside of academia, and philosophy outside of religion.. but again, I see no point to your statement!

But there comes a point where, if a law is sent down from God, it should be seen as somewhat intuitive to his creation on some level, whereas most Muslims I have met agree that the huddud punishments of shariah are no longer applicable in any situation. Considering that some of this comes out of the Qur’an, is it not strange that its message now seems so counter-intuitive to its followers, let alone its dis-believers?

I am not familiar with Islamic jurisprudence (it isn't an area I can gauge) and that is a statement of honesty that I feel most of you are lacking, you speak on the Quran or hadith as if experts.. however, I solely and strictly believe in the way sharia3a is carried out or at least was carried out.. I need a simple look at any man made system to see how it completely fails the individual and society to conclude the further we go from divine law the more degenerate we become!

The brother was referring to the ‘miraculous’ qualities of the Qur’an, and I was simply saying that ‘remaining unchanged’ does not infer miracle from God.

If there is a promise to preserve it and such a promise is carried out through the centuries without tampering and alive in the hearts of people with every generation, then if anything I look at it as God fulfilling his promise.. those we can overtly witness and those yet to come!

Yes this is what I was saying. The Qur’an is the only book which claims to give a reward for being recited in this way and offering Paradise to the one who memorises it in its original form, along with his family members. Therefore the preservation of the Qur’an is a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that parents, particularly in my culture, place more importance on having their children memorising the Qur’an from a young age than their actual understanding of it, as a kind of ‘afterlife insurance’.

Those who are given wisdom are a handful.. it is better to learn the Quran and live by it then to merely memorize it, and surely that too was mentioned in the accolades listed of memorizing it.. I wish my parents had forced me to memorize the Quran, I can layer my understanding with instant recall, what takes me a month to accomplish I could have accomplished in three days as a child.. I don't see anything wrong with being rewarded of it in this life and the hereafter..

surely that is why anyone does anything? some self-satisfaction, a sense of accomplishment-- why do you get a job or get married, or take out your trash? your ability to state something obvious is rather astounding!

It is well known that the pagan Makkans had more than 300 gods which pilgrims added to over the years, and that one of them was in fact called Allah. He is not mentioned in the Qur'an as are al-Lat and al-Uzza although he did exist. He was said to have sons and daughters and to be the ‘creator-god’. This is well-known amongst many Muslims, and indeed is written in many Muslim accounts of the Prophet’s life. Where do you think the name of Muhammad's father, who was a pagan, Abdallah (slave of Allah) came from?

I have already told you, that were two tribes of Christians and a few tribes of Jews-- as Abraham who built the house of Allah was a Monotheist ( the tradition carried out in Arabia) even if paganists imported gods or associated gods with Allah or made them of 3ajwa. It wasn't uncommon to use the name Abdu'Allah.. However, pagan gods didn't go by the name of Allah!

Do you wish to try again?

all the best

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

just a reminder:

Sahih International
Allah has sent down the best statement: a consistent Book wherein is reiteration. The skins shiver therefrom of those who fear their Lord; then their skins and their hearts relax at the remembrance of Allah . That is the guidance of Allah by which He guides whom He wills. And one whom Allah leaves astray - for him there is no guide.
Pickthall
Allah hath (now) revealed the fairest of statements, a Scripture consistent, (wherein promises of reward are) paired (with threats of punishment), whereat doth creep the flesh of those who fear their Lord, so that their flesh and their hearts soften to Allah's reminder. Such is Allah's guidance, wherewith He guideth whom He will. And him whom Allah sendeth astray, for him there is no guide.

for some of the Mushrikeen and Zalimoon, we can prove NOTHING unless Allah wills it! take a day, week year or a century, it doesn't matter...

:wa:

[Uthman]

Not only this, but not everything in the Qur'an can be found in the Bible.

In addition to this, the details given in the Qur'an with regards to certain historical events sometimes contradict those given in the Bible, and historical evidence has shown the Qur'an to be more accurate.

A couple of examples are elaborated upon by 'Abdur-Raheem Green in the following video:

Media Tags are no longer supported

This shows that Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) did not plagiarise the Bible.

[Muhammad]

Greetings Hugo,

1. There are 13 claims here and the writer says there are more so is this like a chain in that suppose I or anyone can refute any of the above claims will that mean that the Qu'ran is then shown to be not of God?

2. It is a principle well accepted in Science that a theory (let's call all 13 of the above theories) has to be falsifiable otherwise it cannot be regarded in anyway as scientific. Thus, it might sound odd but what we attempt to do in an almost brutal manner is to try to find something, some result that falsifies the theory - if you cannot work out how to do that unambiguously then we cannot show the theory to be true and we cannot show it to be false either. Another way of putting it as some have done is to re frame it into a question 'What does the theory imply which, if false, would show the whole theory to be false?'

A truly scientific approach to the Qur'an is possible because the Qur'an offers something that is not offered by other religious scriptures, in particular, and other religions, in general. It is what scientists demand. Today there are many people who have ideas and theories about how the universe works. These people are all over the place, but the scientific community does not even bother to listen to them. This is because within the last century the scientific community has demanded a test of falsification. They say, "If you have theory, do not bother us with it unless you bring with that theory a way for us to prove whether you are wrong or not."

... This is exactly what the Qur'an has - falsification tests. Some are old (in that they have already been proven true), and some still exist today. Basically it states, "If this book is not what it claims to be, then all you have to do is this or this or this to prove that it is false." Of course, in 1400 years no one has been able to do "This or this or this, " and thus it is still considered true and authentic. [...] A perfect example of how Islam provides man with a chance to verify it authenticity and "prove it wrong" occurs in the 4th chapter. And quite honestly, I was surprised when I first discovered this challenge. It states:

"Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

This is a clear challenge to the non-Muslim. Basically, it invites him to find a mistake. As a matter of fact, the seriousness and difficulty of the challenge aside, the actual presentation of such a challenge in the first place is not even in human nature and is inconsistent with man's personality. One doesn't take an exam in school after finishing the exam, write a note to the instructor at the end saying, "This exam is perfect. There are no mistakes in it. Find one if you can!". One just doesn't do that. The teacher would not sleep until he found a mistake! And yet this is the way the Qur'an approaches people. Another interesting attitude that exists in the Qur'an repeatedly deals with its advice to the reader. The Qur'an informs that reader about different facts and then gives the advice: "If you want to know more about this or that, or if you doubt what is said, then you should ask those who have knowledge." This too is a surprising attitude. It is not usual to have a book that comes from someone without training in geography, botany, biology, etc., who discusses these subjects and then advises the reader to ask men of knowledge if he doubts anything.

The Qur'an is Amazing, Gary Miller

Moreover, one of the conditions that scholars have given for an act to be considered a miracle (as performed by a prophet) is that it cannot be performed again by any person or object.

And we find that Allaah (swt) Himself has challenged mankind to produce something like the Qur'an:

And if you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down to Our slave, then produce a Surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses besides Allah, if you are truthful. But if you do it not, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers. [Al-Baqarah: 23-24]


For more information about the challenge, please see: Understanding the Qur’an’s Literary Challenge: to “Bring Something Like It”

Peace.

[Chuck]

For more information about the challenge, please see: Understanding the Qur’an’s Literary Challenge: to “Bring Something Like It”

This one is more detailed: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...acle/ijaz.html

[Hugo]

Well, my logic followed certain rules here. I dismissed the existence of Holy Ghost just because it is based on experience. Hence, I said that it does not exist. You used this argument to 'refute' one of the Muslimah who said that she just feels Quran is the word of God.

I think you miss the point here. It is quite acceptable for you to dismiss the Holy Spirit based on your own experience. However, all you can do is argue from YOUR experience. Let me put it this way, your logic amounts to saying if I say "Bill is a boy, Bill is a bad boy therefore all boys are bad" - that is one cannot argue from the particular to the Universal. Indeed there is much more weight to the argument for the Holy Spirit as there are probably a billion people who would claim it in their life. Let me ask you, how does God interact with you, is he anywhere in your life?

Now You said that just because I have not experienced the Holy Ghost, it does not mean that it does not exist. See, you are using two contradictory train of thoughts here? On one hand you completely shrug off the subjective experiential basis of proof. Fine, I agree. On the other hand you use the very same subjective experiential basis to tell me that Holy Ghost "might" exist even though I have not experienced it. I just have to say, wow. Muslim apologetic claims regarding "miracles" of Quran (I am in agreement with some of them while others are totally blown out of proportions) make much more sense than what you just said.

I do not 'shrug' off experiential things in terms of proof but it is unreliable in term of making generalisations, it can explain how you feel but not much beyond that - that is the point I am making. There is nothing whatever wrong with saying the Holy Spirit might or might not exist and no contradiction - the argument is the same and based on experience but that will never amount to proof.

[Hugo]

Indeed.. replication is plagiarism.. Early Arabs who tried to imitate the style of the Quran to take the Quran challenge used a complete verse and substituted two words of a verse for something else, that doesn't equate to a new better Quran that is a guidance for man kind it equals to plagiarized Quran:

Just to add to what you say, plagiarism can mean copying or paraphrasing, putting something in your own words or copying an idea with attribution. In most cases it is obvious when this is done and many universities say that if as little as 6 words are copied without attribution you guilty.

I challenge you to show me where the Quran plagiarized your bible and the name of the person or persons who translated Grecian stories to the prophet in perfect queryshi tongue to rest on seven ahruf!

Try looking at Yusuf and by any objective standard it largely copies the Biblical story found in Genesis.

I don't think you can even comprehend the weightiness of what is requested of you here.. firstly you have never read the Quran nor recited it, nor listened to it to know of the lyricism and its profound effect on the believer.. I can't compare your Psalm of the lord being a sheep herder to even a poem of Antonio Machado which I believe far exceeds the bible in beauty!

It's a pity you use arrogance instead of argument here but at least you acknowledge its in the end about opinion. What is sad perhaps is that for you nothing can exceed the Qu'ran but this is obviously false. Consider by way of illustration Thomas Hardly, in terms of English his work is perfect, faultless but that would mean nothing unless what he writes has meaning for me. To me when I find something that speaks to me its as if the hand of the author reaches out with this precious gift, a gift just for me. That is how Christians read the Bible, they want to feel that they hear God speak and when you hear God speak that has a profound affect. When I read what you have written and what other Muslim's have written it often sound as if you don't have the slightest interest in what is being said but only what it sounds like.

I am not familiar with Marchado but if you find it exceeds the Bible (all of it?) then that is no more than an opinion and if I may say so a silly one. Let me give an example from Hardly called "The Dead Drummer" but only the first verse - do you understand what it is saying and can you find that thought in the Qu'ran - if not does that mean the Qu'ran has failed?

They throw in Drummer Hodge, to rest
Uncoffined--just as found:
His landmark is a kopje-crest
That breaks the veldt around;
And foreign constellations west
Each night above his mound.

Also, you can't have an excerpt to represent your whole book.. I need every chapter to be unlike any other and be equally profound on all the criteria listed.. you need your bible to read collectively beautiful.. even the parts when Abraham marries his sister or Lut sleeps with his daughters and the psalms that you care not mention like this: "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him" (Song of Solomon 5:4).

Interesting, YOU have decided how God shall, must speak so you make God the measure of your own small mind. You it seems prefer beauty to truth, can you make sin beautiful: Abraham married his half sister is true, Lot slept with his daughters is true according to the Bible. The Psalms are not the same as the Song of Solomon and any one can see the verses is talking about the excitement and anticipation of seeing someone you love.

frankly I find the tone of the bible downright misogynistic!

You don't seem to know much about the Qu'ran or Muslim law and culture to say such a thing - why not try reading its for yourself.

.. and in the end have it needs to sound like this: perhaps then can we have an object of comparison..

What value will it be to compare how it sounds - what would it prove, as I have said before you do not seem to be interested in what it says do you? It is impossible to have an objective comparison because judgement is involved and that ultimately is am emotional not logical mechanism.

by the way find me this sura in the bible too (suret ad-dukhan) which discusses one of the signs of the end of the world amongst other things!

I assume you mean things falling from the sky or having no friends to call on? Well have a look at the Gospel of Matthew or Luke or the book of Revaluation and you will find plenty there top think over.

The difference is in the criteria, and it has been listed for you all throughout here!

This is the point that you continually fail to understand, you seem to believe that because you have criteria they MUST be right and unquestionably so and that is a laughably simplistic position to take. Can't you see that someone else could arrive at another set of criteria and hence prove something else? For example, I could say to support the Bible "the books must be from several authors" or "there must be a variety of styles" and so on. You would not agreed would you, and why should you so why are you so blind and ending in a fallacy that your criteria are the right one and indeed the only possible ones. You are conditioned to say 'yes' to anything that supports you believe.

I actually find what you just described more in concert with how Christians live their lives and in order to deflect from their overt hypocrisies they'd rather project what they are unto Muslims.. (all praise Jesus) but you can't get them to live an ounce in his shoes.. the most I have seen done is an attendance of Christmas mass or easter sunday where even that is jaded by some commercial gift giving and Noruz (pagan) offering! by the way what is the point of this absurd exercise? How could you possible expect to discuss the Quran on a level with me or any Muslim?

Here again we see you arrogance instead of argument.

[جوري]

Just to add to what you say, plagiarism can mean copying or paraphrasing, putting something in your own words or copying an idea with attribution. In most cases it is obvious when this is done and many universities say that if as little as 6 words are copied without attribution you guilty.

Indeed, and as I have stated if you believe that the Quran has plagiarized the bible then prove it!
1- Bring us names and dates of the person who translated Ot/NT stories to the prophet, added a few extra, and brought us signs of the end that unfold that completely differ than what is in your bible, from the lowest common denominator they unravel as described.

or concede your surrender that the prophet couldn't have known of such things has they not been divinely revealed to him.. I really don't like the insinuations and the way I see it, you have two choices, either prove your point or accept the obvious!

Try looking at Yusuf and by any objective standard it largely copies the Biblical story found in Genesis.

See above reply!

It's a pity you use arrogance instead of argument here but at least you acknowledge its in the end about opinion. What is sad perhaps is that for you nothing can exceed the Qu'ran but this is obviously false. Consider by way of illustration Thomas Hardly, in terms of English his work is perfect, faultless but that would mean nothing unless what he writes has meaning for me. To me when I find something that speaks to me its as if the hand of the author reaches out with this precious gift, a gift just for me. That is how Christians read the Bible, they want to feel that they hear God speak and when you hear God speak that has a profound affect. When I read what you have written and what other Muslim's have written it often sound as if you don't have the slightest interest in what is being said but only what it sounds like.

I have spent three years of my life studying the bible, if a Machado poem in one reading did to me what three years of bible study couldn't, I wouldn't call it arrogance-- I simply have my blinders off- Have you studied the Quran in a formally Islamic setting or just heresy from folks not unlike yourself in motive and vision?
The central theme of your religion is neither satisfactory to my heart or my mind.. It rather gives me a creepy feeling of paganism.. I can't compare it to a poem and you want me to compare it to another religion? by what value or means? There is nothing to compare... there is a self-immolating god who couldn't save himself, and yet you expect me to blindly accept that he'll eat my sins? It is counter intuitive!

I am not familiar with Marchado but if you find it exceeds the Bible (all of it?) then that is no more than an opinion and if I may say so a silly one. Let me give an example from Hardly called "The Dead Drummer" but only the first verse - do you understand what it is saying and can you find that thought in the Qu'ran - if not does that mean the Qu'ran has failed?

see above reply!

Interesting, YOU have decided how God shall, must speak so you make God the measure of your own small mind. You it seems prefer beauty to truth, can you make sin beautiful: Abraham married his half sister is true, Lot slept with his daughters is true according to the Bible. The Psalms are not the same as the Song of Solomon and any one can see the verses is talking about the excitement and anticipation of seeing someone you love.

How can there be truth in a self-immolating god who forsake himself? How can I accept that god who is most dear to himself, yet forsake himself to eat my sins? it is a simple lesson of logic.. I don't even need comparative study.. It crumbles on its own axis, there is no need for the subject of comparative religion even. I have already stated that the Quran goes beyond mere beauty of language and that it is in a list of its unfolding truths, it doesn't have contradictions and its central tenet agrees with the heart and the mind.. I can't accept a misogynistic book half written by a charlatan as truths for even if parts of it are, which parts are those? how do I decide which is good and which to discard? Why would god leave the world with a less than perfect message, after having died? and if god is so loving how can he cast aside those who do everything out of love for him in favor of those who know nothing of him, not even his real name?

You don't seem to know much about the Qu'ran or Muslim law and culture to say such a thing - why not try reading its for yourself.

Oh, how do you figure? I am curious as that seems to be more in concert with how you approach and address the Quran!

What value will it be to compare how it sounds - what would it prove, as I have said before you do not seem to be interested in what it says do you? It is impossible to have an objective comparison because judgement is involved and that ultimately is am emotional not logical mechanism.

This is a defense mechanism by which your own traits and emotions are attributed to someone me or others on board, the way I see it, you have described the bible here to a T, especially the emotionality and lack of logic.. I can't understand how in this day and age, anyone would accept that god annunciated himself to a woman before impregnating her with his person, to be born a suckler, to da*n the earth he allegedly created for trees that he should allegedly know for not bearing him fruit, to be inept at choosing disciples that will shoulder his message after he decided to fervently pray to himself, yet forsake himself the following day in spite of his pleading with himself, then appearing to his nemesis to throw more of the masses into confusion with abrogation of his formerly enforced commandments and yet believe that though he forsake his most precious self which is born of a woman to eat my sins thereafter (for me to enter heaven) for having believed in that fallacy.. and you want to speak of logic? If I don't agree with the central tenet, and everything thereafter is along these lines:

"and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel" (II Sam 16:22). Afterwards, the poor concubines (there were ten of them!) got imprisoned for life (II Sam 20:3).
"and after that thou shalt go in unto her" (Deut 21:13). There are many other places where the graphical phrase "go in" is used.

"let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love" (Proverbs 5:19).
"My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him" (Song of Solomon 5:4).
"and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun" (II Sam 12:11).
"and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Matthew 19:12).

Lot had sex with his two daughters. One might even conclude that he had God's help in this, as he was both very old and very drunk at the time. There was no punishment for any of them. On the contrary, both daughters were rewarded with sons who founded nations (Gen 19:33-38). Earlier (Gen 19:8), Lot had offered his daughters to be used by a mob. And Peter said that Lot was a "righteous man" (2Peter 2:8).
A married man who has mistresses is not punished for adultery. Examples: Abraham (I Chron 1:32), Saul (II Sam 3:7), Gideon (Judges 8:31), Reheboam (II Chron 11:21), David (II Sam 5:13,20). But a woman who has sex outside of marriage is severely punished.
"Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard of it" (Gen 35:22). No mention of any punishment.:

When a man has sex with a slave girl (yes, slavery is OK), he isn't to be heavily punished, but the girl is (Leviticus 19:20).
The penalty for sex with an animal is to be death not only for the man or woman, but for the poor beast as well (Leviticus 20:15,16).
A woman who doesn't scream when she gets raped is to be stoned. (Deuteronomy 22:24).
******* children are to be punished, and their descendants, too. (Deuteronomy 23:2, Isaiah 14:21).
King David had the hots for Bathsheba. So he had sex with her and then sent her husband off to die in battle. David's punishment, decreed by God, was that all his wives be publicly raped, and his newborn child would die! (II Samuel 11:2 - 12:14) (The men who did the raping presumably were not punished, since they were following God's orders.)
There are many cases where a married man has mistresses and isn't punished for adultery: Abraham (I Chron 1:32), Reheboam (II Chron 11:21), Saul (II Sam 3:7), Gideon (Judges 8:31), David (II Samuel 5:13,20).
God actually decrees fornication in Deut 28:30, where the punishment for a man's misdeed is that his fiance has sex with another man.
Judah had sex with his daughter-in-law, who was pretending to be a *****. No punishment for either of them. (Genesis 38:13-26)
A man may forcibly take a woman from enemy captives and make her his wife, after trying her out. (Deut 21:11-13)
A man is supposed to have sex with his dead brother's widow. If he refuses, he gets publicly humiliated (Deut 25:5-9). Apparently it doesn't matter whether he is already married.
When David was old and infirm, he was brought a young maiden so that he would "get heat" (I Kings 1:1-2). It didn't work.
Ruth, a young widow, acts the harlot to nab a rich husband, as her mother-in-law Naomi instructs her to do (Ruth 3:3-4). The two women are portrayed as righteous.

"that pisseth against the wall" (I Samuel 25:22, I Kings 14:10)
"that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you" (II Kings 18:27, Isaiah 36:12)
"And thou shalt eat it [as] barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight" (Ez 4:12).
"Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith" (Ez 4:15).
"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces..."(Malachi 2:3).
"and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ.."(Philipp 3:8).

then I don't see how I can agree in part if the whole crumbles upon itself... half of those you don't enforce (and I don't know how much love of god there can be when you don't enforce his laws) and the other half is of pure illogical nonsense, and you want to come and tell me that I don't understand the Quran or that the Quran plagiarized that-- and question me of subjective opinion? Islam is the true religion of God, the one that has always been and the one that will always be, no matter how much you and other evangies hammer in otherwise!

I assume you mean things falling from the sky or having no friends to call on? Well have a look at the Gospel of Matthew or Luke or the book of Revaluation and you will find plenty there top think over.

See previous replies!

This is the point that you continually fail to understand, you seem to believe that because you have criteria they MUST be right and unquestionably so and that is a laughably simplistic position to take. Can't you see that someone else could arrive at another set of criteria and hence prove something else? For example, I could say to support the Bible "the books must be from several authors" or "there must be a variety of styles" and so on. You would not agreed would you, and why should you so why are you so blind and ending in a fallacy that your criteria are the right one and indeed the only possible ones. You are conditioned to say 'yes' to anything that supports you believe.

See previous replied and really have a sit down with yourself and question what your motive is writing in this section?

is it to enforce your own beliefs to yourself the way I look at it, anyone who remotely spends the smallest amount of time with the bible will have to dismiss it as a book lacking orderly continuity with other monotheistic religions and disharmonious at best with its own self.. how you want to use that to evangelize is beyond me and all I can say is good luck with all that no true Muslim would ever go back to the dark ages of Christianity once they have walked aright!

6:104 "How have come to you, from your Lord, proofs (to open your eyes): if any will see, it will be for (the good of) his own soul; if any will be blind, it will be to his own (harm): I am not (here) to watch over your doings."

When you have an honest assessment with yourself, you'll react less when people present you with what they consider not only abominations in the bible, but true transgressions against the God of Abraham !

Here again we see you arrogance instead of argument.

I am yet to see a true argument from you as far as the Quran is concerned. I think you fear opening it and reading it and having a true objective comparison. So you drown us in quotes and proverbs and what you deem logical, even if your logic is completely askew from the general populations baseline, and fail at the same time to subject the book you hold on to to save your dear life to that same litmus test!


All the best!

[Hugo]

:sl:When the most notable, masterful and genius, masters of the language, the famous poets of 'Arabia during the golden age of the language such as Waleed b. Mughirah and others, who were known and accepted to be the best of the best in poetry and eloquence themselves succumbed to the Qur'aan and they themselves admitted that they could never match the Qur'aan, why would anyone want to take (for the lack of a better word) 'criticisms' on the Qur'aan by people who probably don't even know the basic branches of the Arabic language, let alone any rules of the language?

You can't blame them though for trying, even though it is a lame and sad attempt. Look at where they're coming from, they're coming from the standpoint of modern standard Arabic (that is, if they even know it in the first place!), which when compared to the Arabic of the time of the Qur'aan is but a simplified, water downed version of the language. If modern standard Arabic has 50 grammar rules, classical Arabic has 500+. The Qur'aan not only conformed to these grammar rules, it used them in a way that left the greatest masters of the language in awe - it became the apex, the crux and the standard of perfection in the language. It is an matched reference for anyone who studies the language. Any scholar of the language whose knowledge extends beyond modern Arabic and is aware at the very least of classical Arabic can tell you this. This is simple historical fact. It became and still is the reference on grammar, eloquence, and perfection in the language, even the Orientalists grudgingly admit to this, which is why they hardly ever tried to criticize the Qur'aan from this standpoint.

So honestly, knowing this it's very hard to take anyone seriously when they ignorantly come and attempt to criticize the Qur'aan from the language. Let them study the language first, educate themselves on the 7 branches of the Arabic language, study the science of balaagha (eloquence), study pre-Arabic poetry and then come and say something about the Arabic of the Qur'an, we can take them seriously then.

This is a fair post but but it is not moot to this thread.

1. If the Qu'ran is a literary masterpiece and it may well be but that does not mean it is from God. If that were so then logically, any written work that let us say experts consider a masterpiece must be from God.

2. I am not sure anyone has argued that the Qu'ran is not a literary work of merit but it cannot be the only one If you argument has weight then it applies everywhere - go and learn Hebrew or Greek and only then will we take the seriously with regard to criticism of the Bible.

3. My understanding is that classical Arabic was not perfected until, the 9th centuary.

[Hugo]

@ Eliphaz: You still have to provide references of poetry which is "superior to the Quran." Not only that, you just severed your own neck. You are comparing Quran with poetical works? Lol. Quran is neither poetry nor prose. Why, o why, you ignoramus, decided to compare Quran with Arabic poetical works and not with the works of prose? I say, bring the prose in too!

You are so desperate to show something is superior than that and for doing so, you compare it with Arabic poetry. Not that Arabic poetry can supersede it, the attempt itself reeks of ignorance, frustration and arrogance. It is like comparing Shakespeare with T.S. Eliot. Quran is miracle in the nature that it carved a new genre in Arabic language. No one before wrote in this genre and no one after Quran was able to do so. That is one part of the miracle aside from literary superiority. While the poetry that you will bring, lol, it is poetry, and falls in the same genre and there is nothing miraculous about following tradition. Good luck.

I wish I could sip from the tea cup which is boiling due to the rage in your head. Ill let it cool down a bit.

I cannot entirely follow this line of argument because whether I regard say a bit of the Bible as superior to a bit of the Qu'ran is in the end subjective even if we agree on the same criteria we will not necessarily come to the same conclusions. You also seem to be making up the rules as you go along so now we have if anyone creates a new Genre it is by your definition a miracle.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Indeed, and as I have stated if you believe that the Quran has plagiarized the bible then prove it!
1- Bring us names and dates of the person who translated Ot/NT stories to the prophet, added a few extra, and brought us signs of the end that unfold that completely differ than what is in your bible, from the lowest common denominator they unravel as described.

or concede your surrender that the prophet couldn't have known of such things has they not been divinely revealed to him.. I really don't like the insinuations and the way I see it, you have two choices, either prove your point or accept the obvious!

It's a false dilemma, as you seem to have discounted other ways that the Prophet (pbuh) could have received information about what was in the Bible. Why could he not have obtained it through oral transmission, for example?

I'm genuinely interested to find out what kind of thought process you're using here, so if you could spare the usual torrents of abuse it would be appreciated.

Peace

[جوري]

What Is The Challenge Of The Qur'an With Respect To Arabic Prose & Poetry?

What Is The Challenge Of The Qur'an With Respect To Arabic Prose & Poetry?

M S M Saifullah, cAbd ar-Rahman Robert Squires & Muhammad Ghoniem

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

Last Modified: 9th September 1999

Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
The Qur'an in many places challenges the people to produce a surah like it. It appears that the Christian missionaries who call the challenge irrelevent or an utterly subjective criterion are pretty much unaware of how the Arabic poetry and prose compares with the Qur'an. This article is devoted to deal with one aspect of the Qur'anic challenge of produce a surah like it. What is meant by surah like it with respect to the Arabic prose and poetry?
The verses of the Qur'an dealing with the challenge are given below (Hilali and Muhsin Khan's Translation):

Say: "If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another." [Qur'an 17:88]
And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful. [Qur'an 2:23]
And this Qur'an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah (Lord of the heavens and the earth), but it is a confirmation of (the revelation) which was before it [i.e. the Taurat (Torah), and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.], and a full explanation of the Book (i.e. laws and orders, etc, decreed for mankind) - wherein there is no doubt from the the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns,and all that exists).
Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it?" Say: "Bring then a surah (chapter) like unto it, and call upon whomsoever you can, besides Allah, if you are truthful!" [Qur'an 10:37-38]
Or they say, "He (Prophet Muhammad(P)) forged it (the Qur'an)." Say: "Bring you then ten forged surah (chapters) like unto it, and call whomsoever you can, other than Allah (to your help), if you speak the truth!" [Qur'an 11:13]
Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it (this Qur'an)?" Nay! They believe not! Let them then produce a recital like unto it (the Qur'an) if they are truthful. [Qur'an 52:33-34]

cAbdur Rahim Green mentions that:

These are the sixteen al-Bihar (literally "The Seas", so called because of the way the poem moves, according to its rhythmic patterns): at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria'. So the challenge is to produce in Arabic, three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook. Now I think at least the Christian's "Holy spirit" that makes you talk in tongues, part of your "Tri-Unity" of God should be able to inspire one of you with that!

To begin with; the Arabic language and Arab speech are divided into two branches. One of them is rhymed poetry. It is a speech with metre and rhyme, which means every line of it ends upon a definite letter, which is called the 'rhyme'. This rhymed poetry is again divided into metres or what is called as al-Bihar, literally meaning 'The Seas'. This is so called because of the way the poetry moves according to the rhythmic patterns. There are sixteen al-Bihar viz; at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria'. Each one rhymes differently. For metres of Arabic poetry please see please see Lyall's book Translations Of Ancient Arabian Poetry, Chiefly Pre-Islamic.[1] He discusses al-Kamil, al-Wafir, al-Hajaz, at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Khafif and al-Madid briefly.[2]
The other branch of Arabic speech is prose, that is non-metrical speech. The prose may be a rhymed prose. Rhymed prose consists of cola ending on the same rhyme throughout, or of sentences rhymed in pairs. This is called "rhymed prose" or sajc. Prose may also be straight prose (mursal). In straight prose, the speech goes on and is not divided in cola, but is continued straight through without any divisions, either of rhyme or of anything else. Prose is employed in sermons and prayers and in speeches intended to encourage or frighten the masses.[3] One of the most famous speeches involving sajc is that of Hajjaj bin Yusuf in his first deputation in Iraq in post-Islamic and Quss bin Sa'idah in pre-Islamic times.
So, the challenge, as cAbdur Rahim Green mentions, is to produce in Arabic , three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen al-Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook. Indeed

The Qur'an is not verse, but it is rhythmic. The rhythm of some verses resemble the regularity of sajc, and both are rhymed, while some verses have a similarity to Rajaz in its vigour and rapidity. But it was recognized by Quraysh critics to belong to neither one nor the other category.[4]

It is interesting to know that all the pre-Islam and post-Islamic poetry collected by Louis Cheikho falls in the above sixteen metres or al-Bihar.[5] Indeed the pagans of Mecca repeated accuse Prophet Muhammad(P) for being a forger, a soothsayer etc. The Arabs who were at the pinnacle of their poetry and prose during the time of revelation of the Qur'an could not even produce the smallest surah of its like. The Qur'an's form did not fit into any of the above mentioned categories. It was this that made the Qur'an inimitable, and left the pagan Arabs at a loss as to how they might combat it as Alqama bin cAbd al-Manaf confirmed when he addressed their leaders, the Quraysh:

Oh Quraish, a new calamity has befallen you. Mohammed was a young man the most liked among you, most truthful in speech, and most trustworthy, until, when you saw gray hairs on his temple, and he brought you his message, you said that he was a sorcerer, but he is not, for we seen such people and their spitting and their knots; you said, a diviner, but we have seen such people and their behavior, and we have heard their rhymes; you said a soothsayer, but he is not a soothsayer, for we have heard their rhymes; and you said a poet, but he is not a poet, for we have heard all kinds of poetry; you said he was possessed, but he is not for we have seen the possessed, and he shows no signs of their gasping and whispering and delirium. Oh men of Quraish, look to your affairs, for by Allah a serious thing has befallen you.

It is a well known fact that the Qur'an was revealed in seven ahruf (or seven forms) to facilitate greater understanding of it among the Arabs who had different dialects. This was also to challenge them on their own grounds to produce a surah like that of the Qur'an. The challenge became more obvious when none of the seven major tribes could imitate it even in their own dialects as no one could claim that it was difficult to imitate due to it not being in their own dialect.[6]
What Do The Orientalists Say About The Inimitability Of The Qur'an?
E H Palmer, as early as 1880, recognized the unique style of the Qur'an. But he seem to have been wavering between two thoughts. He writes in the Introduction to his translation of the Qur'an:

That the best of Arab writers has never succeeded in producing anything equal in merit to the Qur'an itself is not surprising. In the first place, they have agreed before-hand that it is unapproachable, and they have adopted its style as the perfect standard; any deviation from it therefore must of necessity be a defect. Again, with them this style is not spontaneous as with Muhammad and his contemporaries, but is as artificial as though Englishmen should still continue to follow Chaucer as their model, in spite of the changes which their language has undergone. With the Prophet, the style was natural, and the words were those in every-day ordinary life, while with the later Arabic authors the style is imitative and the ancient words are introduced as a literary embellishment. The natural consequence is that their attempts look laboured and unreal by the side of his impromptu and forcible eloquence.[7]

The famous Arabist from University of Oxford, Hamilton Gibb was open upon about the style of the Qur'an. In his words:

...the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle, and with remarkable boldness and self confidence Mohammad appealed as a supreme confirmation of his mission to the Koran itself. Like all Arabs they were the connoisseurs of language and rhetoric. Well, then if the Koran were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not), then let them accept the Koran as an outstanding evident miracle.[8]

And in some other place, talking about the Prophet(P) and the Qur'an, he states:

Though, to be sure, the question of the literary merit is one not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of Arabic language; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep-toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammad did.[9]
As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, having neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming the inimitability not only of its contents but also of its style..... and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose in which all the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.[10]

On the influence of the Qur'an on Arabic literature Gibb says:

The influence of the Koran on the development of Arabic Literature has been incalculable, and exerted in many directions. Its ideas, its language, its rhymes pervade all subsequent literary works in greater or lesser measure. Its specific linguistic features were not emulated, either in the chancery prose of the next century or in the later prose writings, but it was at least partly due to the flexibility imparted by the Koran to the High Arabic idiom that the former could be so rapidly developed and adjusted to the new needs of the imperial government and an expanding society.[11]

As the Qur'an itself says:

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 Allah, if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith. (Qur'an 2:23-24)

Lastly, the beautiful style of the Qur'an is admired even by the Arab Christians:

The Quran is one of the world's classics which cannot be translated without grave loss. It has a rhythm of peculiar beauty and a cadence that charms the ear. Many Christian Arabs speak of its style with warm admiration, and most Arabists acknowledge its excellence. When it is read aloud or recited it has an almost hypnotic effect that makes the listener indifferent to its sometimes strange syntax and its sometimes, to us, repellent content. It is this quality it possesses of silencing criticism by the sweet music of its language that has given birth to the dogma of its inimitability; indeed it may be affirmed that within the literature of the Arabs, wide and fecund as it is both in poetry and in elevated prose, there is nothing to compare with it.[12]

The above sentences speak of themselves. Summing up: Within the Arabic literature, either poetry or prose, there is nothing comparable to the Qur'an. Muslims throughout the centuries are united upon the its inimitability.
There is also a talk by Christian missionaries that there are grammatical 'errors' in the Qur'an. In retort, it can be mentioned that the Arab contemporaries of Muhammad(P) were most erudite and proficient in the idiosyncrasies of Arabic speech; and hence, if they had found any grammatical 'errors' in the Qur'an, they would have revealed it when Muhammad(P) challenged them with to do so. Therefore, since they did not take up his challenge on this issue, we can be rest assured that no such grammatical 'errors' exist in the Qur'an.
Indeed the grammatical errors claimed by Christian missionaries have been already discussed and refuted in a reputed journal.[13] It turns out that lack of knowledge of intricate constructions in classical Arabic by Christian missionaries gave rise to so-called grammatical 'errors'.
I'jaz al-Qur'an (Or Inimitability Of The Qur'an) & Its Exposition
I'jaz literally means "the rendering incapable, powerless". It is the concept relating to the miraculous nature of the Qur'an. What consitutes this miracle is a subject that has engaged Muslims scholars for centuries. By the early part of the third century AH (ninth century CE), the word i'jaz had come to mean that quality of the Qur'an that rendered people incapable of imitating the book or any part; in content and form. By the latter part of that century, the word had become the technical term, and the numerous definitions applied to it after the tenth century have shown little divergence from the key concepts of the inimitability of the Qur'an and the inability of human beings to match it even challenged (tahiddi).[14]
Thus, the Islamic doctrine of i'jaz al-Qur'an consists in the belief that the Qur'an is a miracle (mu'jizah) bestowed on Muhammad(P). Both terms, i'jaz and mu'jizah come from the same verbal root. While mu'jizah is the active principle of a'jaza, i'jaz is its verbal noun.[15]
The early theological discussions on i'jaz introduced the hypothesis of sarfah ("turning away") and argued that the miracle consisted of God's turning the competent away from taking up the challenge of imitating the Qur'an. The implication of sarfah is that the Qur'an otherwise could be imitated. However, cAbd al-Jabbar (d. 1025 CE), the Mu'tazilite theologian rejected sarfah because of its obvious weaknesses.

cAbd al-Jabbar rejects the doctrine of sarfah for two main reasons. Firstly, because it contradicts the verse of the Qur'an stating that neither jinn nor human can rival the Qur'an, and secondly because it makes a miracle of something other than the Qur'an, i.e., the sarfah, the prohibition from production, and not the Qur'an itself. In addition to this, according to 'Abd al-Jabbar, the doctrine of sarfah displays four major weaknesses:

1. 1. It ignores the well-known fact that the Arabs of Muhammad's time had acknowledged the superior quality of speech of the Qur'an;
   2. It is in direct conflict with the meaning of the verses of the Challenge;
   3. It implies that the Qur'an is not a miracle; and
   4. It asserts that the Arabs were out of their minds (khuruj 'an al-'aql).

This doctrine, in fact, implies that they could have produced a rival to the Qur'an, but simply decided against doing so. It effectively calls into question either their motives or their sanity. Therefore, according to cAbd al-Jabbar the correct interpretation of sarfah is that the motives to rival the Qur'an disappeared (insarafah) because of the recognition of the impossibility of doing so.[16]

cAbd al-Jabbar insisted on the unmatchable quality of the Qur'an's extra-ordinary eloquence and unique stylist perfection. In his work al-Mughni (The Sufficient Book), he argued that eloquence (fasahah) resulted from the excellence of both meaning and wording, and he explained that there were degrees of excellence depending on the manner in which words were chosen and arranged in any literary text, the Qur'an being the highest type.[17]
al-Baqillani (d. 1013 CE), in his systematic and comprehensive study entitled I'jaz al-Qur'an upheld the rhetorically unsurpassable style of the Qur'an, but he did not consider this to be a necessary argument in the favour of the Qur'an's uniqueness and emphasized instead the content of revelation.
The choice and arrangement of words, referred to as nazm was the focus of discussion by al-Jahiz, al-Sijistani (d. 928 CE), al-Bakhi (d. 933 CE) and Ibn al-Ikhshid (d. 937 CE). al-Rummani and his contemporary al-Khattabi (d. 998 CE) discussed the psychological effect of nazm of the Qur'an in their al-Nukat fi I'jaz al-Qur'an and Bayan I'jaz al-Qur'an, respectively.
The author who best elaborated and systematized the theory of nazm in his analysis of the i'jaz is cAbd al-Qahir al-Jurjani (d. 1078 CE) in his Dala'il al-I'jaz. His material was further organized by Fakhr ad-Din al-Razi (d. 1209) in his Nihayat al-I'jaz fi Dirayat al-I'jaz and put to practical purposes by al-Zamakhshari (d. 1144 CE) in his exegesis of the Qur'an entitled al-Kashasaf, rich in rhetorical analysis of the Qur'anic style.[18]
Hardly anything new has been added by later authors.
Is The Bible Inimitable?
Anyone who has read the history of the Bible as a text as well as the constantly changing canon at the whims of the leaders of the Church and some 300,000+ variant readings in the New Testament itself would suggest that no book in history enjoyed such as reputation. The process of serious editing through which the Christian Bible went through is unparalleled in its almost 2000 year history. This would itself make the Bible an inimitable book.
As far as the language of the Bible and its stylistic perfection is concerned, the Bible does not make any such claim. Therefore, it not does challenge the mankind of produce a few verses or a chapter like it. Further, it is a Christian claim that the Bible contains scribal and linguistic errors. The language in which the Greek New Testament was written is demotic Greek which itself has little or no regard for grammatical rules of classical Greek. Comparing the stylistic perfection of the Qur'an versus stylistic imperfection of the Bible, von Grunebaum states:

In contrast to the stylistic perfection of the Kur'an with the stylistic imperfections of the older Scriptures the Muslim theologian found himself unknowingly and on purely postulative grounds in agreement with long line of Christian thinkers whose outlook on the Biblical text is best summed up in Nietzsche's brash dictum that the Holy Ghost wrote bad Greek.[19]

Futher, he elaborates the position of Western theologians on the canonization process and composition of the Bible:

The knowledge of the Western theologian that the Biblical books were redacted by different writers and that they were, in many cases, accessible to him only in (inspired) translation facilitated admission of formal imperfections in Scripture and there with lessened the compulsive insistence on its stylistic authority. Christian teaching, leaving the inspired writer, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, free in matters of style, has provided no motivation to seek an exact correlation between the revealed text on the one hand and grammar and rhetoric on the other. It thereby relieved the theologian and the critic from searching for a harmony between two stylistic worlds, which at best would yield an ahistoric concept of literary perfection and at worst would prevent anything resembling textual and substantive criticism of Revelation....
In Christianity, besides, the apology for the "low" style of the Bible is merely a part of educational problem - what to do with secular erudition within Christianity; whereas in Islam, the central position of the Kur'an, as the focal point and justification of grammatical and literary studies, was theoretically at least, never contested within the believing community.[20]

That pretty much sums up the Bible, its stylistic perfection (or the lack of it!) and the position of Western theologians.
And Allah knows best!




__________________________________


By Me:

I have decided to simplify the challenge of the Quran, so you wouldn't have the excuse to posit that folks makeup rules as they go along when you you fail to acknowledge the shortcomings of your bible. It isn't one for the theologians which ironically is what you ask us to do on the previous page (to which I have given a very direct and simple reply) If a book claims to be from God, it has to do a few things with fluidity!
1- speak to everyone from the simplest Bedouin to the most scientific mind!
2- Not rectify itself or leave itself in such a state that theologians gather every few centuries to see which parts need to be thrown out to fit the tide.. God surely should know his creation from origin to conclusion.
3- Be done in such a style that is easy to remember and useful in everyday life
4- not be at odds with nature, especially the nature of man
5- to be always of relevance of every aspect of man's life (that is what it means to have a Constitution, one that is both spiritual and appropriate for everyday life.
6- The theme should be intuitive not counter intuitive.. To accept it, is to live it, not give lip service and then live a completely different life, one only needs to look at your TV evangies or even the priesthood to have a clear vision of just how counter-intuitive.
7- Be in concert with what was revealed before it, if it claims to be from the same God!
8- Bring comfort not simply for the aspect that one doesn't understand (the hereafter) but comfort and peace to ones daily life....


to name a few...


_______________________________________


Not to address whether or not the Quran borrows from the bible:


Is Quss Bin Sa'idah's 'Poetry' Meeting The Challenge Of The Qur'an?

Is Quss Bin Sa'idah's 'Poetry' Meeting The Challenge Of The Qur'an?

M S M Saifullah

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

Last Modified: 9th September 1999

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance:
A few years ago cAbdur Rahim Green debated on various issues of Qur'an with Joseph Smith. One of the issues was also the inimitability of the Qur'an which I think he answered reasonably well. This post was addressed to Jochen Katz too who is now shelling out cheap excuses that the challenge is irrelevent. The issue was discussed by cAbdur Rahim Green.
For the sake of easy reference of the issues, I have divided the contents in the following manner:

• The Challenge Of The Qur'an
• Quss bin Sa'idah's Works and Jahiliyyah Poetry
• The Spin-Offs: Is The Qur'an Borrowed From The Bible?
• References

The Challenge Of The Qur'an
The Qur'an in many places challenges the people to produce a surah like it. The ayahs of the Qur'an dealing with the challenge are given below (Hilali and Muhsin Khan's Translation):

Say: "If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another." [Qur'an 17:88]
And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful. [Qur'an 2:23]
And this Qur'an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah (Lord of the heavens and the earth), but it is a confirmation of (the revelation) which was before it [i.e. the Taurat (Torah), and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.], and a full explanation of the Book (i.e. laws and orders, etc, decreed for mankind) - wherein there is no doubt from the the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns,and all that exists).
Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it?" Say: "Bring then a surah (chapter) like unto it, and call upon whomsoever you can, besides Allah, if you are truthful!" [Qur'an 10:37-38]
Or they say, "He (Prophet Muhammad(P)) forged it (the Qur'an)." Say: "Bring you then ten forged surah (chapters) like unto it, and call whomsoever you can, other than Allah (to your help), if you speak the truth!" [Qur'an 11:13]
Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it (this Qur'an)?" Nay! They believe not! Let them then produce a recital like unto it (the Qur'an) if they are truthful. [Qur'an 52:33-34]

cAbdur Rahim Green mentions that:

These are the sixteen al-Bihar (literally "The Seas", so called because of the way the poem moves, according to its rhythmic patterns): at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria'. So the challenge is to produce in Arabic, three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook. Now I think at least the Christian's "Holy spirit" that makes you talk in tongues, part of your "Tri-Unity" of God should be able to inspire one of you with that!

The pagans of Mecca repeated accuse Prophet Muhammad(P) for being a forger, a soothsayer etc. Interestingly enough, these old arguments are recycled again and again by the people even today! The Arabs who were at the pinnacle of their poetry and prose during the time of revelation of the Qur'an could not even produce the smallest surah of its like. Poetry in Arabic falls into sixteen different al-Bihar as mention above and other than that they have the speech of soothsayers, rhyming prose, and normal speech. The Qur'an's form did not fit into any of these categories. It was this that made the Qur'an inimitable, and left the pagan Arabs at a loss as to how they might combat it as Alqama bin cAbd al-Manaf confirmed when he addressed their leaders, the Quraish:

Oh Quraish, a new calamity has befallen you. Mohammed was a young man the most liked among you, most truthful in speech, and most trustworthy, until, when you saw gray hairs on his temple, and he brought you his message, you said that he was a sorcerer, but he is not, for we seen such people and their spitting and their knots; you said, a diviner, but we have seen such people and their behavior, and we have heard their rhymes; you said a soothsayer, but he is not a soothsayer, for we have heard their rhymes; and you said a poet, but he is not a poet, for we have heard all kinds of poetry; you said he was possessed, but he is not for we have seen the possessed, and he shows no signs of their gasping and whispering and delirium. Oh men of Quraish, look to your affairs, for by Allah a serious thing has befallen you.

Of course, when challenged to produce something of the sort present in the Qur'an, the obvious reaction of the Christian missionary is to shell out cheap excuses.
As we have seen before the Christian's "Holy Spirit" did not tell them that the Surah al-Waliya and Surah an-Nurayn were forgeries. Neither we expect from them any solid answer when asked about the Arabic poetry itself.

On 4 Oct 1997, Jochen Katz wrote:
> I asked you which bihar it is, and you couldn't answer. You then
> continued to waffle about many things, but you were not able to identify
> it as poetry. So, if it is not poetry, then it is not Jahiliyya poetry
> either. It is from before Islam, but it is not poetry and your attack
> falls flat on its nose.

When this post came in I was still busy with gathering the references which are quoted in the Christian missionary's page as well as gaining knowledge about the Arabic poetry from a learned Muslim brother who happened to be there on a holiday in Cambridge (May Allah, The Most High, reward him for his patience and help). The reference which I could catch hold of was Shucara' al-Nasraniyah (The Christian Poets) by Louis Cheikho, published from Beirut (Lebanon) in 1890-1891. The other reference is not available in the University of Cambridge library. This book was re-published in two volumes by Dar al-Mashriq, Beirut in 1968 as

1. Shucara' al-Nasraniyah, Vol. 1: Qabla al-Islam and Vol. 2: Bacda al-Islam

to make a division between the poets who came before Islam and the poets who came after Islam, respectively. Louis Cheikho was a Jesuit priest in the city of Beirut who was responsible for collecting a lot of poetry from pre-Islamic as well as post-Islamic times and labelling all the poets as Christians. His work has been critically reviewed which I will be discussing later in this post, inshallah.
Quss bin Sa'idah's Works and Jahiliyyah Poetry
Being experienced in dealing with Christian missionaries for quite some time in their deception when it comes to the references which they quote, I decided to start off from the sources which they quote. From the above reference [1] we see that in the chapter "Shucara Najad wa al-Hijaz" (Poets of Najd and the Hijaz) the poetry of Quss bin Sa'idah al-Iyad has been placed.[1] After the brief introduction of the lineage of the poet Quss bin Sa'idah, his poetry is discussed. In the beginning of each poem, the type of poem (i.e., the Bihar) is also quoted. This is done through out the book. Let me start off with the poems one of one. [The Bihar is in the square brackets]

Poem 1 [From al-Khafif] : "haja lilQalbi....... ..... wa uutibaar"[2]
Poem 2 [From al-Kamil] : "fid-dhahibina...... .... al-qawmi saa'eer"[3]
Poem 3 [From al-Bassit] : "baanaaiyal mauti...... .... manhajul khalaq"[4]
Poem 4 [From at-Tawil] : "khalilay...... .... in bakaakum"[5]
Poem 5 [From al-Kamil] : "man'al baqaa'...... .... fin-nafsi"[6]
Poem 6 [From al-Bassit] : "alhamdulillahi...... .... abath"[7]
Poem 7 [From al-Muttakarib] : "wa yakhlufu...... .... awwalu"[8]
Poem 8 [From al-Kamil] : "khad kuntu...... .... arwaahi"[9]
Poem 9 [From al-Khafif] : "kullu yahma'...... .... irkhaala"[10]

We see that the above mentioned poems fall in to the 'Bihar' which are quoted by cAbdur Rahim Green. For a quick recapitulation, the sixteen al-Bihar are

at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria'. So the challenge is to produce in Arabic, three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook.

The conclusion here is very obvious. The poetry of Quss bin Sai'ada does not come anywhere near the Qur'an.
And all this by the way, is from the sources which is quoted in Jochen's homepage. The source itself gives the answer which Jochen has asked for!! This not only shows Jochen does not even read his own sources but also hides the information given in them. It has been a routine habit of Christian missionaries to do such a thing.
Now let us go into the second part, i.e., what Jochen has stuck into his homepage. It says "A verse by Quss bin Sa'idah". To start with: The material quoted is not a verse, it is a prose which is called Sajc. The level of knowledge of Jochen Katz in Arabic literature is very obvious here. Need I say: Is it worth casting pearls before the swine? But anyway, let us go further and expose the case. The prose quoted is present just before the starting of Poem 2 as discussed above.[11] The quotation is only partial not even one fourth of what is there in the whole of the prose!!
To deal with what is there in Jochen's page requires a bit of understanding of Sajc which in english is loosely translated as "rhymed prose". According to Goldhizer, Sajc is the oldest form of speech in Arabic, pre-dating Rajaz and the Qasidah. For the terms used here, let me just briefly summarize them:

A Rajaz metre is a far more regular form of rhythmic expression that Sajc.[12]
The Qasidah ('ode' in English) is a supreme form of Arabic eloquence, consisted of three sections, each leading into the next following it. Description (Wasf) and aphorism or wise sayings (hikmah) are among the main purposes of Qasidah.[13]

A quick reminder: when we have a end word rhyme in the poetry it is called Khaafiyah.
From pre-Islamic times until this century, Sajc has continuously occupied an important place in Arabic literature and in Arab society. It has been used in the sayings of pre-Islamic kuhhan, in sermons and prayers, proverbs and aphorisms, epistles, maqamat, biographies, and histories. From the tenth until the twentieth century, book titles were almost invariably written in Sajc. Introductions to works of many genres were often written entirely in Sajc. In short, Sajc constitutes an extremely important feature in Arabic writing, including both elite and popular literature. For more information on various other types of poetry one can see this reference.[14]
The transliteration given below deals with the prose which is only partially quoted in Katz's homepage (which is towards the end). This was the speech of Quss bin Sa'idah which he gave in the market of Ukaz. He uses Sajc in his speech where the sentences rhyme with each other (at least every couple of them and not necessarily all). I have arranged all the like sounding prose together for the quick identification of Sajc. Please enjoy the transliteration of the Arabic (which may be a bit improper because of Arabic sounds!! but I have tried as much as possible to faithfully reproduce it):

fa-khala hayna khataba faatanab
wa raggaba wa rahhab
wa haddara wa andhar
wa khala fi khutbathi:
ayyuhan-naasu ismawo wa oowa
wa idha wa aytum fantafiooa
innahu man aasha maat
wa man maata faat
wa kullu ma huwa aatin aat
matur wa nabaat
wa arzaaq wa 'akhwaat
wa aaba' wa ummahat
wa ahya' wa amwaat
wa jam' wa shataat
wa aayat ba'd aayat
laylun maudu'
wa sakhafan marfu'
wa nujumun tagur
wa 'araadin tamur
wa bahurun tamuz
wa tizaratun taruz
wa dhu-un wa dhalaam
wa birrun wa aatham
wa mata'mun wa mashrab
wa malbasun wa markab
a'la anna a'blagal ajaat
as-sayru fil falawaat
wan-najar ila mahalli al-amwaat
inna fis-sama'i lakhabaran
wa inna fil ardhi la-ibran
laylun daaj
wa samaaun dhati abraaj
wa 'ardun dhati ritaaj
wa biharun dhati amwaaj
maali 'ara' an-nasi yadh-habuna falaa yarzi-oon
'ara dhawaa bil maqaami faaqaamu
am turikawa hunaka fanamu
'aqsama qussu billahi qasman haqqan
laa aathiman fihi walaa haanithan
inna lillahi deenan huwa ahabbu ilayhi min deenakum al-ladhi antum alaihi
thumma khala: tabban laari baabal ghaflati
minal-umami al-khaliyah
wa al-khurunil maadhiyah
ya ma'shar 'iyaad
aynal aba' wa al-ajdaad
wa ayna al-mareed wa al-awwaad
wa ayna al-firaa-inah ash-shidaad
ayna min bana wa shay-yada wa zakhrafu wa nazzad
wa garrahal maal wal-walad
ayna min baga wa taga
wa jama' fa 'awa
wa khala 'ana rabbukum al-'ala
'alam yakunu akthara minkum amwaala
wa atula minkum aajala
tahnahumul thari bi kalkalihi
wa mazzakhakum bita-taawili
fatilka adhamahum baaliyah
wa buyutuhum khawiyah
ammarat-ha adh-dhi'ab al-awiyah
kalla bal huwa ma'bud
thumma ansha' yakhulu [15]

and then he goes to the Poem 2 which we have already discussed.
Coming back to the business. The use of Sajc is common when delivering a sermon or lecturing because it attracts the attention of the listener. Sajc is not a form of poetry that has to be remembered. It is a rhymed prose. So the challenge is to produce in Arabic, three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen Bihar, that is not rhyming prose (i.e., Sajc), nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook.

The Qur'an is not verse, but it is rhythmic. The rhythm of some verses resemble the regularity of Saj', and both are rhymed, while some verses have a similarity to Rajaz in its vigour and rapidity. But it was recognized by Quraysh critics to belong to neither one nor the other category.[16] [[2], pp. 34]

It is anybody's guess whether Quss bin Sa'idah's Sajc can be of any comparision to the Qur'an. A bit of research needs to be done in the regularity of the metre of Sajc in the above mentioned prose of Quss bin Sa'idah to know how good is the composition. This is definitely a homework for me. And reminding what the Qur'an says:

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 Allah, if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith. (Qur'an 2:23-24)

It is a well known fact that the Qur'an is neither poetry nor prose. In the article Rhetorical Interpretation Of The Qur'an: Ijaz And Related Topics, Issa J Boullata deals with the modern writers who dealt the Qur'an from a literary point of view. One such work of A'isha cAbd al-Rahman who goes by the pseudonym of Bint Shacti has received a lot of attention. It is said that her work will provide new insights on the concept of I'jaz of the Qur'an. Issa Boullata says:

Her conclusion is that the Qur'an, being neither prose nor verse, is a literary genre of its own that is of the highest eloquence and of matchless stylistic perfection.[17]

A better insight of the language of the Qur'an can be seen by the people who translated it. Going back to the last century, the Cambridge scholar Edward Henry Palmer was asked by Max Mueller who was planning his monumental series of "Sacred Books of East" for Oxford University Press, to contribute to a new translation of the Qur'an. Arberry says:

Palmer, who was an astonishingly versatile and rapid worker, readily accepted; his translation, in two volumes, was published in 1880, two years before its author was murdered in the Egyptian desert. Palmer, a poor orphan who was thought in his teens to be dying of consumption, had remarkable gifts as a translator, especially of poetry into verse; his complete rendering of the collected poems of the Egyptian Baha al-Din Zuhair testifies amply to his accomplishments, and his translation of the Koran was equally remarkable.[18]

E H Palmer, as early as 1880, recognized the unique style of the Qur'an. But he seem to have been wavering between two thoughts. He writes in the Introduction to his translation of the Qur'an:

That the best of Arab writers has never succeeded in producing anything equal in merit to the Qur'an itself is not surprising. In the first place, they have agreed before-hand that it is unapproachable, and they have adopted its style as the perfect standard; any deviation from it therefore must of necessity be a defect. Again, with them this style is not spontaneous as with Muhammad and his contemporaries, but is as artificial as though Englishmen should still continue to follow Chaucer as their model, in spite of the changes which their language has undergone. With the Prophet, the style was natural, and the words were those in every-day ordinary life, while with the later Arabic authors the style is imitative and the ancient words are introduced as a literary embellishment. The natural consequence is that their attempts look laboured and unreal by the side of his impromptu and forcible eloquence.[19]

The famous Arabist H A R Gibb was open upon about the style of the Qur'an. In his words:

...the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle, and with remarkable boldness and self confidence Mohammad appealed as a supreme confirmation of his mission to the Koran itself. Like all Arabs they were the connoisseurs of language and rhetoric. Well, then if the Koran were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not), then let them accept the Koran as an outstanding evident miracle.[20]

And in some other place, talking about the Prophet(P) and the Qur'an, he states:

Though, to be sure, the question of the literary merit is one not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of Arabic language; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep-toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammad did.[21]
As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, having neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming the inimitability not only of its contents but also of its style.[22]
.... and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose in which all the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.[23]

On the influence of the Qur'an on Arabic literature Gibb says:

The influence of the Koran on the development of Arabic Literature has been incalculable, and exerted in many directions. Its ideas, its language, its rhymes pervade all subsequent literary works in greater or lesser measure. Its specific linguistic features were not emulated, either in the chancery prose of the next century or in the later prose writings, but it was at least partly due to the flexibility imparted by the Koran to the High Arabic idiom that the former could be so rapidly developed and adjusted to the new needs of the imperial government and an expanding society.[24]

Before I go any further, a word of caution: Anyone trying to use the reference [1] which consists of pre-Islamic as well as post-Islamic poetry to challenge the Qur'an should be warned that all the poetry quoted in that book falls within the 16 al-Bihar mentioned above. I have personally checked all the poetry quoted in that book to make sure of it.
The Spin-Offs: Is The Qur'an Borrowed From The Bible?
Louis Cheikho's aim for collecting the poetry was to show that the Qur'an had the origins from jahiliyyah poetry. But what is remarkable is that the poetry which he collected resulted in the opposite conclusion!!

At the beginning of this century, the Jesuit fathers of Beirut did extensive research on this (the Christian influence in jahiliyyah) subject order to determine the role of "Christian Poets of Jahiliyya". The research resulted only in a literary composition, which has had the remarkable and unexpected result of proving the contrary of what the authors intended. Neither in pre-Islamic Mecca nor in its surrounding area, was there any record of a monotheistic cultural centre which could have disseminated the Biblical thought that we find expressed in the Holy Qur'an.[25]

An observation from the point of view of Islamic traditions had been made by Richard Bell quite a long time ago. He says:

...in spite of traditions to the effect that the picture of Jesus was found on one of the pillars of Ka'aba, there is no good evidence of any seats of Christianity in the Hijaz or in the near neighbourhood of Makkah or even of Madina.[26]

And the Christian missionaries to this date say that Muhammad(P) borrowed the Qur'an from the Judeo-Christian sources!! The evidence that we have point against their views. But they will still be parroting the same story again and again.
This is also mentioned in the books dealing with Christianity among Arabs in pre-Islamic times from the point of view of poets.

The testimony of poets to the influence of Christianity in a spiritual and a sociological sense is negative.[27]

Louis Cheikho work has come under a lot of criticism because he has labelled all the jahiliyyah poets as Christians. His book is surprisingly devoid of references. Camille has reviewed his work and found that the following:[28]
Certaintly Christian 1 Probably Christian 2 Less probably Christian 2 No evidence that Christian 20

Dr. Christopher Heger has informed us in a post dated 02/09/1997 that Camille also published a book in 1970 called Al-Ab Luwis Shaiho wa Shucara' an-Nasraniyah fi l-Jahiliyyah, 1970, Camille Hechaime (Kamil Hushaima), Dar al-Mashriq (Beirut),pp. 298-322, where he again distributes the 61 poets into four categories:
Certaintly Christian 7 Probably Christian 5 Less probably Christian 8 No evidence that Christian 41

Unfortunately, this reference is not available in my library.
Now it is interesting to see what the Christian missionaries who read the Qur'an say about the book itself. St. Claire Tisdall states that:

From the careful examination of the whole subject dealt with in this chapter (i.e., The Influence Of Christianity & Christian Apocryphal Books) we therefore conclude that the influence of true and genuine Christian teaching upon the Qur'an and upon Islam in general has been very slight indeed, while on the other hand aprocryphal traditions and in certain respects heretical doctrines have a claim to be considered as forming one of the original sources of Muhammadan faith.[29]

Regarding one of the apocryphal books he states:

The style of the Arabic of this apocryphal Gospel, (Gospel of The Infancy) however, is so bad that it is hardly possible to believe that it dates from Muhammad's time.[30]

He does not prove the existence of other aprocryphal sources of the Bible in Arabic either. St. Claire Tisdall book, The Original Sources Of The Qur'an, once upon a time hailed as one of the most original work on the sources of Islam, is now considered as one of most speculative work on Islam. The reason why it is so is because the author assumes that the Prophet(P) knew all the sources before he could compile the Qur'an. The sources being Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hanif and ancient Arab beliefs. This directly contradicts from the evidence that we have of what the Prophet(P) was. He was considered to be ummi, i.e., illiterate. This is the reason why it is not quoted by the scholars today, except of course, Christian missionaries who still believe in living in the past.
Now we turn to the fact whether an Arabic Bible was present in the hands of the people during the time of the Prophet(P). Malik Ben Nabi narrates an interesting story:

Moreover, if Judeo-Christian thought had really made inroads into Jahiliyyan society and culture, the absence of an Arabic translation of the Bible could not be explained. As for the New Testament, it is certain that no Arabic translation of it existed in the fourth century of Hijrah. This is evident from the reference by Ghazzali, who had to resort to a Coptic manuscript to write his Rad, a respectable refutation of the divinity of Jesus according to the Gospel. In translating the work of the Arab philosopher, Rev. Fr. Chidiac searched everywhere for Gospel sources which could have served at the time of the composition of Rad. He finally found a manuscript in the library of Leningrad written about 1060 by a certain Ibn al-Assal as the first edition of a Christian text in Arabic. Thus, there did not exist an Arabic edition of the Gospels at the time of Ghazzali, and, a fortiori, it did not exist during the Pre-Islamic period.[31]

So, the influence of Christian Jahiliyyah poets as well as lack of presence of the Bible suggests that the Qur'an is not borrowed from the Bible. A Critical Review of the Authorship theories of the Qur'an by Hamza Mustafa Njozi (Version 2.1 edited by Dawah to The People) can be seen here.
This is probably the most well researched work on this topic that I have come across on the internet.
Lastly, if the Qur'an was borrowed from the Bible then why would the Christian Arabs admire the style of a copied book?

The Quran is one of the world's classics which cannot be translated without grave loss. It has a rhythm of peculiar beauty and a cadence that charms the ear. Many Christian Arabs speak of its style with warm admiration, and most Arabists acknowledge its excellence. When it is read aloud or recited it has an almost hypnotic effect that makes the listener indifferent to its sometimes strange syntax and its sometimes, to us, repellent content. It is this quality it possesses of silencing criticism by the sweet music of its language that has given birth to the dogma of its inimitability; indeed it may be affirmed that within the literature of the Arabs, wide and fecund as it is both in poetry and in elevated prose, there is nothing to compare with it.[32]

And Allah knows best!
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...acle/ijaz.html


All the best

[Hugo]

A truly scientific approach to the Qur'an is possible because the Qur'an offers something that is not offered by other religious scriptures, in particular, and other religions, in general. It is what scientists demand. Today there are many people who have ideas and theories about how the universe works. These people are all over the place, but the scientific community does not even bother to listen to them. This is because within the last century the scientific community has demanded a test of falsification. They say, "If you have theory, do not bother us with it unless you bring with that theory a way for us to prove whether you are wrong or not."

This is not entirely true because always we have to include the concept of God and revelation and that is outside science. We can of course talk about it grammar which has rules or lyricism which is in the ear of the listener but that is all.

This is exactly what the Qur'an has - falsification tests. Some are old (in that they have already been proven true), and some still exist today. Basically it states, "If this book is not what it claims to be, then all you have to do is this or this or this to prove that it is false." Of course, in 1400 years no one has been able to do "This or this or this, " and thus it is still considered true and authentic. [...] A perfect example of how Islam provides man with a chance to verify it authenticity and "prove it wrong" occurs in the 4th chapter. And quite honestly, I was surprised when I first discovered this challenge. It states:

"Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

But logically this MUST mean that any book without a discrepancy must be from Allah? Here we have what is called 'proof by definition' and if one allows that then I can prove almost anything about anything.

And yet this is the way the Qur'an approaches people. Another interesting attitude that exists in the Qur'an repeatedly deals with its advice to the reader. The Qur'an informs that reader about different facts and then gives the advice: "If you want to know more about this or that, or if you doubt what is said, then you should ask those who have knowledge." This too is a surprising attitude. It is not usual to have a book that comes from someone without training in geography, botany, biology, etc., who discusses these subjects and then advises the reader to ask men of knowledge if he doubts anything.

But any book worth its salt will give references so that one can if you wish check it out or go for a deeper understanding so its not a surprising attitude and Dr Miller is seeing a miracle at every twist and turn

Moreover, one of the conditions that scholars have given for an act to be considered a miracle (as performed by a prophet) is that it cannot be performed again by any person or object.

But again this is just a definition, no more than a definition. It might be a reasonable one it might not no one can say with certainty

And we find that Allaah (swt) Himself has challenged mankind to produce something like the Qur'an:

Here we see the central dilemma and Miller's circular argument that is in my view destroyed by a line from Socrates: Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy.

[جوري]

Greetings,


It's a false dilemma, as you seem to have discounted other ways that the Prophet (pbuh) could have received information about what was in the Bible. Why could he not have obtained it through oral transmission, for example?

I'm genuinely interested to find out what kind of thought process you're using here, so if you could spare the usual torrents of abuse it would be appreciated.

Peace

It isn't a mathematical formula czgibson. Everything of Islamic history is recorded to a T and there is no room for guesswork, if there were an oral transmission from a christian or a Jew then go ahead bring us his name and the dates, as well who translated the Grecian or Hebrew text to the prophet keeping in mind that (Johann Gutenberg) printing press wasn't available until the 1400's and have it be done in the unquestionable lyrical style of the Quran which so differs tremendously from the language of the hadith. that no Arab or none Arab was able to reproduce it (see above long post on the matter) that is one!
2- reconcile it with purpose, in other words establish motive to bring a text that will cause considerable ire to both groups and serious misfortune to the prophet, we all know that he died poor with his armor pawned to a Jew.
3- tell when he had the time to weave this into a text in which parts of the same sura were revealed decades apart, for instance the last verse belongs to the fifth chapter:
"This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as your religion Islam." (Quran, Surah [5:3])

And obviously flows with it in syntax, style etc.. how would he know where to classify a verse revealed without computerized equipments for even today I challenge anyone to write (for argument' sake) a poem and have a different perfectly fitting line to flow with it ten or twenty years later, without having to tweak it for fluidity!
and have it be in concert with the law of :
laws behind combinatorics, the probability of a word occurring a specific number of times in the text decreasing as the text grows longer, as the number of possibilities increases rapidly. That means if you took a book that was 20 000 pages, and the word night was mentioned exactly as many times as day, it would be far more astonishing than if you found the same thing in a single page report. Also, if the word repetitions are small, then there is a greater chance that it was intentionally done that way. But if the repetition number is bigger, it is practically impossible.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ord-god-4.html

4- whether you wish to believe it or not (the contents of the Quran that describe for instance the creation of man, differ tremendously from the Jewish account)
5- There are also accounts of folks of old who were destroyed which the prophet was taunted for (as made up) and were in fact a recent find (such as the city of Ubar)
6- Combine that with establishing laws to govern politically, economically, as well cover, inheritance, warfare, everyday living, have them fulfill themselves as the centuries unravel as such has never been accomplished before.. charging forth on a whim to bring down empires (such as the persian empire) in a total of nineteen days or less has to come with some conviction as it happened on the hands of one who set out to kill the prophet (a little understanding of history apart from theology) might help in this regard, since I don't speak of why I believe God granted them victory, but why they would charge forth all together with works plagiarized to accomplish what wasn't accomplished from that, that was allegedly plagiarized of
7- account as well for the numerical miracles of it for instance:


Al-Hayat (Life)

145

Al-Maout (Death)

145

Al-Mala'ikah (Angles)

88

Al-Shayateen (Satan)

88

Al-Rajul (Man)

24

Al-Mar'ha (Woman)

24

Al-Salihat (Righteous deeds)

167

Al-Sayi'at (Evil deeds)

167

Al-Dunya (This World)

115

Al-Akhira (The Hereafter)

115

Al-Yisr (Facility, Relief)

36

Al-'Usr (Difficulty)

12

Al-Abraar (The Righteous)

6

Al-Fujjaar (The Wicked)

3

Al-Jahr (Saying Aloud)

16

Al-'Alaniyah (in public)

16

and again do it without having to tweak it (see above on combinatorics) even if someone is whispering it to you, and then come ask me of how I figure the impossibility of what you or he suggests...

The way I see it, is if you have a 'number of ways' to go about then prove them! the above is how I prove you false in a hurry if you know of otherwise then by all means share it..
BTW, I haven't been abusive to you-- you are very reactive!

all the best

[Hugo]

In addition to this, the details given in the Qur'an with regards to certain historical events sometimes contradict those given in the Bible, and historical evidence has shown the Qur'an to be more accurate.
A couple of examples are elaborated upon by 'Abdur-Raheem Green in the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKcsg...4B62A190046A64

This shows that Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) did not plagiarise the Bible.

It a pity that Green gives no references and even if he is right he fails to see that difficulties remain wherever the Arc came to rest and neither does it occur to him that what has been found is a boat like object and for him somehow it must be the Noah's Arc.

[Uthman]

Hi Hugo,

It a pity that Green gives no references and even if he is right he fails to see that difficulties remain wherever the Arc came to rest and neither does it occur to him that what has been found is a boat like object and for him somehow it must be the Noah's Arc.

Thanks for your comment. Any comments on his other examples?

Regards

[Hugo]

If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another."

I thought there was some science but here you are even willing to ask Jinns to join in

That the best of Arab writers has never succeeded in producing anything equal in merit to the Qur'an itself is not surprising. In the first place, they have agreed before-hand that it is unapproachable...

After reading your over long post all you seem to have done is offer some evidence that the Qu'ran is a work of literary merit - does that prove it is the word of God is what this thread is about?

I have decided to simplify the challenge of the Quran, so you wouldn't have the excuse to posit that folks makeup rules as they go along when you you fail to acknowledge the shortcomings of your bible. It isn't one for the theologians which ironically is what you ask us to do on the previous page (to which I have given a very direct and simple reply) If a book claims to be from God, it has to do a few things with fluidity!

But why does it have to have these qualities - this is nothing but arrogance and deciding how God if he exists must speak as I have said before. In EVERY case below there is no objective measure that we can used and are they all equally weighted? Can you show that these are not only the correct criteria but the only ones possible - no you cannot. Once again one is struck by how few of these refer to what a book says but I have come to expect that from you.

1- speak to everyone from the simplest Bedouin to the most scientific mind!
2- Not rectify itself or leave itself in such a state that theologians gather every few centuries to see which parts need to be thrown out to fit the tide.. God surely should know his creation from origin to conclusion.
3- Be done in such a style that is easy to remember and useful in everyday life
4- not be at odds with nature, especially the nature of man
5- to be always of relevance of every aspect of man's life (that is what it means to have a Constitution, one that is both spiritual and appropriate for everyday life.
6- The theme should be intuitive not counter intuitive.. To accept it, is to live it, not give lip service and then live a completely different life, one only needs to look at your TV evangies or even the priesthood to have a clear vision of just how counter-intuitive.
7- Be in concert with what was revealed before it, if it claims to be from the same God!
8- Bring comfort not simply for the aspect that one doesn't understand (the hereafter) but comfort and peace to ones daily life....

[جوري]

I thought there was some science but here you are even willing to ask Jinns to join in

How are jinn scientific or unscientific?

After reading your over long post all you seem to have done is offer some evidence that the Qu'ran is a work of literary merit - does that prove it is the word of God is what this thread is about?

I believe I have quoted you extensively on where the Quran proves itself the word of God, accounts which you've rather ignored it or found a dodge to dismiss it as having no merit. I refer you amongst other posts to post # 80

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1256482

But why does it have to have these qualities

This is a non-question if ever I have read one!

- this is nothing but arrogance and deciding how God if he exists must speak as I have said before.

How is it arrogance? you'd substitute that of a self-immolating god to have it be of relevance? You don't get to set the criteria by which God chooses his messengers or the style of his message or the means by which his message is to be tested!

In EVERY case below there is no objective measure that we can used and are they all equally weighted?

Objective measures can and have been used and I refer you to post # 138

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/134290668-possible-prove-quran-very-words-god-10.html#post1258915

Can you show that these are not only the correct criteria but the only ones possible

What is the correct criteria in your mind, and how have you applied it to the bible for comparative purposes!

- no you cannot.

See above.. can't think of anything worse of asking a non-question save for providing an equally vacuous reply to it!

Once again one is struck by how few of these refer to what a book says but I have come to expect that from you.

We have discussed the contents of the book in brief, in my assessment you are not interested in what the book says but how to scrutinize its authenticity -- by all means you may bring content you wish to discuss to the stage... I have also noticed that you were very quick to dismiss contents in question about in the bible, if the point of this exercise is to establish biblical authority or usurp Quranic contents for those in the bible, then you yourself have failed to make a case for your good book!


all the best

[Hugo]

Indeed, and as I have stated if you believe that the Quran has plagiarized the bible then prove it! Bring us names and dates of the person who translated Ot/NT stories to the prophet, added a few extra, and brought us signs of the end that unfold that completely differ than what is in your bible, from the lowest common denominator they unravel as described. or concede your surrender that the prophet couldn't have known of such things has they not been divinely revealed to him.. I really don't like the insinuations and the way I see it, you have two choices, either prove your point or accept the obvious!

It is NOT necessary to show plagiarism that we have the names of the person who did it. Anyone who compares objectively the Joseph story as found in the Bible and as found in the Qu'ran will conclude they are they same story and since the Biblical account is about 1,000 years older it must be the source. But here you stray into a fallacy because you seem to be asking me to prove "that the prophet couldn't have known" which of course is impossible because if it is true there would be no evidence so the question is an absurd one and unworthy of you. What we can do is show that the Prophet at least had, as one earlier post puts it '.. access to..": he was a merchant and travelled widely, he lived amongst Jewish and Christian communities, he lived on trade routes, he had as a wife a prominent Jewish woman, one of his servants was a Christian, etc etc and he speaks about the 'scriptures' so the weight of evidence favours that Prophet Mohammed did have access to Biblical knowledge.

I have spent three years of my life studying the bible, if a Machado poem in one reading did to me what three years of bible study couldn't, I wouldn't call it arrogance-- I simply have my blinders off- Have you studied the Quran in a formally Islamic setting or just heresy from folks not unlike yourself in motive and vision?

Well that is fine but its simply your experience and the arrogance comes because you imply that everyone else is somewhat lacking - go and look at the things you say if you feel I am unkind here. No I have not studied the Qu'ran in a formal setting but I have studied it. But if I use your kind of logic I conclude that it has nothing to say but at least I am aware that that is only my opinion. Just for the record, what was your formal setting for studying the Bible so we get a context? You see you give yourself away all the time, I come with heresy and impure motive or vision but you of course do not - so who has the blinkers on?

The central theme of your religion is neither satisfactory to my heart or my mind.. It rather gives me a creepy feeling of paganism.. I can't compare it to a poem and you want me to compare it to another religion? by what value or means? There is nothing to compare... there is a self-immolating god who couldn't save himself, and yet you expect me to blindly accept that he'll eat my sins? It is counter intuitive!

Can you see that that I can say also that YOUR religion is neither satisfactory to my heart or mind that that it is full of fable and nonsense about bridges into hell or Jinns or sofas in heaven? Until you can at least appreciate that others can think differentially to you then your mind is closed and you cannot ever appreciate what is good when you find it unless it matches up with your world view and that is a sad and hopeless stance. Incidentally, I note many times you talk about a 'self-immolating' good but I cannot work out what you are talking about? I presume you refer to Jesus and he did not commit suicide and was not burned.

How can there be truth in a self-immolating god who forsake himself? How can I accept that god who is most dear to himself, yet forsake himself to eat my sins? it is a simple lesson of logic.. I don't even need comparative study..

You say you had three years of Bible study but here you do not understand the basics and I have no idea what you mean by 'eat my sins'. The Christian doctrine is that God as a gift gives us his righteousness and that is enabled through faith in the work of Jesus. If you want to think about that then just ask yourself how a holy and just God can forgive sins - a judge who sets the guilty free would be a wicked judge would he not so how does it work in Islam? (this may be for another thread)

It crumbles on its own axis, there is no need for the subject of comparative religion even. I have already stated that the Quran goes beyond mere beauty of language and that it is in a list of its unfolding truths, it doesn't have contradictions and its central tenet agrees with the heart and the mind.. I can't accept a misogynistic book half written by a charlatan as truths for even if parts of it are, which parts are those? how do I decide which is good and which to discard? Why would god leave the world with a less than perfect message, after having died? and if god is so loving how can he cast aside those who do everything out of love for him in favor of those who know nothing of him, not even his real name?

This is just ramblings and not perhaps part of this thread. The central tenet of the Bible is that God wants to redeem us and the whole of history is about just that. What central tenet do you have that can say more than that?

This is a defense mechanism by which your own traits and emotions are attributed to someone me or others on board, the way I see it, you have described the bible here to a T, especially the emotionality and lack of logic..

I am puzzled as I don't recall much in the way of describing the Bible. Of course I like everyone else deal with things emotionally, one cannot evaluate anything in any other way. When I see this I begin to understand why you place such weight in criteria because you think it logical. For example, you say something is lyrical but it is not logic that tells you that is it? You say that a book, any book moves you deeply, but that is not logical is it? What you fail to see is that we might feel that our set of criteria is quite logically derived but when we evaluate each one its our emotional part that predominates. You defence mechanism is that you mistakenly believe that YOU are always quite logical.

I can't understand how in this day and age, anyone would accept that god annunciated himself to a woman before impregnating her with his person, to be born a suckler, to da*n the earth he allegedly created for trees that he should allegedly know for not bearing him fruit, to be inept at choosing disciples that will shoulder ... for having believed in that fallacy.. and you want to speak of logic? If I don't agree with the central tenet, and everything thereafter is along these lines:

So your position is that unless its logical in your eyes it must be false. So are there really sofas in heaven on which the faithful will lie for eternity, is there really a bridge which we have to cross, did some men really stay in a cave for 300 years, did the Prophet have his heart removed and washed in snow etc etc - do you get the point about faith? I wonder why you can only quote from the more lurid history that the Bible records - why not just as an exercise show me that 1 Corinthians 13 is of no value whatever? For once be even handed.

how much love of god there can be when you don't enforce his laws) and the other half is of pure illogical nonsense, and you want to come and tell me that I don't understand the Quran or that the Quran plagiarized that-- and question me of subjective opinion? Islam is the true religion of God, the one that has always been and the one that will always be, no matter how much you and other evangies hammer in otherwise!

I don't think I said the Qu'ran was plagiarised, the issue is not the Qu'ran as such but your claim that Prophet Mohammed could have had no access to Biblical stories and there is a very big difference. Here you express opinion, that Islam is the true religion as if the fact that you state it makes it true. Bit puzzled though by the line "always has been .." because there is no sign or mention of Islam in any civilization before the 6th century.

is it to enforce your own beliefs to yourself the way I look at it, anyone who remotely spends the smallest amount of time with the bible will have to dismiss it as a book lacking orderly continuity with other monotheistic religions and disharmonious at best with its own self.. !

You must stop pontificating. I have personally read the Bible about 40 times cover to cover to say nothing of the time spend in detailed study, in church itself, reading commentaries etc. Only last week I was at a public lecture at a prestigious University where a double Phd spoke about cosmology and Biblical faith so I think he might have noticed even if I had missed it that the Bible is as you say it is.

6:104 "How have come to you, from your Lord, proofs (to open your eyes): if any will see, it will be for (the good of) his own soul; if any will be blind, it will be to his own (harm): I am not (here) to watch over your doings." When you have an honest assessment with yourself, you'll react less when people present you with what they consider not only abominations in the bible, but true transgressions against the God of Abraham !

This perhaps shows a difference in outlook and to Jews and Christians they don't look for proofs but do as Jeremiah said: Jeremiah 29:10-14 (NIV)

11. For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. 14. I will be found by you," ... "

Here again you just assume you are right, I need to do an honest assessment but you do not - this sounds like someone who is unsure and must bolster their faith by speaking loudly.

I am yet to see a true argument from you as far as the Quran is concerned. I think you fear opening it and reading it and having a true objective comparison. So you drown us in quotes and proverbs and what you deem logical, even if your logic is completely askew from the general populations baseline, and fail at the same time to subject the book you hold on to to save your dear life to that same litmus test!

What exactly is a true argument and so far all I have done is comment on the legitimacy of the kind of arguments for say supposed scientific miracles in the Qu'ran. The fact that I think most of them are just wishful thinking does not mean I think the Qu'ran is useless because I have yet to see one of these so called miracles that helps in any way to explain what a verse actually means. I have read the Qu'ran cover to cover a number of times and of course I can only do it in English and what objective comparison did you have in mind given that for me none is possible. As far as I know I have used very few quotations in this thread and what is written is generally my own work. If there is any drowning going on then you are the culprit as some of you postings are longer that all mine put together.

As far as logic goes I have tried to be as accurate and as clear as possible and indeed set out at the start of the thread by outlining what proof meant and some of the potholes in any kind of research - as far as I can recall no one queried (except a short comment from you) them or suggested they were in error. One final point - this thread is about various claims about the Qu'ran (as distinct from the Qu'ran itself) and if you wish to subject the Bible to various tests then another thread is needed.

[CosmicPathos]

Hugo said: But logically this MUST mean that any book without a discrepancy must be from Allah? Here we have what is called 'proof by definition' and if one allows that then I can prove almost anything about anything.


Reply: We need to define what we mean by discrepancy here. Yes, logically it MUST mean that any book, written over a period of 23 years within different contexts, different mental sates of the author, revealed verse by verse in presence of different companions etc, without any discrepancy must surely be a word from God or inspired by God. If I read any groundbreaking work from countless disciplines of human thought, ranging from experimental and objective sciences to subjective humanities, I have encountered at least one, no matter how minute, mistake in those works. Sometimes grammatical errors, sometimes misinformation and sometimes lack of concision in the argument. Hence, I yet have to see ANY book except Quran which has no discrepancy whatsoever in any form imaginable by man. From an unintentional grammatical error to a logically fallacious argument.

[Hugo]

How are jinn scientific or unscientific?

Because their existence cannot be established in any scientific manner that I know of.

Objective measures can and have been used and I refer you to post # 138

Post 138 is over 8,000 words long and I assume that you are referring to the bit that say "by me..". So please explain how those criteria are measurable, that whoever uses them they will get exactly the same answer for the Qu'ran or indeed any book?

.. can't think of anything worse of asking a non-question save for providing an equally vacuous reply to it!

This is a shocking answer - I asking you to show that your criteria are correct and for you its a non-question? Surely, the the whole point must be to get criteria that you can show are correct in some way. On this bases if you were testing reaction to a drug you would simply assume that whatever you thought up was ok?

We have discussed the contents of the book in brief, in my assessment you are not interested in what the book says but how to scrutinize its authenticity -- by all means you may bring content you wish to discuss to the stage... I have also noticed that you were very quick to dismiss contents in question about in the bible, if the point of this exercise is to establish biblical authority or usurp Quranic contents for those in the bible, then you yourself have failed to make a case for your good book!

This is an irrational comment, I simply pointed out that in most criteria for an authenticity list about the Qu'ran the idea of content or what it says is either absent or a minor subject. I try to follow the board rules and so here the subject of the Bible is not an issue in this thread. Whether the Bible is authentic, and it matters not a hoot whether I can make such a case because it obviously has no bearing in whether the Qu'ran is authentic or not. It would be like stupidly arguing that Ford is a good car therefore Honda is not. I don't recall bringing the Bible into this thread and it was you that did that.

[Hugo]

Hugo said: But logically this MUST mean that any book without a discrepancy must be from Allah? Here we have what is called 'proof by definition' and if one allows that then I can prove almost anything about anything.


Reply: We need to define what we mean by discrepancy here. Yes, logically it MUST mean that any book, written over a period of 23 years within different contexts, different mental sates of the author, revealed verse by verse in presence of different companions etc, without any discrepancy must surely be a word from God or inspired by God. If I read any groundbreaking work from countless disciplines of human thought, ranging from experimental and objective sciences to subjective humanities, I have encountered at least one, no matter how minute, mistake in those works. Sometimes grammatical errors, sometimes misinformation and sometimes lack of concision in the argument. Hence, I yet have to see ANY book except Quran which has no discrepancy whatsoever in any form imaginable by man. From an unintentional grammatical error to a logically fallacious argument.

I can see that you might think your argument is strong but there are a few issues.

1. Firstly, not all the verses were revealed in the presence of companions and if my memory serves me the companions never heard anything.

2. Secondly, and as Thomas Paine once said "Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, [so] it is a revelation only to that person. [It follows it is] hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe.

3. Thirdly, it assume that God exists and this is always the rock on which such arguments fail in a strictly logical world and faith is needed

4. Fourthly, it is still a definition, you have decided that if God speaks at all he does it like this and in Arabic.

5. You say it has no discrepancies but you must know there are plenty of books that say it does and even more websites. For example, I could quite logically argue that there are mistakes in the story of Joseph recorded in the Qu'ran and I know this because it differs from the source of that story found in the Bible. You might not agree but the fact remain discrepancies can be cited and cannot be resolved without recourse to divine revelation one way or the other and since we have no access to God in the sense we can do a check we are stuck.

I wind this post up by saying that in this case at least (and most others) I don't think it make any difference to doctrine so its of no real importance to understanding.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

BTW, I haven't been abusive to you-- you are very reactive!

Sorry to start at the end, but you are right here - you haven't written an insult in this entire post! Well done for holding yourself together. :thumbs_up

It isn't a mathematical formula czgibson. Everything of Islamic history is recorded to a T and there is no room for guesswork, if there were an oral transmission from a christian or a Jew then go ahead bring us his name and the dates, as well who translated the Grecian or Hebrew text to the prophet keeping in mind that (Johann Gutenberg) printing press wasn't available until the 1400's and have it be done in the unquestionable lyrical style of the Quran which so differs tremendously from the language of the hadith. that no Arab or none Arab was able to reproduce it (see above long post on the matter) that is one!

There's a bit at the beginning here that's relevant, but after that you're clearly responding to something other than the question I asked.

I don't know why you bring up a "mathematical formula".

The idea that "everything of Islamic history is recorded to a T" is interesting. Do any historians make that claim?

The point about oral transmission is not that I have the name and dates of someone who delivered it, merely that it's a possibility that cannot be discounted. It's certainly a more likely explanation than the divine one.

Yes, logically it MUST mean that any book, written over a period of 23 years within different contexts, different mental sates of the author, revealed verse by verse in presence of different companions etc, without any discrepancy must surely be a word from God or inspired by God.

Do you know how many books could qualify if this were true? At the moment I'm reading Finnegans Wake by James Joyce, and I would claim that it fits all the requirements you mention except the first - it took seventeen years to write. If he'd spent another six on it, would you accept it as the word of god?

Peace

[جوري]

It is NOT necessary to show plagiarism that we have the names of the person who did it. Anyone who compares objectively the Joseph story as found in the Bible and as found in the Qu'ran will conclude they are they same story and since the Biblical account is about 1,000 years older it must be the source. But here you stray into a fallacy because you seem to be asking me to prove "that the prophet couldn't have known" which of course is impossible because if it is true there would be no evidence so the question is an absurd one and unworthy of you. What we can do is show that the Prophet at least had, as one earlier post puts it '.. access to..": he was a merchant and travelled widely, he lived amongst Jewish and Christian communities, he lived on trade routes, he had as a wife a prominent Jewish woman, one of his servants was a Christian, etc etc and he speaks about the 'scriptures' so the weight of evidence favours that Prophet Mohammed did have access to Biblical knowledge.

It is very necessary when making an accusation to back it up with cold hard evidence and facts. Now, again, the style of the Quran in and of itself compared to the hadith (let alone previous scriptures) completely differs, for all 114 suras compared to the 9 volumes of sahih bukhari alone. Please don't appeal to my intellect. I am not going to dismiss systematic logic for your whims. I have already stated above, you have only two options either to account and prove what you have stated (surely the Jews of Arabia or else where) were there to take the challenge of the Quran (see previous post on attempts modern and old) of those living in the region and outside and all have collectively failed. (do you read anything that is written or linked here so we are not repeating ourselves with every subsequent post?) your failure to acknowledge known history, and an appeal to my emotionality on any level isn't going to exempt you from doing some home work. Either prove your point or concede to the obvious!

Well that is fine but its simply your experience and the arrogance comes because you imply that everyone else is somewhat lacking - go and look at the things you say if you feel I am unkind here. No I have not studied the Qu'ran in a formal setting but I have studied it. But if I use your kind of logic I conclude that it has nothing to say but at least I am aware that that is only my opinion. Just for the record, what was your formal setting for studying the Bible so we get a context? You see you give yourself away all the time, I come with heresy and impure motive or vision but you of course do not - so who has the blinkers on?

A 'formal setting' includes but not limited to having to take a religion course three times a week in a christian school in the choice language of its adherents.. have you done the same with the Quran? Take lectures, Q&A and get tested on a two weekly basis just on the lowest common denominator. You prove yourself unlearned in the Quran, it really isn't my doing save to point out the obvious--

Can you see that that I can say also that YOUR religion is neither satisfactory to my heart or mind that that it is full of fable and nonsense about bridges into hell or Jinns or sofas in heaven? Until you can at least appreciate that others can think differentially to you then your mind is closed and you cannot ever appreciate what is good when you find it unless it matches up with your world view and that is a sad and hopeless stance. Incidentally, I note many times you talk about a 'self-immolating' good but I cannot work out what you are talking about? I presume you refer to Jesus and he did not commit suicide and was not burned.

How you feel about my religion is inconsequential. Jinn isn't what Islam is about, neither the high sofas (you can live a perfectly pious life not centered around either theme/ and not be punished for failure to focus on either).
God consummating with a woman and dying on the cross is in fact the very fulcrum upon which your beliefs-- You have given up every last tenet deeming them for show to accept one anticlimactic moment when god allegedly died for your sins. Self-immolating is pretty self explanatory?.. do you deny that your god died after praying to himself not to be forsaken, yet went ahead and self-immolated the next day? how can a promise broken to self, reconcile with a promise to all mankind? Is this middle eastern god (who probably covered his head) worthy of trust?

You say you had three years of Bible study but here you do not understand the basics and I have no idea what you mean by 'eat my sins'. The Christian doctrine is that God as a gift gives us his righteousness and that is enabled through faith in the work of Jesus. If you want to think about that then just ask yourself how a holy and just God can forgive sins - a judge who sets the guilty free would be a wicked judge would he not so how does it work in Islam? (this may be for another thread)

Eating your sins is removing 'god as a self-immolating gift' of florid words indeed, your judge not only sets the wicked free, he seems to do it for the absurd reason of merely having believed not even in the work he did but that very moment when he died on the cross. So they give up most of his commandments (see previous discussion on the matter) for the moment where we are asked to give up all logical understanding even of math and concede that is that is all but need to be done that one is allowed entry to the pearly gates. This same god is somehow meant for all mankind yet neglectful of those do in fact live righteous lives and do righteous deeds as per all his previous commandments for not willing to accept that he was born, suckled, da*ned the earth and died and chose ineffectual apostles and then abrogated his commandments through his nemesis.. (you want to talk logic?)

God doesn't set the wicked free for even Muslims who are sinners aren't exempt from hell for the mere fact of being Muslims. Ones prayer and fast might not be accepted if there were no sincerity!

This is just ramblings and not perhaps part of this thread. The central tenet of the Bible is that God wants to redeem us and the whole of history is about just that. What central tenet do you have that can say more than that?

The Five pillars of Islam are its major tenets, and all the other ones are listed all through out the Quran. I'll let the words of a recent convert say it best with:

This Guidance found in the Holy Qur'an and the recorded words and deeds of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace, is not only for foreign races in some far-away corner of the East, centuries ago. Here are to be found the solutions to all economic, social, moral and political problems which face us right here in the West today.
Furthermore, Islam is not cold, remote and impersonal. Muslims have complete faith in a very personal God who not only created, sustains and rules the universe but also loves and deeply cares about the fate of each of us. The Holy Qur'an tells us that God is nearer to every one of us than our jugular veins! Since the Holy Qur'an is divine revelation, it cannot and will never be changed. Because it is perfect, it cannot be improved, revised or reformed. Since Muhammad, peace be upon whom, is the final Prophet, his guidance can never be superseded by any other. The Qur'an and Sunnah are addressed to all peoples, in every country of the West as
well as the East. Since it is relevant for all times, in all places, it can never become obsolete or out-of-date.

http://www.theikhlaas.com/resources/...%20Parents.pdf

I am puzzled as I don't recall much in the way of describing the Bible. Of course I like everyone else deal with things emotionally, one cannot evaluate anything in any other way. When I see this I begin to understand why you place such weight in criteria because you think it logical. For example, you say something is lyrical but it is not logic that tells you that is it? You say that a book, any book moves you deeply, but that is not logical is it? What you fail to see is that we might feel that our set of criteria is quite logically derived but when we evaluate each one its our emotional part that predominates. You defence mechanism is that you mistakenly believe that YOU are always quite logical.

This is gibberish, but it is fine.. if you take things on emotionality then you wouldn't mind praying to Ganesha the way you do to Jesus.. I mean why a middle eastern god instead of an indian one? if no logic is involved then I don't see a point--
you dance around and come to the point, thought I quote you articles and discuss the Quran at length, how can I conclude anything other than you allaying your own fears when discussing your religion, of which no two books agree on the same content to make the leap of whether the Quran rhyming is a big deal or not? I don't think your mind can wrap itself around the concept of a book defying imitation; matchless for that is a living miracle to people.. whether Jesus even existed or not there is no recorded history save for the bible and two very questionable historical accounts of his existence. We can't evaluate the miracles of Jesus let alone make the leap that he is divine, and yet we have here an existing miracle and a challenge for all the ages and you want to discuss emotionality and logic?

If you are unsatisfied for personal reasons, that is your prerogative but don't impose garbled nonsense that you dream with each subsequent post as the new criteria for what one should consider miraculous or the working of hazy scribes!

So your position is that unless its logical in your eyes it must be false. So are there really sofas in heaven on which the faithful will lie for eternity, is there really a bridge which we have to cross, did some men really stay in a cave for 300 years, did the Prophet have his heart removed and washed in snow etc etc - do you get the point about faith? I wonder why you can only quote from the more lurid history that the Bible records - why not just as an exercise show me that 1 Corinthians 13 is of no value whatever? For once be even handed.

Indeed the contents of a book that is deemed from God shouldn't be lurid..

Let's see if the matter of the men in the cave follows a logical pattern:





9 [AND SINCE the life of this world is but a test,]6 dost thou [really] think that [the parable of] the Men of the Cave and of [their devotion to] the scriptures could be deemed more wondrous than any [other] of Our messages?7

10 When those youths took refuge in the cave, they prayed: "O our Sustainer! Bestow on us grace from Thyself, and endow us, whatever our [outward] condition, with consciousness of what is right!"8

11 And thereupon We veiled their ears in the cave9 for many a year,

12 and then We awakened them:10 [and We did all this] so that We might mark out [to the world]11 which of the two points of view showed a better comprehension of the time-span during which they had remained in this state.12

13 [And now] We shall truly relate to thee their story:13 Behold, they were young men who had attained to faith in their Sustainer: and [so] We deepened their consciousness of the right way14

14 and endowed their hearts with strength, so that they stood up15 and said [to one another]: "Our Sustainer is the Sustainer of the heavens and the earth. Never shall we invoke any deity other than Him: [if we did,] we should indeed have uttered an enormity!

15 These people of ours have taken to worshipping [other] deities instead of Him, without being able to16 adduce any reasonable evidence in support of their beliefs;17 and who could be more wicked than he who invents a lie about God?18

16 Hence, now that you have withdrawn from them and from all that they worship instead of God, take refuge in that cave: God will spread His grace over you, and will endow you - whatever your [outward] condition - with all that your souls may need!"19

17 And [for many a year] thou might have seen the sun, on its rising, incline away from their cave on the right, and, on its setting, turn aside from them on the left, while they lived on in that spacious chamber,20 [bearing witness to] this of God's messages: He whom God guides, he alone has found the right way; whereas for him whom He lets go astray thou canst never find any protector who would point out the, right way.

18 And thou wouldst have thought that they were awake, whereas they lay asleep. And We caused them, to turn over repeatedly, now to the right, now to the left; and their dog [lay] on the threshold, its forepaws outstretched. Hadst thou come upon them [unprepared], thou wouldst surely have turned away from them in flight, and wouldst surely have been filled with awe of them.21

19 And so, [in the course of time,] We awakened them;22 and they began to ask one another [as to what had happened to them].23 One of them asked: "How long have you remained thus?" [The others] answered: "We have remained thus a day, or part of a day."24 Said they [who were endowed with deeper insight]: "Your Sustainer knows best how long you have thus remained.25 Let, then, one of you go with these silver coins to the town, and let him find out what food is purest there, and bring you thereof [some] provisions. But let him behave with great care and by no means make anyone aware of you:

20 for, behold, if they should come to know of you, they might stone you to death or force you back to their faith - in which case you would never attain to any good!"26

21 AND IN THIS way27 have We drawn [people's] attention to their story,28 so that they might know - whenever they debate among themselves as to what happened to those [Men of the Cave]29 - that God's promise [of resurrection] is true, and that there can be no doubt as to [the coming of] the Last Hour. And so, some [people] said: "Erect a building in their memory;30 God knows best what happened to them." Said they whose opinion prevailed in the end: "Indeed, we must surely raise a house of worship in their memory!"

22 [And in times to come] some will say,31 "[They were] three, the fourth of them being their dog," while others will say, "Five, with their dog as the sixth of them" - idly guessing at something of which they can have no knowledge - and [so on, until] some will say, "[They were] seven, the eighth of them being their dog." Say: "My Sustainer knows best how may they were. None but a few have any [real] knowledge of them. Hence, do not argue about them otherwise than by way of an obvious argument,32 and do not ask any of those [storytellers] to enlighten thee about them."

We see a few things accomplished by these verses, here firstly the very obvious sign that there are 9 extra lunar years in 300 solar years that people aren't aware of. (and that is actually quite a miracle given our dear departed member (Barney) couldn't understand the math behind it modern day.
2- the story is set as an allegory of death and resurrection and of the relativity of "time" as manifested in man's consciousness.
3- that the time spent in the cave and the number of men in the cave isn't the objective of the verse (though miraculous in its own right) as we are told in the verses (see above) not argue other than by way of an obvious argument and glean the proper moral, that those who live righteous lives are rewarded, and surely as we perish for an unknown period of time that we are resurrected anew to eternal life and that is the divine promise.

That to me is God answering every question that needs to be answered in a few short verses.


The prophet's heart being moved and washed isn't in the Quran, I challenge you to show me the verse so stating.. Don't confuse hadith with Quran and make them both an object of comparison with your bible. This just shows me that you are unable to do quality research.

further, I don't see why having sofas (though the term sofa isn't used in the Quran/ rather reclining on high thrones) is a problem of belief or disbelief, science or none science -- it is a description of the hereafter, what is classified as ''ghyeb'' Perhaps you might want to point out what the problem you have with that?

Again, jinn and high 'sofas' aren't the focus of Islam as a religion (see previous replies on the matter)
I haven't encountered anything lurid in the Quran, least of which as compares to the bible-- a book allegedly about god (from god?) and the men he sent!

I don't think I said the Qu'ran was plagiarised, the issue is not the Qu'ran as such but your claim that Prophet Mohammed could have had no access to Biblical stories and there is a very big difference. Here you express opinion, that Islam is the true religion as if the fact that you state it makes it true. Bit puzzled though by the line "always has been .." because there is no sign or mention of Islam in any civilization before the 6th century.

There is no account to mention that Abraham is a Jew or that those surrounding Jesus are christians .. Islam is to submit to God by definition and thus all those who followed the monotheistic path are so considered.. even to be called a yehudi (mann itaba3 alhouda) or a hebrew (al3abreen) for having crossed the red sea.. are terms used to describe the people not the path they follow. You want to get lost in semantics, it is your prerogative, and again if you say the prophet had access to Jewish/christian stories then prove it.. I am giving you ample room to go about this systematically not jump back and forth between content and history.. choose a path and stick with it until you clarify your points. I think any Jew or Christian at the time would have had a field trip taking claim for the noble Quran given how much they have conspired to kill the prophet, and going to their elders to see how they can dismiss this message (for which when they couldn't they claimed him a spellbinder/magician) You claim you have read the Quran cover to cover (and that I the arrogant have no knowledge of it) that is fine.. do you know the name of the man and his status in querysh the one to whom the verses in suret Al'modathir (74) are addressing?

18 Behold, [when Our messages are conveyed to one who is bent on denying the truth,] he reflects and meditates [as to how to disprove them] -

19 and thus he destroys himself,9 the way he meditates:

20 yea, he destroys himself, the way he meditates!

21 and then he looks [around for new arguments],

22 and then he frowns and glares,10

23 and in the end he turns his back [on Our message], and glories in his arrogance,

24 and says, "All this is mere spellbinding eloquence handed down [from olden times]!12

25 This is nothing but the word of mortal man!"


The eloquent elders of the olden days are no different from you, are they?

You must stop pontificating. I have personally read the Bible about 40 times cover to cover to say nothing of the time spend in detailed study, in church itself, reading commentaries etc. Only last week I was at a public lecture at a prestigious University where a double Phd spoke about cosmology and Biblical faith so I think he might have noticed even if I had missed it that the Bible is as you say it is.

Reading the bible 40 times and listening to a lecture doesn't make the bible any more weighty or truthful.. There are lectures and books going on in atheist halls where self-congratulating men believe they too have given solid lectures that are proven true. (why do you mention something so ridiculous) as if some authority on the matter when you haven't even covered content to receive applause? .. the early interpretation of the bible should be the most correct? for they were closer to the men of old who allegedly had first hand experience with Jesus as he viewed the world. And I think history tells a different account that any excessively ornamented lectures of the 21st c. (and their clandestine content whatever they maybe) As for pontification, I think that is a good reflection you one who not only claims to have read the Quran (yet can't gauge it in an intelligent fashion, but goes so far to accuse me of not being learned of its contents.

This perhaps shows a difference in outlook and to Jews and Christians they don't look for proofs but do as Jeremiah said: Jeremiah 29:10-14 (NIV)

11. For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. 14. I will be found by you," ... "

Here again you just assume you are right, I need to do an honest assessment but you do not - this sounds like someone who is unsure and must bolster their faith by speaking loudly.

That is nice..What am I to glean from this pearl?

What exactly is a true argument and so far all I have done is comment on the legitimacy of the kind of arguments for say supposed scientific miracles in the Qu'ran. The fact that I think most of them are just wishful thinking does not mean I think the Qu'ran is useless because I have yet to see one of these so called miracles that helps in any way to explain what a verse actually means. I have read the Qu'ran cover to cover a number of times and of course I can only do it in English and what objective comparison did you have in mind given that for me none is possible. As far as I know I have used very few quotations in this thread and what is written is generally my own work. If there is any drowning going on then you are the culprit as some of you postings are longer that all mine put together.

For someone who has read it cover to cover, you often come empty, firstly you quote incorrectly to which I previously corrected you and you were kind to send me a 'Note' on the matter via PM.
2- you miss the meaning of verses, as noted above with sure al-kahf for surely the number of years spent in the cave isn't the moral of the story!
3-you intermingle Quran with hadith to hone in on a point which you continuously fail to elucidate
4- The Quran is a book of signs not of science and many scientists have subjected it to the test and found nothing in it to counter known science.. try to contrast that with the bible!

As far as logic goes I have tried to be as accurate and as clear as possible and indeed set out at the start of the thread by outlining what proof meant and some of the potholes in any kind of research - as far as I can recall no one queried (except a short comment from you) them or suggested they were in error. One final point - this thread is about various claims about the Qu'ran (as distinct from the Qu'ran itself) and if you wish to subject the Bible to various tests then another thread is needed.

You can't set the same criteria meant for drug safety to breast cancer trial on BRCA2 genes. You can't set the criteria for long term effects of the Hiroshima, Nagasaki disasters to effects of maternal smoking during pregnancy!

Just because you know a thing about research doesn't mean it is one size fits all or that you can come here and dazzle the reader with your all too frequent ostentatious style to drown them in irrelevant jargon.
else we wouldn't have different style trials like retrospective cohort study, Randomized controlled trials, Nested case-control study, prospective cohort study, Anecdotal Reports, Case Series, Cross-Over Trial, Multiple Baseline Study etc etc.. surely you don't need me to list everyone in existence to make a point (but you can see that I will point out your folly when the time comes) this section is entitled comparative religion , it isn't a course in stats and epidemiology-- Do refrain from insulting everyone's intelligence including your own and setting up criteria that you HUGO deem objective and should be used books of history or theology.
the criteria for testing is already set, it is clear that anyone who has some semblance of common sense and a desire for honest research can undertake!


I ask that for your next post, that you not fill it with banalities that describe your own psyche in such an incriminating manner especially if they have been addressed repeatedly not only in this thread but in various others!..
all the best

[جوري]

Greetings,


Sorry to start at the end, but you are right here - you haven't written an insult in this entire post! Well done for holding yourself together. :thumbs_up

I should applaud you as well, since you are always an active participant who is often times emotionally labile!

There's a bit at the beginning here that's relevant, but after that you're clearly responding to something other than the question I asked.

I don't know why you bring up a "mathematical formula".

Simply because the more variables you add to the formula the more complicated it becomes (for you) of course-- since the burden of proof is on the one who theorizes to prove his theories and not peddle in hearsay information!

The idea that "everything of Islamic history is recorded to a T" is interesting. Do any historians make that claim?

Certainly the magnitude of work from that time speaks volume, if historians can claim we have wiped out banu quryza using Islamic sources as a primary source, then by the same token, they can find the man or men who have dictated the Quran to the prophet in such an unparalleled style!

The point about oral transmission is not that I have the name and dates of someone who delivered it, merely that it's a possibility that cannot be discounted. It's certainly a more likely explanation than the divine one.

If it were a possibility then surely whomever dictated it would want to take credit for it, if nothing else to counter the challenge of the Quran.

Do you know how many books could qualify if this were true? At the moment I'm reading Finnegans Wake by James Joyce, and I would claim that it fits all the requirements you mention except the first - it took seventeen years to write. If he'd spent another six on it, would you accept it as the word of god?

according to wiki, the above book ''attempts to recreate the experience of sleep and dreams'' the author didn't claim it was from god and the content has nothing to do with religion.. furthermore, if the language is so difficult that only theologians or linguists are able to understand it, it must be set for a select few and not a message for all mankind. You'll forgive me but your analogy is absurd.. given that this is the second time you mention this book, I'll have to assume it was a major achievement for which you are proud and I congratulate you, but it doesn't fit with our topic here.

we have aside from the Quran compendiums of hadith, if the issue here is the number of years which it isn't... amongst other things it is how the verses were revealed and where they fit into a particular sura (see previous example)

Peace

all the best

[جوري]

I can see that you might think your argument is strong but there are a few issues.

1. Firstly, not all the verses were revealed in the presence of companions and if my memory serves me the companions never heard anything.

?

2. Secondly, and as Thomas Paine once said "Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, [so] it is a revelation only to that person. [It follows it is] hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe.

Except in this case that which has been revealed unto Mohammed (P) isn't at variance with the official or orthodox position on God.. in fact that is the story of Jesus being god is the one at odds with all the rest!.. so you can see where people would choose Islam as being in concert with the message of Abraham than say the account of before Abraham I am.. but I do agree with the notion that no one is obliged to believe as so tells us the Quran:

18: 29 And say: "The truth [has now come] from your Sustainer: let, then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it.

Millenniums later people still pick the Quran and in spite of all the miasma surrounding it and Islam, still choose to become Muslim.. there must be more to its content than mere heresy!

3. Thirdly, it assume that God exists and this is always the rock on which such arguments fail in a strictly logical world and faith is needed

The same means one uses to arrive to the conclusion of no God are the same ones one assumes to the conclusion that there is a god.. at some point you'll run out of explanation.. you can concede to rocks sprouting wings and then lungs, or as dawkin so brightly put it:
''Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind'' whether an atheist or a theist some level of faith in something is placed.. I agree with that, what is the problem, or rather, what is the point?

4. Fourthly, it is still a definition, you have decided that if God speaks at all he does it like this and in Arabic.

Yes, so? That has already covered before.. I hate to break it to you, but the man you assume is god is a middle easterner who spoke Aramaic and is (from west Asia).. Semitic languages are the most ancient languages and first recorded of which Arabic was the most evolved. (covered previously) see comments there and post below on the miracles of prophets!

5. You say it has no discrepancies but you must know there are plenty of books that say it does and even more websites. For example, I could quite logically argue that there are mistakes in the story of Joseph recorded in the Qu'ran and I know this because it differs from the source of that story found in the Bible. You might not agree but the fact remain discrepancies can be cited and cannot be resolved without recourse to divine revelation one way or the other and since we have no access to God in the sense we can do a check we are stuck.

In such a case which book makes more sense will exonerate itself from a discrepancy as well and acquit its messengers from the wrong doing attributed to them!

I wind this post up by saying that in this case at least (and most others) I don't think it make any difference to doctrine so its of no real importance to understanding.

Ok, Thank you

have a great evening

[CosmicPathos]

1. Firstly, not all the verses were revealed in the presence of companions and if my memory serves me the companions never heard anything.

All verses were heard by the companions whether in real-time or not. You are wrong. There would be some companions present whenever a verse would be revealed.

2. Secondly, and as Thomas Paine once said "Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, [so] it is a revelation only to that person. [It follows it is] hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe.

Obliged to believe that it is a revelation? If Quran assumed so then why would it constantly present an argument for the divine nature of its revelation? Quran never assumed that the listeners would have to automatically assume that since Muhammad pbuh is saying it is revelation, it has to be a revelation. However, the listeners were in ambiguity in regards to the nature of the revelation. They knew it is not humanly in origin. Some ascribed it to magic, others to the devil. Thomas Paine's argument has no relevance here as Quran tries to dispel the very conclusion Thomas is reaching at. That is to remove the doubt that it is merely an hearsay. And Quran uses the very nature of its existence to remove that doubt. The literary miracle among others.

3. Thirdly, it assume that God exists and this is always the rock on which such arguments fail in a strictly logical world and faith is needed.

You do not have to assume that God exists. Just explain a material cause of the nature of Quranic revelation without invoking the existence of God or something supernatural. Let's see if you can come up with something. And ooh, please no mention of epileptic attacks or hallucinations. Ordered artistic literature does not come out of such incidences in an extremely consistent fashion of an extensive period of 23 years.

4. Fourthly, it is still a definition, you have decided that if God speaks at all he does it like this and in Arabic.

If it can be established that it is indeed a non-humanly and a supernatural revelation then we have very few options left from which God is one.

5. You say it has no discrepancies but you must know there are plenty of books that say it does and even more websites. For example, I could quite logically argue that there are mistakes in the story of Joseph recorded in the Qu'ran and I know this because it differs from the source of that story found in the Bible. You might not agree but the fact remain discrepancies can be cited and cannot be resolved without recourse to divine revelation one way or the other and since we have no access to God in the sense we can do a check we are stuck.

The presence of "plenty" of books and "even more" websites trying to show "apparent" discrepancies does not mean that there really are discrepancies. Parroting a certain position does not make it true or right.

You are assuming that the "source of that story" in the Bible is more accurate? How do you know that Bible did not "copy" that from a now non-existent book? Assuming that bible is the source and then comparing with Quran is tantamount to walking on egg shells. You are also assuming that the authors of Joseph's story in the Bible were actually in contact with Joseph and hence later wrote his stories. Maybe but maybe not? Could be that they were just legends of some remotely historical person? I could argue that later revisions of many man-made books try to correct the errors in previous versions of their books. It could be that Quran actually corrects the inaccurately narrated version of the story in the Bible. The only difference is that its not man-made by Divine. Possibilities abound, my relative in humanity. Of course I am assuming that you already believe in God who inspired/revealed OT/NT to the sages and the pious men.

[جوري]

An Addendum to my previous post:

Allah swt in his most wisdom, sent a message to a particular people that was to supersede what was common for that time.. For instance with moses (p) he gave him the ability to perform miracles, since Egypt was filled with magic at the time, they dismissed it as more magic, however the magicians of Egypt realized that it wasn't magic:

32 Thereupon [Moses] threw down his staff - and lo! it was a serpent, plainly visible;

33 and he drew forth his hand - and lo! it appeared [shining] white the heholders.19

34 Said [Pharaoh] unto the great ones around him "Verily, this is indeed a sorcerer of great knowledge

35 who wants to drive you out of your land by his sorcery.20 What, then, do you advise?"

36 They answered: "Let him and his brother wait a while, and send unto all cities heralds

37 who shall assemble before thee all sorcerers of great knowledge."

38 And so the sorcerers were assembled at a set time on a certain day,

39 and the people were asked: "Are you all present, 40 so that we might follow [in the footsteps of] the sorcerers if it is they who prevail?" 21

41 Now when the sorcerers came, they said unto Pharaoh: "Verily, we ought to have a great reward if it is we who prevail."22

42 Answered he: "Yea-and, verily, in that case you shall be among those who are near unto me."

43 [And] Moses said unto them: "Throw whatever you are going to throw!"

44 Thereupon they threw their [magic] ropes and their staffs, and said: "By Pharaoh's might, behold, it is we indeed who have prevailed!"23

45 [But] then Moses threw his staff-and lo! it swallowed up all their deceptions.24

46 And down fell the sorcerers, prostrating them-selves in adoration,

47 [and] exclaimed: "We have come to believe in the Sustainer of all the worlds,

48 the Sustainer of Moses and Aaron!"
___________________________________

Jesus (p) came at a time when folks were interested in medicine, and healing, and as such he healed by the leave of Allah swt (such is his miracle which they misconstrued for godhood) :

49 and [will make him] an apostle unto the children of Israel."36 "I HAVE COME unto you with a message from your Sustainer. I shall create for you out of clay, as it were, the shape of [your] destiny, and then breathe into it, so that it might become [your] destiny by God's leave:37 and I shall heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead back to life by God's leave:38 and I shall let you know what you may eat and what you should store up in your houses.39 Behold, in all this there is indeed a message for you, if you are [truly] believers.


5:110 110 Lo!131 God will say: "O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember the blessings which I bestowed upon thee and thy mother - how I strengthened thee with holy inspiration,132 so that thou couldst speak unto men in thy cradle, and as a grown man; and how I imparted unto thee revelation and wisdom, including the Torah and the Gospel;133 and how by My leave thou didst create out of clay, as it were, the shape of [thy followers'] destiny, and then didst breathe into it, so that it might become, by My leave, [their] destiny;134 and how thou didst heal the blind and the leper by My leave, and how thou didst raise the dead by My leave;135 and how I prevented the children of Israel from harming thee when thou camest unto them with all evidence of the truth, and [when] those of them who were bent on denying the truth were saying 'This is clearly nothing but deception!'"

_________________________________________
Prophet Mohammed's (p) miracle, was the gift of Quran.. for language was the interest of the people of Arabia:

12:2 We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur-an, in order that ye may learn wisdom

13:37 Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority in Arabic. Wert thou to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither protector nor defender against Allah.


16:103 We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.



20:113 Thus have We sent this down - an Arabic Qur-an and explained therein in detail some of the warnings, in order that they may fear Allah, or that it may cause their remembrance (of Him).



26:195 In the perspicuous Arabic tongue.


39:28 It is) a Qur-an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein): in order that they may guard against Evil.

41:44 Had We sent this as a Qur-an (in a language) other than Arabic, they would have said: "Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a Book) not in Arabic? And (a Messenger) an Arab?" Say: "It is a guide and a healing to those who believe; and for those who believe not, there is a deafness in their ears, and it is blindness in their (eyes): they are (as it were) being called from a place far distant!"



________________________________________________


and I end on another verse:


18: 54 THUS, INDEED, have We given in this Qur'an many facets to every kind of lesson [designed] for [the benefit of] mankind.60 However, man is, above all else, always given to contention:

So you'll forgive me when I say, No I don't think you have read the Quran cover to cover..

all the best!

[Muhammad]

Greetings Hugo,

This is not entirely true because always we have to include the concept of God and revelation and that is outside science. We can of course talk about it grammar which has rules or lyricism which is in the ear of the listener but that is all.

While the concept of God and revelation is not regarded as part of science, surely it is still possible to take a scientific approach to things, or else you wouldn't have asked the scientific question about a theory being able to be falsified.

But logically this MUST mean that any book without a discrepancy must be from Allah? Here we have what is called 'proof by definition' and if one allows that then I can prove almost anything about anything.

No, not necessarily. We are talking about the Qur'an here, as not many other books, if any, claim to be the Words of God Himself, let alone claim to have no discrepancy.

But any book worth its salt will give references so that one can if you wish check it out or go for a deeper understanding so its not a surprising attitude and Dr Miller is seeing a miracle at every twist and turn

References are quite different in that they are a source of the information. The way I understood what Dr Miller was saying was more like testing whether the knowledge contained in the Qur'an is true by asking the people of the previous scriptures. It could also be more general than that. But taking the following verse as an example,

So if you are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, then ask those who are reading the Book before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it). [Yunus: 94]

The truth of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is attested to in previous books, thus people could investigate this to confirm the truthfulness of Muhammad's (peace and blessings of Allaah) claim. So I guess the main point Dr Miller is making is that it doesn't make sense for an illiterate man speaking about things he had no training in to freely encourage his people to investigate further and verify his words as being the truth. Neither did he have teachings from Christians/Jews about the previous nations nor did he have any knowledge of science, so it would have been enough of a feat to get it right by his own accord let alone tell people to check it up if they were doubtful.

But again this is just a definition, no more than a definition. It might be a reasonable one it might not no one can say with certainty

Definitions aside, it still is a clear challenge that if you think the Qur'an is not the Words of Allaah, then produce something like it. You did ask, 'What does the theory imply which, if false, would show the whole theory to be false?' And this goes back to the above point - that the fact that the Qur'an itself claims to be flawless and inimitable is quite astounding for a book attributed to an illiterate man whose occupation was herding sheep.

Here we see the central dilemma and Miller's circular argument that is in my view destroyed by a line from Socrates: Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy.

I'm sorry but I didn't see the link here, perhaps you can elaborate a little bit.

Peace.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I should applaud you as well, since you are always an active participant who is often times emotionally labile!

Well, thank you. Isn't it nice to be discussing things in a civilised way?

Simply because the more variables you add to the formula the more complicated it becomes (for you) of course-- since the burden of proof is on the one who theorizes to prove his theories and not peddle in hearsay information!

I'm still not sure of the relevance of your mention of "a mathematical formula", or this business of proof that you now mention. The evidence is in the text itself. Just as Shakespeare's texts show that he was familiar with Ovid's Metamorphoses; we don't know when he read it, or who gave it to him, but the evidence that he did is in his writings.

Certainly the magnitude of work from that time speaks volume, if historians can claim we have wiped out banu quryza using Islamic sources as a primary source, then by the same token, they can find the man or men who have dictated the Quran to the prophet in such an unparalleled style!

So because there is historical evidence for one event, there must be historical evidence for all events in the Prophet's (pbuh) life? Is that what you're saying?

If it were a possibility then surely whomever dictated it would want to take credit for it, if nothing else to counter the challenge of the Quran.

Why is this necessarily true?

according to wiki, the above book ''attempts to recreate the experience of sleep and dreams'' the author didn't claim it was from god and the content has nothing to do with religion.. furthermore, if the language is so difficult that only theologians or linguists are able to understand it, it must be set for a select few and not a message for all mankind. You'll forgive me but your analogy is absurd.. given that this is the second time you mention this book, I'll have to assume it was a major achievement for which you are proud and I congratulate you, but it doesn't fit with our topic here.

I'm talking about the criteria given by Wa7abiScientist. Read what he wrote again and then tell me why Finnegans Wake wouldn't fit them. I only mention it again because it's taking me so long to read the thing! I don't deserve any congratulations for admiring James Joyce.

Peace

[Hugo]

I am adding this post a second time as I missed out item 7 and my thanks go to skye and czgibson for a post (shown below) which brought my omission to mind.

Having looked through these postings there is almost nowhere a serious attempt at proof so I thought I might post some things to think about if you are serious about the idea of proof. The ideas I give here are common in all kinds of research and can unquestionable be weaknesses of huge significance. Here I use the terms typical to the scientific community but they are of course not necessarily universal.

1. Cherry Picking - this occurs when you are selective or very selective about the data so you only choose examples that support your particular case or stance. I would feel almost 100% certain that any example you give here about scientific claims in the Qu'ran were copied from a website - in simple terms you did not do any research of your own, you took a short cut instead.

2. Torturing the Data - "torture the data and it will confess to anything", as they say at Guantanamo Bay. Once you get fixed in you brain that the Qu'ran contains scientific miracles then you start seeing them everywhere; every line, every word, - the Qu'ran mentions thunder in the heavens and it becomes the Big Bang, the Qu'ran mentions storms at sea it must be a miracle because Prophet Mohammed was a desert dweller etc

The fact seems to be, and I mean no disrespect, that if you are a Muslim and someone comes along with a claim of the sort we have been talking about you will automatically believe it - or do you subject it to searching test and trials; only you know the truth about your attitude.

3. Methodology - nowhere (well I have not found one so far) can you find a description of the methodology, the research method, the research plan used to extract these claims from the data (the Qu'ran). Be honest, would you trust a research study outcome if the study owners refused to tell you how they got their results? There are ways of assessing methodologies - for example, in medical research there are the so called Jadad scores

4. Authority - are you taken in by claims that the people who generate a claim are experts, well qualified so it must be right? Now of course we want to check on credentials but if we simply rely on those you will be making a big mistake. Sadly, the literature in almost every discipline it littered with well-qualified charlatans. By all means check on qualifications but don't fall into the trap of thinking that is enough for a result to be correct.

5. Journals and Review Sites - I don't know the answer to this but so far I have not found a single reputable journal that has published a definitive study into these kinds of supposed Qu'ranic miracles. If there are such articles I would be more than happy to read them. Since I used a medical example above, what I would like to see is a review site such as the Cohrane Collaboration.

6. Interpretation - in research it is often said that getting the data is easy, precessing its is hard and interpreting is where we give up and lie down in a dark room and hope the problem will go away. Finding meaning is always going to be hard work because the results may not be all that clear, they may be far too clear which should always make you think you have made a mistake (some thing are just too good to be true), if you look at any set of data long enough you will find patterns, it is all too easy to be biased or lazy and look for what we want to see - so finding meaning means you need to be really knowledgeable in your area and you have to be absolutely honest. Be very wary of statistics and always get an expert to help you decide what stats you want and how to make sense of them - sadly this is often not done.

Richard Feynman, undoubtedly one of the finest brains in the world started a lecture with a very salutatory story. If you cannot understand the point he is making here with respect to this thread and more generally to research then you really do need to do a lot of reading and thinking.

You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the licence plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of licence plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing....

7. Over or Inappropriate Generalizations - this is just another way of making sure you understand the notion of not arguing from the particular to the Universal. That is you get one result and conclude it now applies everywhere and sadly it usually occurs when you are desperate to prove your point at any cost. A good example was created in this thread by skye and czgibson.

Skye - Certainly the magnitude of work from that time speaks volume, if historians can claim we have wiped out banu quryza using Islamic primary sources, then by the same token, they can find the man or men who have dictated the Quran to the prophet in such an unparalleled style!

Czgibson - So because there is historical evidence for one event, there must be historical evidence for all events in the Prophet's (pbuh) life? Is that what you're saying?

To give a more mundane example, this faulty logic would lead to you say after research: Ford cars have good brakes, therefore Honda cars must also have good brakes - this might be true but it does not logically follow. follow.

[جوري]

Greetings,


Well, thank you. Isn't it nice to be discussing things in a civilised way?

A question you should equally ask yourself?

I'm still not sure of the relevance of your mention of "a mathematical formula", or this business of proof that you now mention. The evidence is in the text itself. Just as Shakespeare's texts show that he was familiar with Ovid's Metamorphoses; we don't know when he read it, or who gave it to him, but the evidence that he did is in his writings.

I have explained the relevance.. If you didn't get the punch line the first time around, it isn't fun to explain it. ( I have gone extensively over the significance Quranic texts in the previous posts/you have chosen to look past all that I have written) I can't be made to labor re-writing simply because you dismissed parts you have no answer for!

So because there is historical evidence for one event, there must be historical evidence for all events in the Prophet's (pbuh) life? Is that what you're saying?

see:

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1258915


amongst others-- really it isn't that difficult to go back a page and read!

Why is this necessarily true?

For the same reasons you are doing it now!

I'm talking about the criteria given by Wa7abiScientist. Read what he wrote again and then tell me why Finnegans Wake wouldn't fit them. I only mention it again because it's taking me so long to read the thing! I don't deserve any congratulations for admiring James Joyce.

Peace

I haven't read wa7abi's post I don't see the relevance to it to what I have written or posted? (my previous comment about mathematical formula fits well here too) Don't add outside variables to the formula, try to focus on the person you are addressing instead of pulling everything out of the hat.

The period of time in which the Quran was revealed wasn't the significance if you'll read all that I have wrote on the matter!..

all the best

[czgibson]

Greetings,

A question you should equally ask yourself?

What a shame you've decided to close down the discussion now by going into irrelevant mode. It was pleasant while it lasted.

I have explained the relevance.. If you didn't get the punch line the first time around, it isn't fun to explain it. ( I have gone extensively over the significance Quranic texts in the previous posts/you have chosen to look past all that I have written) I can't be made to labor re-writing simply because you dismissed parts you have no answer for!

No, I've dismissed them because they are not relevant.

see:

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1258915


amongst others-- really it isn't that difficult to go back a page and read!

Again, no relevance to the matter in hand.

For the same reasons you are doing it now!

You're not even trying to answer any of my questions now.

I haven't read wa7abi's post I don't see the relevance to it to what I have written or posted? (my previous comment about mathematical formula fits well here too) Don't add outside variables to the formula, try to focus on the person you are addressing instead of pulling everything out of the hat.

How do you know it's not relevant if you haven't read it?

You've quoted one of my responses to a post by Wa7abi. That's why his post is relevant.

The period of time in which the Quran was revealed wasn't the significance if you'll read all that I have wrote on the matter!..

Well, you're back to missing the point as usual. Like I said, it was pleasant while it lasted.

Peace

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

This is a fair post but but it is not moot to this thread.

1. If the Qu'ran is a literary masterpiece and it may well be but that does not mean it is from God. If that were so then logically, any written work that let us say experts consider a masterpiece must be from God.

But it's not simply a masterpiece. It is the masterpiece. Remember that miracles given to each prophet were chosen so that they would have the greatest impact on that particular nation, so if the people excelling utmost in language (thus being the hardest to impress) were dumbfounded and could clearly see that the Qur'an was no work of man, and even went to the extent of calling it magic, it says a huge deal about the status of the Qur'an. The people most qualified to find a fault in the Qur'an were themselves being won over by its perfection. The Qur'an outmatched anything the people could produce. This is totally unlike the other "masterpieces" you mention, and your argument completely disregards a number of things that have already been mentioned about the Qur'an, in terms of it standing out among other books.

2. I am not sure anyone has argued that the Qu'ran is not a literary work of merit but it cannot be the only one If you argument has weight then it applies everywhere - go and learn Hebrew or Greek and only then will we take the seriously with regard to criticism of the Bible.

But is the Bible considered to be flawless and inimitable? Is its original language and style considered to be the peak of literary excellence?

3. My understanding is that classical Arabic was not perfected until, the 9th centuary.

The Qur'an became the ultimate authority and reference work for Arabic rhetoric, grammar and syntax, even by non-Muslim Arabs. Dawood, an Iraqi Jewish Scholar in his translation of the Qur’an, comments:

"The Koran is the earliest and by far the finest work of Classical Arabic prose… It is acknowledged that the Koran is not only one of the most influential books of prophetic literature but also a literary masterpiece in its own right… translations have, in my opinion, practically failed to convey both the meaning and the rhetorical grandeur of the original."

From the article: http://www.islam21c.com/index.php?op...g=en&task=view

And brother Muraad's post expanded on many of these points already.


Peace.

[جوري]

Greetings,


What a shame you've decided to close down the discussion now by going into irrelevant mode. It was pleasant while it lasted.

I think you like it this way better? you seem to beg for it with each subsequent post?

No, I've dismissed them because they are not relevant.

Anything that doesn't agree with your views is of no relevance (of course)!

Again, no relevance to the matter in hand.

See above though one might question, why you choose to bring a third party post into it and ask me to reply to it?!

You're not even trying to answer any of my questions now.

Non-questions are met with non-answers, especially when the topic has been covered extensively.

How do you know it's not relevant if you haven't read it?

He isn't addressing me in his replies, I have no need to follow every post!

You've quoted one of my responses to a post by Wa7abi. That's why his post is relevant.

Originally Posted by czgibson

Greetings,


There must be some people here who are serious about the idea of 'proof', as the word is used here very often.

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Including by non-Muslim folks who start threads? What do we call that? baiting?

Hardly qualifies as a thoughtful debate back and forth between him and you for me to have insinuated myself with a particular focus .. I am rather pointing the obvious!

Well, you're back to missing the point as usual. Like I said, it was pleasant while it lasted.

Peace

It is never pleasant for me.. I find your posts to be a complete waste of time.. the least you could do is grant folks the courtesy to read and respond to points raised in full, or concede that you are here simply to fill a void in your life but always approach it so tongue in cheek!

all the best

[جوري]

I am adding this post a second time as I missed out item 7 and my thanks go to skye and czgibson for a post (shown below) which brought my omission to mind.

.

That is nice dear, but adding a post a second time fails as a respond to posts you have neglected:
see here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1258915

and:

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1259006


I wonder if any of the afore listed apply to you at all?

for instance when we write:

Gossamer--- I don't see One god, when there is a god suckling and a god annunciating and a god forsaking.. it is not a question of open-mindedness.. rather a question of dismissing all logic.. for even greek myth, when their god zeus had an affair with a mortal woman, the son born wasn't one in the same with zeus

To which you answered:

I cannot quite see what logic you are talking about here - can you explain. At the same time I gave you Islamic examples, which to me are nothing but legend but you presumably take them uncritically and avoid giving an answer - is that because you also see them as nonsense or that you simply accept without necessarily understanding what it all might mean?

Where does answering a question with a question fit into your categories? Although I did grant you the courtesy in the appropriate thread with a direct reply to your direct question..

Stop making schemata and drowning us in definitions and pithy quotes of your chosen scholars Hugo every time you are at a loss for a coherent answer to explain your religious dogma..

On a certain level though, it is funny..

for instance when you write:


''2. Secondly, and as Thomas Paine once said "Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, [so] it is a revelation only to that person. [It follows it is] hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe.''

but fail to reconcile that with your own heretic paul and at the same time misconstrue Jesus for a god by the same token?

or'' 3. Thirdly, it assume that God exists and this is always the rock on which such arguments fail in a strictly logical world and faith is needed''

yet fail to account for the fact that you yourself aren't merely a believer, but a believer in a very ornamented three headed god..

If you'll punctuate each thread with disingenuous discourse, the least you could do is grant folks the same courtesy they grant you --

Now, I am not really concerned with details devoid of all importance but since you brought this post up, I thought I'd give you a heads up!


all the best

[Eliphaz]

I first wish to say I feel that some posters are writing responses of copy-pasted text which are unnecessarily long, almost as a tactic of smoke-screening the issue. If we are so confident a particular source defeats a particular argument surely we should be able to edit it down into a form which adequately deals with an argument, or better still, put it into our own words?

During the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), there was a pride that was prevalent among the Arabs in that tribes would compete with each other to produce the most skilled and eloquent poet. As the miracles that were given to each prophet were chosen so that they would have the greatest impact on that particular nation, the Qur'an was revealed in an Arabic that was so emotive and eloquent that the Arabs could clearly see it was a miracle from their Creator and were unable to meet the challenge of bringing forth something similar.

Dear Muhammad, I deeply appreciate that you have taken real time and effort to explain the literary miracle of the Qur’an to us non-Arabic speakers and the finer points of your post were not lost on me. I also appreciate that Orientalists who have made their living from studying Arabic and Arabic-speaking non-Muslims can also appreciate the linguistic superiority of the Qur’an. If anything, this makes me bitterer towards the God of the Qur’an for giving us something so sweet yet so inaccessible! But nonetheless, I am resuming my Arabic studies next year so here’s hoping that I too may one day be able to recognise the beauty of the Qur’an, if only from a linguistic perspective.

What you said does not make sense, because the Makkan disbelievers did not acknowledge that the Qur'an came from Allaah, hence to them there would be no blasphemy involved. Moreover, there is a famous incident in which the person known as Musaylimah the liar did try to make up his own verses to imitate the Qur'an, yet his own fellow disbeliever at that time could tell how pathetic the attempt was.

Musaylimah’s attempts comes across more as mockery than a serious attempt:

"The elephant. What is the elephant? And who shall tell you what is the elephant? He has a ropy tail and a long trunk. This is a [mere] trifle of our Lord's creations."

But again, not speaking Arabic maybe I am missing the point, although perhaps that is my point.

Yet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had no tutorage from a monk or other Christian or Jew to know of this history, whether by written or oral means.

We know that he took part in extensive trade journeys to Syria from 590-610 AD, which was ruled by the Romans and there would have been many Arabic-speaking Christians in Syria at the time. We also know that there were several Jewish tribes scattered across the Hijaz with whom the Makkans traded, particularly in Yathrib/Medina. If you ask me, the stories of the Prophets are so simple that a single telling of them would allow one to remember them, and we know that the Arabs had a strong oral tradition and as a result, a good memory.

Then there are the predictions related to worldly events, such as the outcome of a battle that would occur between the Romans and the Persians, the victory in the Battle of Badr, the eventual conquest of Makkah, and the establishment of Islam as the ruling authority in the land.

As for the scientific facts, these include the description of the formation of human life, formation of milk, the notion of orbits for the planets, and the description of the water cycle. It should be remembered though, that the Qur'an is not meant to be a book primarily devoted to science and therefore references to such subjects are typically brief. But even in these limited descriptions, the Qur'an conforms to modern science and imparts knowledge that was unknown during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

I feel that given that recognition of the literary miracle is a result of birthright and/or extended study, the predictions of worldly events would be the best shot any book has of being God’s word, and if they were not so ambiguous or subjective I would be far more likely to give them some credence.

Persians defeating the Romans: "Alif, Lam, Mim. The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will be victorious within three to nine years. The affair is Allah's from beginning to end." (Qur'an, 30:1-4) I think the fact that it is said ‘three to nine years’ speaks for itself. Why would God need an upper and lower bound on any prediction when He has written all that will happen on a divine tablet?

Victory at Badr: The Qur’an nowhere gives a prediction of victory at Badr, it simply reflects on the victory which has already taken place: “Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your gratitude." (Qur'an, 3:123–125)

Establishment of Islam as ruling authority of the Land: This is simply a case of if it hadn’t happened; we wouldn’t be here discussing the prediction, so it is a moot point.

Formation of human life: I am aware that this is the foremost claim made by Muslims of the Qur’an’s scientific merit. However, I, like most people, have not studied embryology in enough depth to begin to try and talk about this. Therefore to do so I believe would not only be a disservice to that topic but also to this discussion.

Formation of milk: There is one ayah dealing with this, barely a line long, and for me to say ‘between blood and dung’ is not describing the formation of milk unless you really want it to.

Orbits of planets: There is no mention of planets orbiting, only the sun and moon. Is it not curious that the earth’s orbit, the very planet we live on is not important enough to mention? The fact that the orbits of the sun and moon are mentioned in conjunction and that the ‘do not overtake one another’ implies that they are travelling on the same orbit when they are not.

Description of water cycle: The Qur’an describes most but not of all the water cycle, and in terms that any farmer could discover. The most crucial process, evaporation, is ignored entirely.

The beliefs in the Islamic creed distinctly stand out in their purity and appeal to human rationale. For example, Islamic gives a sense of integrity and honour for the prophets as recipients of divine revelation, yet this is denied by the Christians and Jews who ascribe crimes such as murder, incest and drunkenness to them - allegations which Islam vehemently denies.

In my opinion, it doesn’t ‘vehemently deny’ them, it just doesn’t mention them. If you think of the OT as the first draft and the Qur’an as the second, it makes sense to omit certain aspects which people might find objectionable or contradictory to the Qur’an, for example, it is important that there was no mention of any of the previous Prophets drinking, considering the Qur’an claims they were all sending the same message.

Only because they are ignorant of it. If one examines the laws of Islam, from the laws governing personal hygiene, familial life and societal roles to financial transactions and political dealings, the perfection and benefit is apparent.

Not really. Only the all-encompassing nature of it is apparent. But don’t you see the difficulty in implementing Shariah and forming a single Caliphate, not just 1400 years after the beginning of Islam, but a mere generation after the death of the Prophet, as an indication that it doesn’t work? It is fine to say that it was revolutionary the time, (babies were being buried, women were property etc) but look at what happened after the death of the Prophet and it is clear to me that Shariah doesn’t work.

No other religious book can claim to be anywhere near as authentic as the Qur'an. If one studies how it was preserved, this will become more and more apparent.

I don’t deny that the Qur’an is the most authentic religious book, but given my opinion of religious books that is not saying a lot.

So if the Bible had a reward for memorising it, do you think it would be memorised like the Qur'an is?

Yes. If there was an incentive to do so, a mirage-like promise of entering Heaven purely based on a sincere memorisation of a book which one may or may not fully comprehend, then yes, I believe so. If only there was a way of proving this, but alas.

One only has to look at the volumes of exegesis on the Qur'an to appreciate this and just a little bit of study will open one's eyes to how deep and profound the Words of Allaah are. Meanings can be extracted from the smallest of things like the particular order of words in a sentence, or particular forms chosen over others, and the examples are endless. As for never tiring to read - just the opening chapter of the Qur'an is recited at least seventeen times a day by Muslims in prayer. The Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would complete the entire Qur'an in a week, and some less than this. Some scholars have been known to complete the Qur'an in just three days, and some even less than this. During the month of Ramadan the Qur'an is recited in its entirety by countless Muslims across the world. The attachment that believers have with the Qur'an is undescribable. I am sure you will agree that no other book has this level of sanctity in the hearts of its followers.

Reading the Qur’an whilst fasting is rewarded by intercession by the Qur’an, almost like a ‘get-into-Paradise-free card’. Of course people will do this, it is simply a matter of having the right incentives. To me the arguments of ‘X people memorise the Qur’an’, ‘people read the Qur’an X times in a year’ are all missing the point. If the Qur’an did not claim to offer a reward for these activities, namely, intercession, then it would not be read nearly as much, and therefore I do not see this as a valid argument of the Qur’an coming from God, just as proof that if you convince people with the right incentives they will do anything.

And by the way, you didn't comment on aspects 9 and 13!

Because I felt they were not worth commenting on.

Peace

[Predator]

Unlike the Quran which is clean and can be read fully to anyone WITHOUT FEAR , there are things in the bible that no man can read to his mother,sister,wife , fiance,daughter if they are a good women such as these dirty verses

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+23

GENESIS 19:33-35
GENESIS 35:22.
GENESIS 38:15-I8
2 Samuel 13:14
2 SAMUEL 16:22

Little wonder that this crime has reached epidemic proportions , u read about , u read junky stuff , your mind become junky

and other filth like these
NUMBERS 31:17-18
GENESIS 38:8-9
ROMANS 1:25-27

[جوري]

I first wish to say I feel that some posters are writing responses of copy-pasted text which are unnecessarily long, almost as a tactic of smoke-screening the issue. If we are so confident a particular source defeats a particular argument surely we should be able to edit it down into a form which adequately deals with an argument, or better still, put it into our own words?

Hope you are not addressing me with a carpet bombing style commentary? It is a child that mumbles and a man that speaks his mind.. you'd be better off directing your comments to the person you intend, than have a nice hit and run from which the reader is to glean what he may!..
You don't wish to reply to the fully detailed posts by all means (quality research isn't cheap).. however don't complain that things aren't broken down for you:

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1258440

as you still desire to dodge a thoughtful reply. I despise nothing more than laboring to give someone (whom I deem reprehensible ) the long and short of it, and then have it be met with the usual ingratitude!


all the best!

[Hugo]

That is nice dear, but adding a post a second time fails as a respond to posts you have neglected:
see here:

I added the post a second time because you post and its response pointed to a serious omission in my own which I felt it necessary to rectify. I began this thread and I set out as concisely as I could what in scientific terms we mean by proof (my schemata if you like to use your words) - I cannot see that as a bad thing and no one has to agree with what I said they can offer their own versions and that to me would be helpful.

Where does answering a question with a question fit into your categories? Although I did grant you the courtesy in the appropriate thread with a direct reply to your direct question.

I see nothing wrong with seeking clarification - why is that a problem to you? In general we use questions to seek clarification and sometimes as a way of answering them because a question one hopes forces you or me to take a new view and that new view on its own may be an answer.

Your problem, if I may say so is that you appear to think that whenever you give an answer it is automatically correct and that point to an unthinking mind not a rational one.

Secondly, and as Thomas Paine once said "Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, [so] it is a revelation only to that person. [It follows it is] hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe.''

but fail to reconcile that with your own heretic paul and at the same time misconstrue Jesus for a god by the same token?

All this is about YOU trying to change the subject of the thread. For what its worth I think you will find that I said this conjecture applies to all prophetic utterances so I am not excluding Biblical ones - why did YOU exclude that part of my post?

yet fail to account for the fact that you yourself aren't merely a believer, but a believer in a very ornamented three headed god..

Again this is simply a diversion from the thread - what I believe about the Bible has nothing whatever to do with whether a claim about the Qu'ran is true or not - surely you see the logic of that?

If you'll punctuate each thread with disingenuous discourse, the least you could do is grant folks the same courtesy they grant you --

Where have I been disingenuous, not sincere or lacking in frankness? All you are doing here is using a tactic called 'poisoning the well' - you have no answer so you try to discredit someone by accusing them of unbecoming behaviours.

There are a number of excellent and informative posts in this thread that in my view really add to the discussion and any objective view would come to that conclusion.

[جوري]

I added the post a second time because you post and its response pointed to a serious omission in my own which I felt it necessary to rectify. I began this thread and I set out as concisely as I could what in scientific terms we mean by proof (my schemata if you like to use your words) - I cannot see that as a bad thing and no one has to agree with what I said they can offer their own versions and that to me would be helpful.

It isn't a bad thing-- you do have a research method thread, and it is certainly better suited there. To be frank I find it odd, that you'd prevaricate this thread, you go off on a tangent and do a side thing.. try to direct your efforts to the replies that folks labor in response to your own query voiced a thousand different ways, instead of going off on a separate byway all together. Others lose interest that is all!

I see nothing wrong with seeking clarification - why is that a problem to you? In general we use questions to seek clarification and sometimes as a way of answering them because a question one hopes forces you or me to take a new view and that new view on its own may be an answer.

Oh is that what you are doing? I am sorry my bad!

Your problem, if I may say so is that you appear to think that whenever you give an answer it is automatically correct and that point to an unthinking mind not a rational one.

It is certainly the answer that I deem correct, but this isn't a persuade by eloquence or force type answers... I am pretty straightforward .. and I think at this stage I can afford to not hide behind ulterior motives!

Secondly, and as Thomas Paine once said "Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, [so] it is a revelation only to that person. [It follows it is] hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe.''

but fail to reconcile that with your own heretic paul and at the same time misconstrue Jesus for a god by the same token?

All this is about YOU trying to change the subject of the thread. For what its worth I think you will find that I said this conjecture applies to all prophetic utterances so I am not excluding Biblical ones - why did YOU exclude that part of my post?

I have replied to this comment twice (once directly) -- (the second time was to point out folly in your own analogies) for you are still indeed to reconcile what paine said with your own personal beliefs. Does posing a question exempt you from having to come up with a response of your own?

Again this is simply a diversion from the thread - what I believe about the Bible has nothing whatever to do with whether a claim about the Qu'ran is true or not - surely you see the logic of that?

Again, I have given two responses.. and I am glad you have noticed it as a diversion very much akin to the post on definitions you've felt the need to post twice!

Where have I been disingenuous, not sincere or lacking in frankness? All you are doing here is using a tactic called 'poisoning the well' - you have no answer so you try to discredit someone by accusing them of unbecoming behaviours.

after 11 or 12 pages of replies not just from my person but others including admin. I'll have to concede that the problem isn't whether or not you have received very direct answers, it is a matter of whether you choose to accept the answers given.. and that is indeed where you are being disingenuous, instead of reflecting on what has been written, reading it in full, responding to the comments made, you'd you dismiss it as 'poisoning the well'

I haven't see you address a response given you with candor instead you do what you do well. You circumvent you offer platitudes, you pass judgment, you assess members, you drown folks in amateurish technical terminology that doesn't belong or in the lowest common denominator you fail to weave it to crystallize your points..

There are a number of excellent and informative posts in this thread that in my view really add to the discussion and any objective view would come to that conclusion.

Good-- I am glad you ended on that note!.. I was starting to feel frustrated!

all the best

[Hugo]

It isn't a bad thing-- you do have a research method thread, and it is certainly better suited there. To be frank I find it odd, that you'd prevaricate this thread, you go off on a tangent and do a side thing.. try to direct your efforts to the replies that folks labor in response to your own query voiced a thousand different ways, instead of going off on a separate byway all together. Others lose interest that is all!

I only added some ground rule so to speak to aid the discussion. As far as going of on a tangent then you are a suspect if not a culprit. Please give example of prevarication or going off on tangents?

It is certainly the answer that I deem correct, but this isn't a persuade by eloquence or force type answers... I am pretty straightforward .. and I think at this stage I can afford to not hide behind ulterior motives!

Is it straightforward to copy in an 8,000 word answer or about 16 A4 pages and again you hide behind unfounded allegation about my integrity?

I have replied to this comment twice (once directly) -- (the second time was to point out folly in your own analogies) for you are still indeed to reconcile what paine said with your own personal beliefs. Does posing a question exempt you from having to come up with a response of your own?

I have pointed out to you that in this thread where I mention Paine it is plain that I said it applies to all prophets - no one is exempt and indeed all Paine does it point out a difficulty. If you can answer Paine's objection then that would indeed be a very interesting answer to read.

I'll have to concede that the problem isn't whether or not you have received very direct answers, it is a matter of whether you choose to accept the answers given.. and that is indeed where you are being disingenuous, instead of reflecting on what has been written, reading it in full, responding to the comments made, you'd you dismiss it as 'poisoning the well'

This is totally unjust - nowhere have I said that the answers given are poisoning the well - if you would take the trouble to read what is written I said that YOU yes YOU try to poison the well (its a form of fallacy) by impugning my (and others) integrity or motives. If you look at say the post of Mohammed or Eliphaz you will see thoughtful honest answers. You simply take the absurd position that your answers are unequivocally correct and no further discussion is possible.

[Hugo]

Unlike the Quran which is clean and can be read fully to anyone WITHOUT FEAR, there are things in the bible that no man can read to his mother, sister, wife, fiance, daughter if they are a good women such as these dirty verses

GENESIS 19:33-35, GENESIS 35:22, GENESIS 38:15-I8, 2 Samuel 13:14, 2 SAMUEL 16:22

Little wonder that this crime has reached epidemic proportions , u read about , u read junky stuff , your mind become junky

and other filth like these NUMBERS 31:17-18, GENESIS 38:8-9, ROMANS 1:25-27

Not sure if this post has relevance to the thread but I offer a short response.

These verses are not supposed to advocate what they describe but show how depraved man can be - it would be an absurdity to think otherwise. What possible logical method you used to get from these verses to epidemic proportions of something I have no idea.

I fail to see how Romans 1:25-27 (It should be 25-32) can be described as 'filth' unless actually stating the name of a sin is of itself filth?

Frankly, if Islam find no agreement in the sense that it also condemns what Paul does in these verses it has no moral centre and I feel sure you have not actually read what it says there.

[جوري]

I only added some ground rule so to speak to aid the discussion. As far as going of on a tangent then you are a suspect if not a culprit. Please give example of prevarication or going off on tangents?

This:

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1259137

in lieu of directly addressing:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1259006

Is it straightforward to copy in an 8,000 word answer or about 16 A4 pages and again you hide behind unfounded allegation about my integrity?

You are running for congress? tune it down a bit, it is just a forum!
we are not scrutinizing your suspicious looking moles nor criticizing your integrity!

I have pointed out to you that in this thread where I mention Paine it is plain that I said it applies to all prophets - no one is exempt and indeed all Paine does it point out a difficulty. If you can answer Paine's objection then that would indeed be a very interesting answer to read.

If you'd see my very first reply to your original mention you'll find it there.. and out of curiosity we'd still like to see how you'd reconcile that with being a christian?!

This is totally unjust - nowhere have I said that the answers given are poisoning the well - if you would take the trouble to read what is written I said that YOU yes YOU try to poison the well (its a form of fallacy) by impugning my (and others) integrity or motives. If you look at say the post of Mohammed or Eliphaz you will see thoughtful honest answers. You simply take the absurd position that your answers are unequivocally correct and no further discussion is possible.

you want talk ad hoc rescue? It is of no matter anyone can browse the pages and see that your queries have been addressed until they failed to be queries!

I have a migraine tonight and would prefer at this stage that you'd stick with the original topic and in keeping with what has been replied to. I am not in a mood to be an accomplice to the further derangement of this thread.. or, you can always pull a cz and write 'irrelevant' and extricate yourself if gauging a 7 scale stub becomes too much for you..


all the best

[Eliphaz]

Hope you are not addressing me with a carpet bombing style commentary? It is a child that mumbles and a man that speaks his mind.. you'd be better off directing your comments to the person you intend, than have a nice hit and run from which the reader is to glean what he may!..
You don't wish to reply to the fully detailed posts by all means (quality research isn't cheap).. however don't complain that things aren't broken down for you:

all the best!

Forgive me for calling it like I see it, but it was not only aimed at you.

without further study even, Br. M. from this forum is a geneticist, and doesn't speak Arabic all that well, yet arrived to the same conclusion that many native speakers do. He is one of thousands... You'll keep tweaking a point and it is still not working for you!

Although his post was very elucidating I am satisfied that the literary miracle of the Qur’an is something which I will need to study further to uncover. It is like needing to go to the North Pole in order to observe the beauty of the Northern Lights.

A book of poetry is a book of poetry, The Quran though written in such a style is meant as a guidance for all man-kind not to while away your summer night.. and no, no one has produced anything remotely close to it! I have told you to refrain from making statements you can't back up. Indeed all I have listed is but a sliver of all that is contained in the Quran. Your failure to acknowledge that is more your problem really than anyone else!

I take it you are demanding evidence of an entire book comparable to the Qur’an. Do you realise you are essentially asking for more than Allah, who only demanded the nonbelievers to produce a single surah? It sounds like you are less sure than Allah is of the Qur’an’s miraculous nature! It is clear that the only type of man who would even want to produce an entire book comparable to the Qur’an would be a true Prophet, a liar or a confused person. Regarding a single surah like the Qur’an, there are many poems and which are comparable in beauty to the surahs of the Qur’an. But if you want an alternative book telling you how to live your whole life then you are asking more than Allah.

ijtihad isn't a new law, it is basing judgment as the world changes on Quranic standard. If you have contaminated water from cat feces, the commandment will always be that you not consume it until that well is clean.. back in the days, they had primitive methods, perhaps seeking to clean it by diluting it, or taking out 20 pails .. now a days, you can simply measure pollution (that is the role of ijtihad) not to give you new laws, but see how they are best implemented!

Yet it seems strange to me that one would need divine guidance to tell them that water contaminated by cat faeces would not be clean to drink? To me, ijtihad is how scholars have remained dominant throughout history using the asymmetry of knowledge, whilst the Muslim layperson has unfortunately substituted common sense for scholarly interpretation. I never said ijtihad was a new law anyway, but what would you call a fatwa exactly, why do we need them, and why are there so many contradictory fatwas if Islam is a complete religion?

If you are going to allege that one book copies from another then prove it?... show me who translated the OT/NT from Grecian/Hebrew and whispered them in a lyrical style over the span of decades so that verses ten years later and in a meccan revealed verse fits perfectly in syntax, style. lyricism into a medini sura..
I don't need an opinion-- everyone has an opinion (it doesn't make them facts)..

I don’t have all the answers as you seem to, but I have a few ideas which I mentioned in my previous post.

The Quran is a book of signs not a book of science, however it helps, that when God describes his creation or anything else that it is done in an accurate fashion for those who reflect and isn't at odds with science!

See previous post.

Abraham didn't need a book and neither did Jesus, nor Mohammed (PBUT) but they had something you lack.. if you are not a pioneer (in science) your bet in (science) is to learn from the research of scientists.. when you sign up for a physics course, you usually purchase a book and study it.. if you don't agree with content than challenge them, come up with your own theories, but if you want to become a physicist or anything else you'll have to go through academia and look at the text of those who preceded you..

I don’t see how you can compare physics with religion; to me you are belittling religion and God by doing so. I would not dare to try and come up with a theory regarding how God works because I accept that I may never know how God works. But I do agree with you on one thing: that none of them, particularly Jesus, needed a book, because with all that dastardly changing of the text that went on in the first few centuries after the death of Christ, it would have probably helped humanity out quite a lot if the original Gospel didn’t exist!

I solely and strictly believe in the way sharia3a is carried out or at least was carried out.. I need a simple look at any man made system to see how it completely fails the individual and society to conclude the further we go from divine law the more degenerate we become!

No, not only man-made systems fail, but Shariah fails also – see: Islamic history after the four rightly guided caliphs. Hopefully you will realise that whilst any legal system on paper sounds great (even democracy) it is far less perfect and much easier to criticise when put into practise.

Those who are given wisdom are a handful.. it is better to learn the Quran and live by it then to merely memorize it, and surely that too was mentioned in the accolades listed of memorizing it.. I wish my parents had forced me to memorize the Quran, I can layer my understanding with instant recall, what takes me a month to accomplish I could have accomplished in three days as a child.. I don't see anything wrong with being rewarded of it in this life and the hereafter.

Yes you are right, the complete hadith, Bukhari 4937, is: “Whoever memorizes Qur’aan and acts upon it, Allaah will reward him and honour him greatly for that, so that he will rise in status in Paradise to a level commensurate with what he memorized of the Book of Allaah”. So yes, one has to act on it. But when you say

surely that is why anyone does anything? some self-satisfaction, a sense of accomplishment-- why do you get a job or get married, or take out your trash? your ability to state something obvious is rather astounding!

I think you are confusing what I am saying. The original argument was that ‘the Qur’an is recited and memorised by so many people, more than any other book... therefore it must be the Word of God’. What I was saying is that we should look at the reasons behind why it is recited and memorised so often rather than pointing at this and saying ‘miracle’. On the one hand you agree with me that yes, there is a huge reward for memorising the Qur’an (and acting upon it), but on the other you are talking about ‘self-satisfaction’ and ‘sense of accomplishment’, I don’t know whose post you’re talking about. What I am saying, and have said before and will say again, is that if there was no reward of Paradise for memorising the Qur’an (and acting upon it) then the Qur’an would not be memorised so often.

I have already told you, that were two tribes of Christians and a few tribes of Jews-- as Abraham who built the house of Allah was a Monotheist ( the tradition carried out in Arabia) even if paganists imported gods or associated gods with Allah or made them of 3ajwa. It wasn't uncommon to use the name Abdu'Allah.. However, pagan gods didn't go by the name of Allah!

I think I will wait for you to read up on this one because it is not relevant to the thread, but it will suffice to say that, which Allah do you think the Qur’an is talking about when it says ‘They swear their strongest oaths by Allah’?. Secondly, you mentioned Al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat; these were the daughters of the pagan version of Allah which are mentioned in the verses 53:19-20 “Have ye seen Lat and Uzza, And another, the third (goddess) Manat?” If you refer to the footnote to the following verse 21, in the Yusuf Ali translation, you will see it says:

“To show Allah in human shape, or imagine sons or daughters of Allah, as if Allah were flesh, was in any case a derogation from the supreme glory of Allah … But when we consider in what low opinion Pagan Arabia held the female sex, it was particularly degrading to show Allah, or so-called daughters of Allah, in female shapes.”

Peace

[جوري]

Forgive me for calling it like I see it, but it was not only aimed at you.

I am sure then forgiveness should be sought from both sides, since I too meant what I wrote!

Although his post was very elucidating I am satisfied that the literary miracle of the Qur’an is something which I will need to study further to uncover. It is like needing to go to the North Pole in order to observe the beauty of the Northern Lights.

I can accept that as an honest answer!

I take it you are demanding evidence of an entire book comparable to the Qur’an. Do you realise you are essentially asking for more than Allah, who only demanded the nonbelievers to produce a single surah? It sounds like you are less sure than Allah is of the Qur’an’s miraculous nature! It is clear that the only type of man who would even want to produce an entire book comparable to the Qur’an would be a true Prophet, a liar or a confused person. Regarding a single surah like the Qur’an, there are many poems and which are comparable in beauty to the surahs of the Qur’an. But if you want an alternative book telling you how to live your whole life then you are asking more than Allah.

If you have gleaned from my posts that Quran is about poetry, then you must have missed this post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1259032

The Quran isn't a book of poetry, it is an entire life/state governing Constitution!

Yet it seems strange to me that one would need divine guidance to tell them that water contaminated by cat faeces would not be clean to drink? To me, ijtihad is how scholars have remained dominant throughout history using the asymmetry of knowledge, whilst the Muslim layperson has unfortunately substituted common sense for scholarly interpretation. I never said ijtihad was a new law anyway, but what would you call a fatwa exactly, why do we need them, and why are there so many contradictory fatwas if Islam is a complete religion?

It is an analogy (not drinking contaminated water should be common sense) but not all people have common sense, thus Islam covered every aspect, from how to clean yourself in the bathroom to how to divide inheritance.. why do you need it still, why do you need any constitution, let's makeup our own laws and see where we can draw for a baseline.

It isn't difficult to sort through the quacks since all the books are very well preserved. I don't know why folks pass fatwas, everyone is a self-professed scholar.. just like you can distinguish charlatans from real doctors, so can most folk sort through with a little bit of education and common sense!

I don’t have all the answers as you seem to, but I have a few ideas which I mentioned in my previous post.

See previous post.

I did tell you that I am not interested in unproven ideas.. everyone has one!

I don’t see how you can compare physics with religion; to me you are belittling religion and God by doing so. I would not dare to try and come up with a theory regarding how God works because I accept that I may never know how God works. But I do agree with you on one thing: that none of them, particularly Jesus, needed a book, because with all that dastardly changing of the text that went on in the first few centuries after the death of Christ, it would have probably helped humanity out quite a lot if the original Gospel didn’t exist!

I am not comparing, again it is an analogy of the customary approach to any topic.. Physics is God's law to govern the universe, just like there is God's law to govern states, or family etc. It is all a part of God's creation.

No, not only man-made systems fail, but Shariah fails also – see: Islamic history after the four rightly guided caliphs. Hopefully you will realise that whilst any legal system on paper sounds great (even democracy) it is far less perfect and much easier to criticise when put into practise.

There is nothing wrong with shari3a, however there is something wrong with people and such was in fact predicted, I don't know if you have read this Hadith?

Rasoolullah (sallallahu ýalayh wassallam) said, The Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Then it will be (followed by) a Khilafah Rashida (rightly guided) according to the ways of the Prophethood. It will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Afterward there will be a hereditary leadership which will remain for as long as Allah wills, then He will lift it if He wishes. Afterward, there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah Rashida according to the ways of the Prophethood, then he kept silent.

(Musnad Imam Ahmad (v/273); Reported by Nouýman ibn Basheer (radiyallahu ýanhu))

Yes you are right, the complete hadith, Bukhari 4937, is: “Whoever memorizes Qur’aan and acts upon it, Allaah will reward him and honour him greatly for that, so that he will rise in status in Paradise to a level commensurate with what he memorized of the Book of Allaah”. So yes, one has to act on it. But when you say

I think you are confusing what I am saying. The original argument was that ‘the Qur’an is recited and memorised by so many people, more than any other book... therefore it must be the Word of God’. What I was saying is that we should look at the reasons behind why it is recited and memorised so often rather than pointing at this as saying ‘miracle’. On the one hand you agree with me that yes, there is a huge reward for memorising the Qur’an (and acting upon it), but on the other you are talking about ‘self-satisfaction’ and ‘sense of accomplishment’, I don’t know whose post you’re talking about. What I am saying, and have said before and will say again, is that if there was no reward of Paradise for memorising the Qur’an (and acting upon it) then the Qur’an would not be memorised so often.

check to see who actually wrote that. I'd never write memorize with an 'S' it is british abomination .. I don't think the Quran being memorizable is a testament to its accuracy but it is certainly a testament to the fact that Allah has safeguarded it as promised, for surely even if every last copy was burned today it would be produced anew from the hearts of people.

I think I will wait for you to read up on this one because it is not relevant to the thread, but it will suffice to say that, which Allah do you think the Qur’an is talking about when it says ‘They swear their strongest oaths by Allah’. Secondly, you mentioned Al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat; these were the daughters of the pagan version of Allah which are mentioned in the verses 53:19-20 “Have ye seen Lat and Uzza, And another, the third (goddess) Manat?” If you refer to the footnote to the following verse 21, in the Yusuf Ali translation, you will see it says:

“To show Allah in human shape, or imagine sons or daughters of Allah, as if Allah were flesh, was in any case a derogation from the supreme glory of Allah … But when we consider in what low opinion Pagan Arabia held the female sex, it was particularly degrading to show Allah, or so-called daughters of Allah, in female shapes.”

Peace

I don't need to read up on it again, given Makkah, Abraham, Ismael, Jews and Christians were all centered in that region, Allah was always known to the people.. whether they have associated partners unto him (AKA daughters) or denounced him all together for other gods, doesn't make Allah a pagan god of the Arab long before Islam. Allah swt is the God that has always been, long before folks embellished or added children (be they Christians or jahayliya Arabs.


all the best

[Hugo]

You are running for congress? tune it down a bit, it is just a forum! we are not scrutinizing your suspicious looking moles nor criticizing your integrity!

Two points; the 8,000+ word posting in this thread was yours not mine so perhaps you are running for congress? As far as I can tell from the links you gave my prevarications (straying from the truth) are the postings about what I might consider proof - well if that is the case show them to be unfounded.

you want talk ad hoc rescue? It is of no matter anyone can browse the pages and see that your queries have been addressed until they failed to be queries

This does not seem to be the case and I think an objective reading will show the you are the one who keeps injecting irrelevant information or points of view about Christian doctrine.

[جوري]

Two points; the 8,000+ word posting in this thread was yours not mine so perhaps you are running for congress? As far as I can tell from the links you gave my prevarications (straying from the truth) are the postings about what I might consider proof - well if that is the case show them to be unfounded.

I don't need to show them as unfounded it since I have already deemed them irrelevant to this thread, the same way you find my injections of christian dogma irrelevant, though I personally see them quite relevant for contrast purposes!

[Hugo]

I don't need to show them (Hugo's posts on what is proof) as unfounded it since I have already deemed them irrelevant to this thread, the same way you find my injections of christian dogma irrelevant, though I personally see them quite relevant for contrast purposes!

This is an odd, if I may say so, to say you deem (a conviction as opposed to a proof) the idea of proof is irrelevant in a thread which focuses on that idea. Be interested to hear if any others would agree?

It may be that a contrast is useful in illuminating a particular proof and it is certainly possible to use say analogy to support any proof argument. The point I suppose is that IF I query a proof about the Qu'ran is it a legitimate tactic to say the query is not valid because I believe in something else. Two examples:

1. Suppose I say I am not convinced by the argument that the Qu'ran talks about sub-atomic particles and in my view the proper explanation is that it is just hyperbole - so would it then be a refutation of my suggestion to say that it must be wrong because I believe in the trinity?

2. To reverse the example, suppose you say that the Qu'ran talks about sub-atomic particles but I refute it by saying it cannot be true because you believe in a narrow bridge that passes over hell.

In general, it seems to me that one cannot prove or disprove a supposed fact in one domain by talking about a completely different one. The only possible value in such a tactic is to discredit someone's competence (which might be in some circumstances be fair) or it is unfair and is simply use of the logical fallacy called 'poisoning the well'

[جوري]

This is an odd, if I may say so, to say you deem (a conviction as opposed to a proof) the idea of proof is irrelevant in a thread which focuses on that idea. Be interested to hear if any others would agree?

It may be that a contrast is useful in illuminating a particular proof and it is certainly possible to use say analogy to support any proof argument. The point I suppose is that IF I query a proof about the Qu'ran is it a legitimate tactic to say the query is not valid because I believe in something else. Two examples:

1. Suppose I say I am not convinced by the argument that the Qu'ran talks about sub-atomic particles and in my view the proper explanation is that it is just hyperbole - so would it then be a refutation of my suggestion to say that it must be wrong because I believe in the trinity?

2. To reverse the example, suppose you say that the Qu'ran talks about sub-atomic particles but I refute it by saying it cannot be true because you believe in a narrow bridge that passes over hell.

In general, it seems to me that one cannot prove or disprove a supposed fact in one domain by talking about a completely different one. The only possible value in such a tactic is to discredit someone's competence (which might be in some circumstances be fair) or it is unfair and is simply use of the logical fallacy called 'poisoning the well'

you make a mistake on two grounds.
1- you suppose that I hold a particular belief because it is superior to yours (in terms of contrast) sort of choosing the lesser of two evils, which is not the case.
2- You believe that I am out to discredit you (because it is will be the only way for my set of beliefs to be of value) which is again not true.

my beliefs whether you deem that I am able to champion them in a level that is satisfactory to you doesn't in fact add credit or take credit away from their veracity. And I need not have any knowledge of other religions whatsoever to know that this is the religion for me, because I know it to go with the nature of man and not against it. In other words I don't have to strain so hard and leave it to the theologians to decrypt what clearly goes against fitrah.
People who have came before us, long before books with messages could set and wonder of the origin of life and come up with either one of two conclusions.
Yes God exists, No he doesn't.. but I guarantee, that no one will sit and on their own come up with a self-immolating God, or a God who is part of three, that is what I mean by going against fitrah (and what should come to man naturally)

The fact that you hold a set of beliefs so contrary to common sense makes me (for the significance of wonder alone) question on what grounds do you doubt the legitimacy of something else (whatever it maybe) and on equal grounds be dismissive of very strong evidence given you in a stepwise fashion (not just by my person) but of excerpted pieces by folks far more learned than I on the subject in favor of what you have outlined as the only method to frame any form of research to approach any topic, when I have clearly showed just a few posts ago that even in modern scientific research one style research doesn't fit all.
polished and highly individual style of writing I fear is not enough to hide the very humble and almost primitive ideology that lies beneath it...

all the best

[Predator]

Not sure if this post has relevance to the thread but I offer a short response.

These verses are not supposed to advocate what they describe but show how depraved man can be - it would be an absurdity to think otherwise.

Yeah but That very chapter had been banned in south africa . Imagine a book of god gets banned because of profanity and you've removed the link from the my quote in your post , thus proving that you dont want people on this board to read it

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archi...ting-language/

A book claiming shouldnt have such disgusting language that it is not recommended be read by anyone who have not yet reached the age of puberty.

What possible logical method you used to get from these verses to epidemic proportions of something I have no idea.

There are 10 cases of incest in the holy bible. Why should god almighty go out of his way to reveal to you ten cases of incest , as if your bible is a textbook on incest to show you what types of incest you can commit. By epidemic proportions , i meant the crime of incest and child pornography had reached epidemic proportions in countries like america

I fail to see how Romans 1:25-27 (It should be 25-32) can be described as 'filth' unless actually stating the name of a sin is of itself filth?

Yeah , that wasntexactly filth when compared to the above , but i found the language used in that verse on the offensive side.

[Hugo]

you make a mistake on two grounds.
1- you suppose that I hold a particular belief because it is superior to yours (in terms of contrast) sort of choosing the lesser of two evils, which is not the case.
2- You believe that I am out to discredit you (because it is will be the only way for my set of beliefs to be of value) which is again not true.

my beliefs whether you deem that I am able to champion them in a level that is satisfactory to you doesn't in fact add credit or take credit away from their veracity. And I need not have any knowledge of other religions whatsoever to know that this is the religion for me, because I know it to go with the nature of man and not against it. In other words I don't have to strain so hard and leave it to the theologians to decrypt what clearly goes against fitrah.
People who have came before us, long before books with messages could set and wonder of the origin of life and come up with either one of two conclusions.
Yes God exists, No he doesn't.. but I guarantee, that no one will sit and on their own come up with a self-immolating God, or a God who is part of three, that is what I mean by going against fitrah (and what should come to man naturally)

The fact that you hold a set of beliefs so contrary to common sense makes me (for the significance of wonder alone) question on what grounds do you doubt the legitimacy of something else (whatever it maybe) and on equal grounds be dismissive of very strong evidence given you in a stepwise fashion (not just by my person) but of excerpted pieces by folks far more learned than I on the subject in favor of what you have outlined as the only method to frame any form of research to approach any topic, when I have clearly showed just a few posts ago that even in modern scientific research one style research doesn't fit all. polished and highly individual style of writing I fear is not enough to hide the very humble and almost primitive ideology that lies beneath it...all the best

Firstly, I made no mistakes in my last post and did not question your beliefs I simply asked was it possible to refute a proof by an oblique claim that the person who created the proof (or refutation) had let's call it 'funny beliefs' and I gave two examples to illustrate the question.

Secondly, I have made no claims that what I have included about the nature of research is beyond question, all I have said is that it is a common understanding and anyone can add to what I have said or challenge it and I have no issues with that.

Thirdly, in terms of Research Method or styles in this thread I cannot recall saying anything at all but I did ask if anyone could explain the research practices used to extract for example scientific miracles from the Qu'ran.

Finally, the things I know anyone can know, I have no special access to the divine or anyone else and if I know anything at all it is that I can be wrong.

[جوري]

Firstly, I made no mistakes in my last post and did not question your beliefs I simply asked was it possible to refute a proof by an oblique claim that the person who created the proof (or refutation) had let's call it 'funny beliefs' and I gave two examples to illustrate the question.

Your assumptions in the question posed are based on an a priori judgment and not supported by fact- thus what you deem a 'hyperbole' is mere self-complacency and cognitive dissonance rather than actual refutation-- I don't know how you've made that leap?!

Secondly, I have made no claims that what I have included about the nature of research is beyond question, all I have said is that it is a common understanding and anyone can add to what I have said or challenge it and I have no issues with that.

Yes-- and folks have challenged it, and gave you an actual methodology in which to subject this type of book research and to the test and you outright rejected it as suitable for your purposes. again can only be classified under cognitive dissonance than a refutation!

Thirdly, in terms of Research Method or styles in this thread I cannot recall saying anything at all but I did ask if anyone could explain the research practices used to extract for example scientific miracles from the Qu'ran.

This isn't really about 'scientific miracles' in the Quran it is about the Quran as a whole, just glancing at the mere title of the thread. A few pages back, I have stated as much, the Quran isn't a book of science it is a book of signs, whose verses aren't at odds with science (as such any book that claims divine origin) should always be transcendent with the times if it is directed to all people throughout all the ages.

Finally, the things I know anyone can know, I have no special access to the divine or anyone else and if I know anything at all it is that I can be wrong.

I am not sure why this sentence belongs here but OK thanks.. that s good to know!

all the best!

[Hugo]

Yeah but That very chapter had been banned in south africa. Imagine a book of god gets banned because of profanity and you've removed the link from the my quote in your post, thus proving that you dont want people on this board to read it

I always remove lines to save space. Bibles are everywhere and oner can easily find the Bible passage on a website so your suggestion that I want to hide it is an absurd one. It has been banned where exactly in South Africa? The passage is obviously an allegory and describes how a nation can prostitute itself and fall away from God. You clearly have not read it or you would know that.

There are 10 cases of incest in the holy bible. Why should god almighty go out of his way to reveal to you ten cases of incest, as if your bible is a textbook on incest to show you what types of incest you can commit. By epidemic proportions , i meant the crime of incest and child pornography had reached epidemic proportions in countries like america

So now you have decided what God should or should not say and to suggest that these are text book examples is such a monstrous lie that one has to question your own motives in this. The Bible condemns these things and EVEN in your own post you point to the passage in Romans that does just that in the most unequivocal of ways. Do you think that incest does not occur in Muslim lands or homosexuals are not found amongst the Muslim population in the same proportion as it is everywhere else?

[Muhammad]

Greetings Eliphaz,

Thank you for your reply.

I also appreciate that Orientalists who have made their living from studying Arabic and Arabic-speaking non-Muslims can also appreciate the linguistic superiority of the Qur’an. If anything, this makes me bitterer towards the God of the Qur’an for giving us something so sweet yet so inaccessible!

The Qur'an is accessible to everyone. As I mentioned earlier, you don't have to be an Arab to appreciate its beauty. Simply listening to the sound of the Qur'an being recited brings peace and tranquility, even if the person is not able to appreciate the finer points of the language and style of the Qur'an. Moreover, anyone approaching the Qur'an seeking guidance will find it. But the more knowledge one has of the Arabic language and all the other sciences of the Qur'an, the higher will be their degree of benefit from the Qur'an.

But nonetheless, I am resuming my Arabic studies next year so here’s hoping that I too may one day be able to recognise the beauty of the Qur’an, if only from a linguistic perspective.

That's good - all the best with your studies, though you can start recognising the truth and beauty of the Qur'an much sooner!

Musaylimah’s attempts comes across more as mockery than a serious attempt:

"The elephant. What is the elephant? And who shall tell you what is the elephant? He has a ropy tail and a long trunk. This is a [mere] trifle of our Lord's creations."

Musaylimah the Liar was a man who actually claimed to be a Prophet himself during the Prophet Muhammad's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) time! The incident was as follows (recorded in Tafsir Ibn Kathir):

They have mentioned that `Amr bin Al-`As went to visit Musaylimah Al-Kadhdhab after the Messenger of Allah was commissioned (as a Prophet) and before `Amr had accepted Islam. Upon his arrival, Musaylimah said to him,

"What has been revealed to your friend (Muhammad ) during this time''

`Amr said, "A short and concise Surah has been revealed to him.''

Musaylimah then said, "What is it'' `Amr replied;


(By Al-`Asr. Verily, man is in loss. Except those who believe and do righteous deeds, and recommend one another to the truth, and recommend one another to patience.)

So Musaylimah thought for a while. Then he said, "Indeed something similar has also been revealed to me.''

`Amr asked him, "What is it''

He replied, "O Wabr (a small, furry mammal; hyrax), O Wabr! You are only two ears and a chest, and the rest of you is digging and burrowing.''

Then he said, "What do you think, O `Amr''

So `Amr said to him, "By Allah! Verily, you know that I know you are lying.''

... The Wabr is a small animal that resembles a cat, and the largest thing on it is its ears and its torso, while the rest of it is ugly. Musaylimah intended by the composition of these nonsensical verses to produce something which would oppose the Qur'an. Yet, it was not even convincing to the idol worshipper of that time.

I think the verses you quoted are a different example of someone attempting to write in the style of the Qur'an.

We know that he took part in extensive trade journeys to Syria from 590-610 AD, which was ruled by the Romans and there would have been many Arabic-speaking Christians in Syria at the time. We also know that there were several Jewish tribes scattered across the Hijaz with whom the Makkans traded, particularly in Yathrib/Medina. If you ask me, the stories of the Prophets are so simple that a single telling of them would allow one to remember them, and we know that the Arabs had a strong oral tradition and as a result, a good memory.

These are only desperate attempts to explain what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came with, and they are not new. Allaah (swt) says in the Qur'an,

Those who disbelieve say: "This is nothing but a lie that he has invented, and others have helped him in it.'' In fact, they have produced an unjust wrong and a lie. And they say: "Tales of the ancients which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.'' Say: "It has been sent down by Him Who knows the secret of the heavens and the earth. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.'' [Al-Furqan: 4-6]

In the explanation of these verses, it mentions:

It is ... a common fact that Muhammad the Messenger of Allah never learned to read or write, either at the beginning or the end of his life. He grew up among them for approximately forty years, from the time he was born until the time when his mission began. They knew all about him, and about his honest and sound character and how he would never lie or do anything immoral or bad. They even used to call him Al-Amin (the Trustworthy One) from a young age, until his mission began, because they saw how truthful and honest he was. When Allah honored him with that which He honored him, they declared their enmity towards him and came up with all these accusations which any reasonable person would know he was innocent of. They were not sure what to accuse him of. Sometimes they said that he was a sorcerer, at other times they would say he was a poet, or crazy, or a liar. So Allah said:

See what examples they have put forward for you. So they have gone astray, and never can they find a way. [17:48]

It is a very strange notion to suggest that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was taught by the Jews and Christians and if one were to examine this claim in more detail, it would quickly become apparent that it is baseless. Here are some examples in this regard.

Rather than teaching him their scriptures, the knowledgeable among the Jews and Christians recognised that he was the Messenger of truth who was prophecised in their very scriptures, hence the respect and behaviour towards him on the part of Bahira the Christian monk and Waraqah bin Nawfal and others. We even learn how some tested him regarding information that only a prophet could know, as I mentioned earlier regarding the revelation of Surah Al-Kahf. The same happened with Abdullah bin Salam, who was regarded as the most learned and best person amongst the Jews - he asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah) some questions that only a prophet would be able to answer and upon hearing the correct responses, he himself submitted to the message of Islam.


Furthermore, rather than conforming to the desires and deviations of such people (as one might expect if the Jews and Christians were the teachers of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)), the Qur'an refuted their claims, corrected what was in their scriptures and criticised them for their evil actions. Allaah (swt) mentions,

O People of the Scripture! Now has come to you Our Messenger explaining to you much of that which you used to hide from the Scripture and passing over much. [5: 15]

The Qur'an explained some of what they altered, distorted, changed and lied about Allah, and also ignored much of what they changed, since it would not bring about any benefit if it was explained.


A nice example to illustrate this is the story behind the following verses,

And of the Jews are men who listen much and eagerly to lies, listening to others who have not come to you. They change the words from their places; they say, "If you are given this, take it, but if you are not given this, then beware!'' [5: 41]

It is reported that this Ayah was revealed about two Jews who committed adultery. The Jews changed the law they had in their Book from Allah regarding punishment for adultery, from stoning to death, to a hundred flogs and making the offenders ride a donkey facing the back of the donkey:

`Abdullah bin `Umar said, "The Jews came to Allah's Messenger and mentioned that a man and a woman from them committed adultery. Allah's Messenger said to them, 'What do find of the ruling about stoning in the Tawrah?' They said, 'We only find that they should be exposed and flogged.'

'Abdullah bin Salam said, 'You lie. The Tawrah mentions stoning, so bring the Tawrah.' They brought the Tawrah and opened it but one of them hid the verse about stoning with his hand and recited what is before and after that verse. `Abdullah bin Salam said to him, 'Remove your hand,' and he removed it, thus uncovering the verse about stoning. So they said, 'He (`Abdullah bin Salam) has said the truth, O Muhammad! It is the verse about stoning.' The Messenger of Allah decided that the adulterers be stoned to death and his command was carried out. I saw that man shading the woman from the stones with his body.'' [Al-Bukhari and Muslim also collected this Hadith and this is the wording collected by Al-Bukhari]


So the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah) asked them about the ruling of stoning in the Tawrah to make them admit to what the Tawrah contains and what they collaborated to hide, deny and exclude from implementing for all that time. They had to admit to what they did, although they did it while having knowledge of the correct ruling. As they did not adhere to the Tawrah but instead preferred other laws over it which they knew were not correct, they were chastised in the Qur'an,


But how do they come to you for decision while they have the Tawrah, in which is the decision of Allah; yet even after that they turn away. For they are not believers. [5: 43]


So from this it is evident that the Jews could never be the teachers of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah), rather it is the other way round when the latter was bringing the truth that the former sought to hide.

There is yet more contradicting information to the notion that the Jews and Christians taught Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Br. Uthman mentioned earlier that the details given in the Qur'an with regards to certain historical events sometimes contradict those given in the Bible, and in addition to this, some stories in the Qur'an are not mentioned in the Bible or they are told differently. The stories it mentions such as those of the 'Ad and Thamud were not known to any people, whether they were Christians, Jews, Sabians, Zoroastrians or the Pagans of Makkah.

Another aspect to consider is, putting aside conjecture and going by established facts of the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allaa be upon him) biography, the main time when Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came into contact with Jews and Christians was in Madinah. During the time he preached in Makkah for 13 years, most of his revelations contained the stories of previous prophets. Yet in Madinah, when he came into contact with the Jews and Christians, his revelations were no longer about previous prophets but primarily on subjects of religious legislation. From this perspective, how can we say that he borrowed ideas from Jews and Christians when he preached those ideas before he met Jews and Christians?


So in summary of this point, all the information that we have regarding the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah) points towards the fact that the Qur'an was divinely inspired and that the information contained therein of the histories of the previous nations was a very powerful factor in proving this. The arguments to the contrary do not hold any weight as they are not based on anything but mere conjecture and when examined further, they prove to be irrational and futile.

I feel that given that recognition of the literary miracle is a result of birthright and/or extended study, the predictions of worldly events would be the best shot any book has of being God’s word, and if they were not so ambiguous or subjective I would be far more likely to give them some credence.

Predictions of worldly events would indeed be a hit-and-miss affair, yet nothing in the Qur'an has ever been wrong. Moreover, clear predictions do exist and they are undeniable.

Persians defeating the Romans: "Alif, Lam, Mim. The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will be victorious within three to nine years. The affair is Allah's from beginning to end." (Qur'an, 30:1-4) I think the fact that it is said ‘three to nine years’ speaks for itself. Why would God need an upper and lower bound on any prediction when He has written all that will happen on a divine tablet?

The Arabic word used is Bid', which has been translated as a number between 3-9. The fact that the prediction is not given to the exact moment is of little consequence, because the story surrounding the revelation of these verses is no less than remarkable and a clear prediction took place. Please read the post here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/566482-post2.html

And it's also mentioned here: http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=30&tid=40123

Victory at Badr: The Qur’an nowhere gives a prediction of victory at Badr, it simply reflects on the victory which has already taken place: “Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your gratitude." (Qur'an, 3:123–125)

That's not the verse I was referring to. Rather it was this one,

Their multitude will be put to flight, and they will show their backs. [54: 45]

Al-Bukhari recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "The Prophet , while in a dome-shaped tent on the day of the battle of Badr, said,

'O Allah! I ask you for the fulfillment of Your covenant and promise. O Allah! If You wish (to destroy the believers), You will never be worshipped on the earth after today.' Abu Bakr caught him by the hand and said, `This is sufficient, O Allah's Messenger! You have sufficiently asked and petitioned Allah.' The Prophet was clad in his armor at that time and went out, saying,


Their multitude will be put to flight and they will show their backs. Nay, but the Hour is their appointed time and that Hour will be more grievous and more bitter.''

Establishment of Islam as ruling authority of the Land: This is simply a case of if it hadn’t happened; we wouldn’t be here discussing the prediction, so it is a moot point.

But it did happen and here we are. The verse regarding it is:

Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession in the land, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practise their religion which He has chosen for them. And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear if they worship Me and do not associate anything with Me. But whoever disbelieved after this, they are the rebellious. [24: 55]

More info: http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=24&tid=36274

Formation of human life: I am aware that this is the foremost claim made by Muslims of the Qur’an’s scientific merit. However, I, like most people, have not studied embryology in enough depth to begin to try and talk about this. Therefore to do so I believe would not only be a disservice to that topic but also to this discussion.

Thank you for your honesty. The Qur'an does indeed make a number of references to this subject and it truly is amazing. We've had a number of threads on this topic so if you have time, you can try browsing through those.

Formation of milk: There is one ayah dealing with this, barely a line long, and for me to say ‘between blood and dung’ is not describing the formation of milk unless you really want it to.

We have to remember that the Qur'an is not a book primarily devoted to science and therefore such references are typically brief and not very descriptive. But even in these limited descriptions, the Qur'an conforms to modern science and imparts knowledge unknown at the time it was revealed.

Regarding the verse in question, it is clearly referring to the formation of milk:

And verily! In the cattle, there is a lesson for you. We give you to drink of that which is in their bellies, from between excretions and blood, pure milk; palatable to the drinkers.

You can see what Dr. Maurice Bucaille has to say here: http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/B...0Animal%20Milk

He also speaks about various other aspects of the Qur'an and science such as the others you responded to, but as I have little knowledge in this regard I am not going to comment on it. It should be borne in mind however that what we personally feel as being important to mention does not necessarily mean it is important. For example, you spoke about the earth and how its orbit is important. Yet Allaah (swt) has spoken of the earth many times in the Qur'an, such as how it has been made habitable for us and the crops which grow etc. So for you to argue what is and isn't important is irrelevant here, and I am sure if we were to research this further, the wisdom of why Allaah (swt) has mentioned what He has would become increasingly apparent.

The other thing you mentioned about the sun and moon - it is simply your own interpretation. If we look at what the Qur'anic commentators have said, we will get a clearer idea of what is meant. For example,

Ikrimah said concerning the Ayah,

(It is not for the sun to overtake the moon,) this means that each of them has its time when it prevails. So it is not appropriate for the sun to rise at night.

In my opinion, it doesn’t ‘vehemently deny’ them, it just doesn’t mention them. If you think of the OT as the first draft and the Qur’an as the second, it makes sense to omit certain aspects which people might find objectionable or contradictory to the Qur’an, for example, it is important that there was no mention of any of the previous Prophets drinking, considering the Qur’an claims they were all sending the same message.

Your reasoning here is totally incorrect. Firstly you are thinking on the premise that the Qur'an was copied from the Bible which we have already discussed above and seen how absurd it is. Secondly, Islam makes it clear that the Prophets were all people of integrity and we believe that they were protected from committing major sins such as adultery and drinking wine etc. They were, however, infallible with regards to conveying the message from Allaah (swt). And if one reads the verses about the Prophets in the Qur'an, he will notice how much they are praised and exemplified to be followed. Thirdly, you made a mistake in thinking that the same law was given to all the prophets - rather they all had the same core belief in the unity of Allaah, Judgement Day etc, but had different laws whereby to judge their people. But even with this understanding, what was said about protection from major sins still applies.

Not really. Only the all-encompassing nature of it is apparent. But don’t you see the difficulty in implementing Shariah and forming a single Caliphate, not just 1400 years after the beginning of Islam, but a mere generation after the death of the Prophet, as an indication that it doesn’t work? It is fine to say that it was revolutionary the time, (babies were being buried, women were property etc) but look at what happened after the death of the Prophet and it is clear to me that Shariah doesn’t work.

I doubt you have studied the Shariah enough to realise what it truly constitutes. After the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), his Companions continued to uphold the Shariah and a huge amount can be learnt from their success. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say it doesn't work - perhaps you can be more specific. But it is common for people to confuse the actions of some Muslims with Shariah law - we should be clear that not every Muslim leader represents Shariah law. Btw, we have some threads on this topic which you might be interested in, such as:
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...ariah-law.html

I don’t deny that the Qur’an is the most authentic religious book, but given my opinion of religious books that is not saying a lot.

It seems you have allowed preconceived opinions to get in the way of sincere searching...

Yes. If there was an incentive to do so, a mirage-like promise of entering Heaven purely based on a sincere memorisation of a book which one may or may not fully comprehend, then yes, I believe so. If only there was a way of proving this, but alas.

You are putting the Qur'an's ease of being memorised down to a simple fact of incentive. However, there are much simpler deeds that promise people Paradise in Islam. For example, there are hadeeth which promise Paradise for those who believe in the testimonies of faith, for fulfilling the 5 pillars of Islam, for memorising 99 Names of Allaah, for performing an accepted Hajj etc. So there are many deeds that can be rewarded with Paradise, not just memorising the Qur'an (and the important thing is to have those deeds accepted and ultimately there is no guarantee for someone to do a particular deed to then sit back and wait for Paradise. Rather one has to exert his full effort and fulfill all that is required of him, and it will only be from the Mercy of Allaah (swt) that anyone will enter Paradise). So the incentive behind memorising the Qur'an can't be the only explanation for its widespread memorisation.

Furthermore, there is clearly a difference between memorising the Qur'an and other books. Look at the Bible for example - how many versions does it have and which one is the right one to memorise? Which language would you memorise it in? Rather the Qur'an is unique in every way and it has been made easy for the Muslims to memorise as Allaah (swt) has said. This is why people of all ages, backgrounds, nationalities and capabilities across the world have been able to memorise it. Usually one might expect that only people with a strong memory and those who speak the language and understand it well can memorise a particular thing. Yet the Qur'an is memorised by non-Arabs and those who are very old and many others, clearly indicating that it is a book whose memorisation has been made easy.

To me the arguments of ‘X people memorise the Qur’an’, ‘people read the Qur’an X times in a year’ are all missing the point. If the Qur’an did not claim to offer a reward for these activities, namely, intercession, then it would not be read nearly as much, and therefore I do not see this as a valid argument of the Qur’an coming from God, just as proof that if you convince people with the right incentives they will do anything.

Of course the reward for actions are a motive for people to do them, as Allaah (swt) has linked certain rewards with certain actions, just as He has linked certain punishments with certain sins. But it is Allaah (swt) who gives people the ability to carry out such actions - you cannot necessarily accomplish something just because it has an incentive behind it. There are many Muslims who fall short in various ways, even though they know there is a punishment for it, and they lag behind in deeds even though they know there is reward for doing them. So you see incentive alone cannot achieve the desired result. Rather it is Allaah (swt) who has given the Ummah a huge attachment to the Qur'an and facilitated its recitation and memorisation and given it a status like no other book has. All of this is a clear indication that the Qur'an is from Allaah (swt).

Because I felt they were not worth commenting on.

I think you mean you could not deny their amazing nature!

Peace.

P.S. Sorry about the really long post!

[Hugo]

Your assumptions in the question posed are based on an a priori judgment and not supported by fact- thus what you deem a 'hyperbole' is mere self-complacency and cognitive dissonance rather than actual refutation-- I don't know how you've made that leap?!

I gave examples so there were no assumptions just an illustration to make my question as clear as I could. I never claimed it was my refutation only that for example purposes it might be; so any leaping is on your side of the fence. Here again you simply show intolerance for any kind of refutation because you simply label it 'cognitive dissonance' or and other label that comes to mind.

Yes-- and folks have challenged it, and gave you an actual methodology in which to subject this type of book research and to the test and you outright rejected it as suitable for your purposes. again can only be classified under

The only shot at a methodology I have seen is a video posted by Uthman where there is a long, detailed and comprehensive discussion of the literary qualities of the Qu'ran and I shall post some comments on that shortly. I cannot recall anyone outlining a methodology for uncovering scientific miracles in the Qu'ran.

This isn't really about 'scientific miracles' in the Quran it is about the Quran as a whole, just glancing at the mere title of the thread. A few pages back, I have stated as much, the Quran isn't a book of science it is a book of signs, whose verses aren't at odds with science (as such any book that claims divine origin) should always be transcendent with the times if it is directed to all people throughout all the ages.

I agree its not about the Qu'ran its about claims made about the Qu'ran and my view is that these claims are mostly a accepted without challenge and that is what the thread is about.

[جوري]

I gave examples so there were no assumptions just an illustration to make my question as clear as I could. I never claimed it was my refutation only that for example purposes it might be; so any leaping is on your side of the fence. Here again you simply show intolerance for any kind of refutation because you simply label it 'cognitive dissonance' or and other label that comes to mind.

What is the purpose of giving examples with no value to the topic?
Forget about my ''intolerance''-- you waste much of this thread on your feelings than contents written as direct reply to your alleged 'challenges' ''The mountains will labor, a ridiculous mouse will be born''
How about addressing Br. Muhammad's last post?

The only shot at a methodology I have seen is a video posted by Uthman where there is a long, detailed and comprehensive discussion of the literary qualities of the Qu'ran and I shall post some comments on that shortly. I cannot recall anyone outlining a methodology for uncovering scientific miracles in the Qu'ran.

You switched the topic to 'Quranic miracle' only for failure to properly refute all else (there is plenty more in these 12 pages than one post by Br. Uthman' It is again a matter of what you are willing to acknowledge to suit your purposes for this thread further, I believe in my very last post I stated:

''A few pages back, I have stated as much, the Quran isn't a book of science it is a book of signs, whose verses aren't at odds with science (as such any book that claims divine origin) should always be transcendent with the times if it is directed to all people throughout all the ages.''

Why do pick apart that which you can while ignoring all else?

I agree its not about the Qu'ran its about claims made about the Qu'ran and my view is that these claims are mostly a accepted without challenge and that is what the thread is about.

I doubt the majority of Muslims merely accept without a challenge... And I'll be waiting to see how you will refute what Br. Muhammad wrote above without finding some byway to comment superficially on some tangential note rather than the entire content!


all the best

[Hugo]

I would just like to change the direction of discussion a little and pose the same kind of question but in a slightly oblique fashion. For me its is what a book say that is of importance, its message, its recounting of what God has to say. Now I have looked at a lot of the supposed scientific miracles claimed for the Qu'ran but these miracles to me raise all sorts of other difficulties so some questions (I would suggest to keep post short you just comment on one at a time)

1. I cannot find a case where the explanation if that is the right word makes any difference or adds anything to the meaning of the verse.

2. If there is let's call it extra meaning then it was hidden even from your most pious forefathers and one presumes there might be things hidden from us. That would mean that sharia must be deficient because the forefathers could not have been in possession of all the facts.

3. Just a though but I wondered if every cited supposed miracle is evident in both Arabic and say English or German or whatever. When I compare several English translation often the miracle 'disappears' in one or other of them.

A supplementary question here that puzzles me is that if the Qu'ran is a miracle in Arabic why does it fall short in that it is not of such a quality that it can be translated perfectly and preserve all the literary distinctiveness?

4. I wonder why God would bury such ideas in the Qu'ran so that for most of its existence they were unknown and if it is true then the Qu'ran can never be a final revelation because we can never know if other things are buried there. If they are just assurances we have the same issue that roughly 14 centuries passed without such assurances so why give them now?

[Hugo]

What is the purpose of giving examples with no value to the topic? Forget about my ''intolerance''-- you waste much of this thread on your feelings than contents written as direct reply to your alleged 'challenges' ''The mountains will labor, a ridiculous mouse will be born''
How about addressing Br. Muhammad's last post?

all the best

Let's end this part of the debate and my plain position is that none of the supposed miracles can be refuted because none of them are falsifiable. That is if you say a verse about thunder in the heavens is the big bang it cannot be refuted because to do so we would have to consult God and ask - "did you hide this meaning in the verse" and obviously we cannot do that. You can still believe it of course but it can never be proved.

[جوري]

Let's end this part of the debate and my plain position is that none of the supposed miracles can be refuted because none of them are falsifiable. That is if you say a verse about thunder in the heavens is the big bang it cannot be refuted because to do so we would have to consult God and ask - "did you hide this meaning in the verse" and obviously we cannot do that. You can still believe it of course but it can never be proved.

What is your question?

[Predator]

I always remove lines to save space. .

Oh really , How much of space of space would you have saved . You didnt have a problem quoting other posts .

It has been banned where exactly in South Africa?

It was banned in the country of south africa ,thats all i know .

so your suggestion that I want to hide it is an absurd one

Well by tradition ,even disgraced reverend Jimmy Swaggart when challenged to read those dirty verses ,played a trick on the audience, hiding it and reading from king james version instead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768HH1-Iu2s At 6:05

Your book is making people ashamed or scared of reading it If those words were not profane , then Swaggart would not be ashamed to read that version infront of the audience. And this is what aroused my suspicions that you were ignoring it , christians are ashamed of reading those verses .If it was the word of god, then people would not be ashamed of it. Are people holier than god , that they dare not utter these words but God almight uttered it

So now you have decided what God should or should not say and to suggest that these are text book examples is such a monstrous lie that one has to question your own motives in this.

Why would god then put these words in the bible which people have been ashamed to read and dont want children to read ?
Shouldnt a book of god be so pure , so that it can be read by anyone regardless of their age . Thus the example proves to you how superior the Quran is over your bible where all its verses can be read without shame or controversies unlike the Bible which find itself in the Stop Public Pornography (SPP) movement

http://www.nobeliefs.com/spp.htm

Do you think that incest does not occur in Muslim lands or homosexuals are not found amongst the Muslim population in the same proportion as it is everywhere else

It can happen but the numbers are very negligible . For eg: if you Compare the stats of US with saudi arabia which follows shariah laws strictly , and see how low the numbers are in saudi of any crime , let alone incest .

[Muhammad]

Greetings Hugo,

For me its is what a book say that is of importance, its message, its recounting of what God has to say.

I don't think anyone in this thread has disagreed on this point with regards to the Qur'an. In the list of miraculous aspects of the Qur'an I gave earlier, a few of them focused on the message of the Qur'an. Also, I'd like to quote what Br. Ansar once mentioned regarding the miraculous nature of the Qur'an, and he too mentions the Qur'anic message as being a key feature.

I'll try to give you a comprehensive answer as to why the Qur'an is regarded the way it is by so many people.

1. The Power of the Qur'anic Message:

-it is universal, unrestricted by time and applicable to any nation/culture. The Qur'an is by far the most widely followed and acted-upon book in the world. As for the Bible, most Christians follow the Church over the Bible, and each denomination has its own bible anyway. The fact that there is no other book in the world that forms the constitution of the lives of billions of followers is itself a sign.
-it is practical and logical, it can be established practically in society and is logically able to address the fundamental questions relating to all aspects of our universe.
-it is comprehensive, addressing all fundamental sectors of human life, be it spritual, physical, mental, social/societal, politcal, environmental, economic, etc.
-it is natural, in concordance with a person's nature and what they feel deep inside to be the truth.
-it is clear and consistent, free of the changes in worldview and understanding that dominate the works of human beings.
-it is deep, having provoked thousands upon thousands of volumes of exegesis, expounding upon its meaning and revealing fascinating details that many people otherwise miss in their reading of the Qur'an.

2. The Power of the Qur'anic Style:

-it is Interactive, the text seems alive as it responds to the very questions that arise in one's mind at that moment. It speaks to the reader and delivers specific yet universal advice.
-it is Inerrant, free from contradictons and discrepancies, or other errors that would normally be found in the works of human beings.
-it is Memorizable; the Qur'an is the only book in the world which is continuously being memorized by millions of people and recited daily. No other book has been committed to memory by so many followers, as though it fits in one's mind as a key in a lock.
-its Language, the Qur'anic arabic is a stunning miracle in itself, its style is powerful and its recitation is melodious. More info: Here, Here, Here.

3. The Power of the Qur'anic Text:

-it is Preserved, even after fourteen and a half centuries, the Qur'an is recited today exactly as it was first revealed. Thus it was free of the tampering that befell other religious scriptures.
-its other Remarkable features; many Muslims find a striking concordance between many Qur'anic statements and established scientific truths, which could not have been known by any normal human being 14 centuries ago. (see here). Many Muslims have also found the Qur'anic perfection extends even to various mathematical miracles within the text. As well, there are the Qur'anic Prophecies.
-its Authorship; the context in which the Qur'an was revealed leaves the reader with no other conclusion than the fact that it could only be the word of God.

This is just my summary of the miraculous features Muslims find in the Qur'an.

1. I cannot find a case where the explanation if that is the right word makes any difference or adds anything to the meaning of the verse.

Well if we are talking about scientific facts here, the main point is that they are in conformity with modern science and could not have been known at the time the Qur'an was revealed.

2. If there is let's call it extra meaning then it was hidden even from your most pious forefathers and one presumes there might be things hidden from us. That would mean that sharia must be deficient because the forefathers could not have been in possession of all the facts.

The only thing we're talking about here is science, because in this age it is believed we are more scientifically advanced than previous nations and can perhaps appreciate scientific references at a deeper level. But this is not crucial to the guidance of the Qur'an. Things like the Shariah are what the Qur'an came to explain, and therefore they are much more explicit and detailed and best understood by the early generations. Nothing that is necessary for the guidance of Muslims has been left out in the Qur'an or failed to be explained by the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

This is why the scientific miracles are arguably more subjective because the Qur'an is not a book intended to primarily discuss that. However, other aspects are much more concrete.

3. Just a though but I wondered if every cited supposed miracle is evident in both Arabic and say English or German or whatever. When I compare several English translation often the miracle 'disappears' in one or other of them.

A supplementary question here that puzzles me is that if the Qu'ran is a miracle in Arabic why does it fall short in that it is not of such a quality that it can be translated perfectly and preserve all the literary distinctiveness?

I'm not really sure what kind of miracles you are referring to in the first part of this question, but regarding the second bit - surely whenever you translate something from one language to another, there will always be things lost in translation. Each language has its own features and grammatical rules etc, therefore it isn't possible to preserve the exact meaning and effect from one to the other. Note that understanding the Qur'an in other languages is one thing, and preserving its literary distinctiveness in those languages is another. Br. Ansar has touched on this elsewhere:

I'd like to comment on what was mentioned regarding the Qur'an being revealed in arabic. The fact that the Qur'an's message is universal and transcends culture, nationality and ethnicity is not in any way negated by its revelation in a specific language. The message of Islam can be expounded and explained (and it indeed is) in any language. While it is true that knowledge of the arabic language is necessary for Islamic scholarship and a more complete appreciation of the Qur'an's miraculous beauty, this is not necessary for the basic practice of Islam and more importantly, anyone can learn arabic if they have the resources and invest a moderate amount of time and effort! Some of the greatest scholars of Islam have been non-arabs.
[...]
Yes, people born speaking the arabic language do have a certain advantage in gaining understanding of the religion, but how is that advantage any different from an individual who has the opportunity and financial resources to go to an Islamic University over an individual who does not?? Moreover, most arabs don't even have that great of an advantage since the arabic of the Qur'an is still not the same as the street dialects of arabs and still requires a certain amount of learning irrespective of whether the student is arab or not. So whether you know arabic or not, nothing changes in terms of your capacity to learn and implement the religion and that is what you will ultimately be held accountable for.

I think I've already covered what you mentioned in point 4...

Regards.

[MSalman]

For me its is what a book say that is of importance, its message, its recounting of what God has to say.

Let's not play hide and seek games please. Just put it simply, you wanna attack certain fiqhi issues in the Qur'an. If you come out cleanly and put forward everything you got then I can assure you that it would make everyone's life little bit easier and discussion could be more beneficial.

1. I cannot find a case where the explanation if that is the right word makes any difference or adds anything to the meaning of the verse.

off course it does make a difference - the experts in the field can explain the meaning more accurately and profoundly in light of other text because a person who is not expert doesn't know about everything; thus, he can misunderstand the meaning. Adding anything or taking away anything from the actual meaning is a heresy in Islam.

2. If there is let's call it extra meaning then it was hidden even from your most pious forefathers and one presumes there might be things hidden from us. That would mean that sharia must be deficient because the forefathers could not have been in possession of all the facts.

Your case has a leg to stand if it is pertaining to laws but you cannot find a single case. Bad luck! Everything pretianing to laws has been fully and correctly understood by the companions of Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alahyhi wa sallam) and they passed it down.

3. Just a though but I wondered if every cited supposed miracle is evident in both Arabic and say English or German or whatever. When I compare several English translation often the miracle 'disappears' in one or other of them.

that is why the Qur'an is in Arabic so that its orginal meaning is not lost or not twisted due to deficiency of the language.

4. I wonder why God would bury such ideas in the Qu'ran so that for most of its existence they were unknown and if it is true then the Qu'ran can never be a final revelation because we can never know if other things are buried there. If they are just assurances we have the same issue that roughly 14 centuries passed without such assurances so why give them now?

well too bad this is not the case. now what, will you accept the Qur'an?

[Hugo]

Oh really , How much of space of space would you have saved. You didnt have a problem quoting other posts .

It is very common to edit out parts of messages to save space and come to the point more quickly - do you have an issue with that?

It was banned in the country of south africa ,thats all i know .

This is not much to go on is it? There are several million Christians in SA and it sounds very doubtful that they all tear out bits that you don't like. The Biblical portions you mention have been in print or available for perhaps as long as 3,000 years. In Africa it is available in 121 different languages alone and in English there are almost 60 different translations and for Asiatics its is available in about 180 different languages etc. It is almost impossible to estimate how many Bibles are printed each years because almost every publisher in the world offers several different translations and in multiple formats.

The Bible never hides sin but make it plain and if we take the Ezekiel 23 portion you mention it is absolutely clearly an allegory that is intended to show the sinfulness of sin. The notion of describing falling away from God as prostitution is used several times in the Bible and the message is clear to anyone that what is being described is that turning from God is the greatest sin of all. Do you think God should never mention sin or when he does he should not be specific about it?

If one considers the Qu'ran we read in 44:43 of people dragged into hell, pouring scalding water (in other places it is described as being as hot as molten brass) down peoples throats - is that suitable for children? That is immediately followed by the righteous being wed to dark eyed houris (more than one) how will you explain that to children? Is all this literal or it is metaphorical?

Your book is making people ashamed or scared of reading it If those words were not profane , then Swaggart would not be ashamed to read that version infront of the audience. And this is what aroused my suspicions that you were ignoring it , christians are ashamed of reading those verses .If it was the word of god, then people would not be ashamed of it. Are people holier than god , that they dare not utter these words but God almight uttered it

This is frankly, rubbish. The Bible is plain as to what sin and wickedness is but it also has verses such as Colossians 3 (NIV) - Rules for Holy Living and no one can find fault with what they say except a mind that is itself corrupted.

Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free... Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

Why would god then put these words in the bible which people have been ashamed to read and dont want children to read ?

The verses are there as warnings of the dire consequences of sin - why do you think the Qu'ran mentions 'scalding water poured over someone head continually' - do you think it is supposed to be nice to read and make you feel comfortable?

It can happen but the numbers are very negligible. For eg: if you Compare the stats of US with saudi arabia which follows shariah laws strictly, and see how low the numbers are in saudi of any crime, let alone incest .

I think you may be living in a dream world: a recent BBC documentary estimated that the number of female prostitutes in Tehran alone was 100,000 - so do you think they all walk around in mini-skirts? In Saudi Arabia homosexual activity is described as 'predatory'... do I need to go on? The moment you start saying that your society is free from sin you are on a downward spiral. You see laws do nothing on their own and its is personal righteousness that is what we strive for.

[Hugo]

Let's not play hide and seek games please. Just put it simply, you wanna attack certain fiqhi issues in the Qur'an. If you come out cleanly and put forward everything you got then I can assure you that it would make everyone's life little bit easier and discussion could be more beneficial.

How is it playing hide and seek or an attack on fiqhi issues if I simply state what I believe - or is that now allowed?

off course it does make a difference - the experts in the field can explain the meaning more accurately and profoundly in light of other text because a person who is not expert doesn't know about everything; thus, he can misunderstand the meaning. Adding anything or taking away anything from the actual meaning is a heresy in Islam.

Reading this I don't think you even understood my post and so this wastes time. If tomorrow someone discovers a supposed scientific miracle in the Qu'ran - then I am asking how does it help in understanding that verses. That is a legitmase question is it not?

Your case has a leg to stand if it is pertaining to laws but you cannot find a single case. Bad luck! Everything pretianing to laws has been fully and correctly understood by the companions of Allah's Messenger (sal-allahu alahyhi wa sallam) and they passed it down.

You are right I could not find a single case where a supposed scientific miracle helped (me) in understanding what a verse meant - you here confirm that neither can you. Indeed what you say is illogical, if there was something 'extra' in a verse such as a scientific miracle THEN the companions could NOT have fully understood it could they?.

[MSalman]

as usual, you are displaying your reading comprehension problems and attacking with straw man.

How is it playing hide and seek or an attack on fiqhi issues if I simply state what I believe - or is that now allowed?

when did I say what you simply state is an attack on fiqhi issues or you are not allowed to do that? Please go back and read my comment in full context.

just in case, if you haven't realized, I am salman from isalmic-life and I know who you are. So I can predict direction of your argument from your simple points.

Reading this I don't think you even understood my post and so this wastes time. If tomorrow someone discovers a supposed scientific miracle in the Qu'ran - then I am asking how does it help in understanding that verses. That is a legitmase question is it not?

I was under the impression that you are talking about generality and not specific cases. So yes, I may have misunderstood your statement however I never said that your question is illegitimate. I was simply saying that an explanation of a verse doesn't add or takes away anything from its original meaning. But it seems you are asking from a different angle:

It does make a difference in sense that we understand the verse better. It simply means that we lacked certain factors and tools to fully recognize and understand the sign which Allah has given to us.

The Qur'an is not a science book so the scholars are not going to explain the Qur'an whit scientific mind set. Plus, much of it depends on how much knowledge we have about science. Hence, many of these sorts of things can be missed. So if the earlier scholars didn't make a tafsir which would explain a verse in accordance with a scientific discovery this doesn't mean that the new explanation is wrong or we are trying to show the Qur'an has scientific discoveries.

The other reason is that many of earlier explanations of particular verses work hand in hand with newer explanation. Why? because the earlier scholars already explained it correctly but it was never emphasized as the discoveries were never made and the societies were never focus on issues related to scientific discoveries. Many of the ayaat were understood perfectly by the companions and other mufasireen and they explained the scientific knowledge Allah has given us.

You are right I could not find a single case where a supposed scientific miracle helped (me) in understanding what a verse meant - you here confirm that neither can you.

we are not on the same page. go back and read carefully

Indeed what you say is illogical, if there was something 'extra' in a verse such as a scientific miracle THEN the companions could NOT have fully understood it could they?.

illogical to those who cannot understand certain things and try not to and then mix up issues. yes, but how does this prove that the Shari'ah is deficient? Remember this is the argument you made! Shari'ah is a law governering an entire life of humans. Scientific knowledge in the Qur'an is a sign from Allah for humans to recognize the divinity of Islam and His Own existence.

Can you know see the difference between the two?

[Hugo]

I was under the impression that you are talking about generality and not specific cases. So yes, I may have misunderstood your statement however I never said that your question is illegitimate. I was simply saying that an explanation of a verse doesn't add or takes away anything from its original meaning. But it seems you are asking from a different angle:

It does make a difference in sense that we understand the verse better. It simply means that we lacked certain factors and tools to fully recognize and understand the sign which Allah has given to us.

Ok, but I would have thought the explanation of a verse was its meaning but that may be just semantics. The Biblical view and I think the Islamic view is that there is ONLY ONE meaning in any verse; to use your words 'the original meaning' but of course there may be many applications since circumstances to which it applied, may have changed.

But you cannot have it both ways. Either the Islamic early scholars understood the verse or they did not and if one accepts that a particular scientific miracle as valid then the early fathers could not have had a full understanding if it adds meaning and must have in your words 'lacked the tools'. For what its worth I do not think it possible to establish any of the supposed scientific miracles as hidden there by God because to do that we would have to ask God and that cannot be done.

The Qur'an is not a science book so the scholars are not going to explain the Qur'an whit scientific mind set. Plus, much of it depends on how much knowledge we have about science. Hence, many of these sorts of things can be missed. So if the earlier scholars didn't make a tafsir which would explain a verse in accordance with a scientific discovery this doesn't mean that the new explanation is wrong or we are trying to show the Qur'an has scientific discoveries.

Interesting point for it is possible that the the explanation we have now of some bit if science may be shown later to be invalid and therefore some supposed miracle may in fact be wrong hence showing the Qu'ran to be in errors. The point is that if one start saying that the revelation is progressive as you seem to imply here we land in all sorts of hot water.

The other reason is that many of earlier explanations of particular verses work hand in hand with newer explanation. Why? because the earlier scholars already explained it correctly but it was never emphasized as the discoveries were never made and the societies were never focus on issues related to scientific discoveries. Many of the ayaat were understood perfectly by the companions and other mufasireen and they explained the scientific knowledge Allah has given us.

You seem to be going round in circles - first we have 'explained correctly' then 'many of the ... perfectly' implying that many were not so that cast a shadow on the understanding of your pious forefathers. Why don't you take one of these supposed scientific miracles and show how it help explain a verse and give us lets call it the older explanation for comparison?

illogical to those who cannot understand certain things and try not to and then mix up issues. yes, but how does this prove that the Shari'ah is deficient? Remember this is the argument you made! Shari'ah is a law governering an entire life of humans. Scientific knowledge in the Qur'an is a sign from Allah for humans to recognize the divinity of Islam and His Own existence.

There are logical problems here: if the miracles enhance the meaning then your pious forefathers who generated sharia were NOT in possession of all the facts and therefore MAY have drawn different conclusions. If you say they are signs then we have a God who decided to hide them from early generations and logically there must still be some who are hidden from us that means we can never know God's final revelation.

These are ONLY problems if you start claiming that hidden in the Qu'ran are all sorts of scientific miracles. I exclude here two things: the literary merit argument because that has not changed and possible predictions.

[Predator]

It is very common to edit out parts of messages to save space and come to the point more quickly - do you have an issue with that?

I couldnt understand how half a line of words is a big high resolution pic that was eating up space and bandwidth that you chose to remove it. I didnt have a problem . You had a problem and wanted to conserve space .

This is not much to go on is it? There are several million Christians in SA and it sounds very doubtful that they all tear out bits that you don't like.

Its not about me . You need to ask yourself a question . If those are the glorous words of god ,why are you christians yourselves having trouble reading it or giving to your children and other like George bernard shaw call it the most dangerous book on earth , WHY ????

George Bernard Shaw said, "THE MOST DANGEROUS BOOK (the Bible) ON EARTH, KEEP IT UNDER LOCK AND KEY." Keep the Bible out of your children's reach.

"Reading Bible stories to children can also open up all sorts of opportunities to discuss the morality of sex. AN UNEXPURGATED BIBLE MIGHT GET AN X-RATING FROM SOME CENSORS," (The Plain Truth October 1977)[Jehova's Witnesses'

Do you think God should never mention sin or when he does he should not be specific about it?

God has mentioned sin but not with disgusting language that it gest banned in a country and makes christians themselves ashamed to read or give it to their children and get banned isnt worthy of being the word of god . The "wh0redoms" of the two sisters, Aholah and Aholibah and The sexual details here puts to shame even the unexpurgated edition of many banned books. Ask your "born again" Christian visitors, underwhat category will they classify all this lewdness? Such filth belongs to X-rated erotic book and certainly has no place in any "Book of God."

If one considers the Qu'ran we read in 44:43 of people dragged into hell, pouring scalding water (in other places it is described as being as hot as molten brass) down peoples throats - is that suitable for children?

The verses are there as warnings of the dire consequences of sin but there is no X rated language used unlike your bible

That is immediately followed by the righteous being wed to dark eyed houris (more than one) how will you explain that to children?

Where is the filthy and disgusting language in that verse unlike the loads of filth

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/chr...-book-god.html

in the bible

The moment you start saying that your society is free from sin you are on a downward spiral. You see laws do nothing on their own and its is personal righteousness that is what we strive for

Who said that crime never happens in muslim countries ? go back and read the post . you cant prove that America has a lower crime rate than saudi arabia .

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...der-rates.html

I just said that Saudi have the lowest rate of crime because of the laws, and when apply this is your western countries like usa and the crime rate will go down

[Hugo]

Its not about me. You need to ask yourself a question. If those are the glorious words of god ,why are you christians yourselves having trouble reading it or giving to your children and other like George bernard shaw call it the most dangerous book on earth , WHY ????

If you take any trouble at all with your research you will find 100's of people have called it a 'dangerous book' and the same goes for the Qu'ran. You mention Shaw but he said the Bible is a dangerous book but he also at the same time said "but so is giving someone a rifle" so his meaning is plain, it is not the thing itself that is dangerous but how it is used, how it is interpreted and that like anything else can be misused. One can use the Bible to justify Holy war and you can do the same with the Qu'ran as we know from the 9/11 murderes - am I to blame the Qu'ran for that? The Bible is not banned in say the UAE or IRAN or Parkistan?

If I look at the verses you cited it amounts to less than 0.1% of the Bible so in your research you ignored almost everything and selected a few lurid sounding verses or parts of verses and took them completely out of context - why did you do that, what kind of honest evaluation is that?

God has mentioned sin but not with disgusting language that it gets banned in a country and makes Christians themselves ashamed to read or give it to their children and get banned isnt worthy of being the word of god.

You say its disgusting language but understood correctly it is stating the truth either plainly or by means of allegory. For example, Michael Marcavage may be sent to prison for opposing homosexuals in public office and showing that is ungodly by reading a passage from the Bible that mentions them - would you support him or not?

What for you is disgusting language - the Qu'ran use the words rape, prostitute, adultery, kill (133 times) etc and talks of scalding water poured on someone head. Do you think it is supposed to be seen as 'nice' and 'lovely language' when it talks of these things do you think we are supposed to feel comfortable when we hear about such things?

The "wh0redoms" of the two sisters, Aholah and Aholibah and The sexual details here puts to shame even the unexpurgated edition of many banned books. Ask your "born again" Christian visitors, underwhat category will they classify all this lewdness? Such filth belongs to X-rated erotic book and certainly has no place in any "Book of God."

Here is just show you have not bothered to actually read the section because if you did you would know that the two sisters are clearly stated as being Jerusalem and Samaria - not people at all so its speaking of a debased and debauched nation and pointing out their wickedness and the dread consequences that come from it - no one, no one could read that passage as recommending sin.

The verses are there as warnings of the dire consequences of sin but there is no X rated language used unlike your bible

In your view, I might regard talking about houris or killing people as x-rated. If the Qu'ran does not speak plainly about sin then it is not a complete revelation is it - one cannot speak about sin strongly and be expected to do it in nice and comfortable words - a task for you; were does the qu'ran speak about homosexuality and is there anything anywhere is Islam that you would not want to read out loud to your daughter or mother or sister?

Who said that crime never happens in muslim countries? go back and read the post. you cant prove that America has a lower crime rate than saudi arabia. I just said that Saudi have the lowest rate of crime because of the laws, and when apply this is your western countries like usa and the crime rate will go down.

I gave you statistics because it is clear you imply things are better under sharia but the facts don't seem to support that view.

[Hugo]

I don't think anyone in this thread has disagreed on this point with regards to the Qur'an. In the list of miraculous aspects of the Qur'an I gave earlier, a few of them focused on the message of the Qur'an. Also, I'd like to quote what Br. Ansar once mentioned regarding the miraculous nature of the Qur'an, and he too mentions the Qur'anic message as being a key feature.

I will comment on the quotation in your post and the video posted early by Uthman a little later as the video is long and detailed and I need to make notes. In terms of the literary merit of the Qu'ran then I am sure it is as you say but I suppose my position would be that at least in my view other books have similar merit and secondly, I cannot see in any strict logical sense that it follows it must be from God.

Well if we are talking about scientific facts here, the main point is that they are in conformity with modern science and could not have been known at the time the Qur'an was revealed. The only thing we're talking about here is science, because in this age it is believed we are more scientifically advanced than previous nations and can perhaps appreciate scientific references at a deeper level. But this is not crucial to the guidance of the Qur'an.

This I would more or less agree with though I have difficulty seeing why God would hide things and in general I have not see anything that I would regard as a miraculous insert. But I think your position is the only logical one that whether these are scientific miracles or not it has no bearing in meaning because otherwise all sorts of consequences and objections arise so of which I outlined.

I'm not really sure what kind of miracles you are referring to in the first part of this question, but regarding the second bit - surely whenever you translate something from one language to another, there will always be things lost in translation. Each language has its own features and grammatical rules etc, therefore it isn't possible to preserve the exact meaning and effect from one to the other. Note that understanding the Qur'an in other languages is one thing, and preserving its literary distinctiveness in those languages is another. Br. Ansar has touched on this elsewhere:

I am sure this is right and my comment was a conjecture that one might have had a greater miracles if it was totally translatable. There is something called the "spotlighting" where a situation or thing can be interpreted to suit ones feelings. For example, Jesus was said to have been crucified between two people and some have said that even in death he was at the centre but if he had been placed at the end of the line the changes to be an example of how God suffered.

So here if the Qu'ran had not be literary excellent then some would have found another way to explain its uniqueness. The whole point of this is that we must be careful not to associate interpolate or extrapolate meaning with events or things or if we do it needs a lot of care.

[جوري]

I will comment on the quotation in your post and the video posted early by Uthman a little later as the video is long and detailed and I need to make notes. In terms of the literary merit of the Qu'ran then I am sure it is as you say but I suppose my position would be that at least in my view other books have similar merit and secondly, I cannot see in any strict logical sense that it follows it must be from God.

Well if we are talking about scientific facts here, the main point is that they are in conformity with modern science and could not have been known at the time the Qur'an was revealed. The only thing we're talking about here is science, because in this age it is believed we are more scientifically advanced than previous nations and can perhaps appreciate scientific references at a deeper level. But this is not crucial to the guidance of the Qur'an.

This I would more or less agree with though I have difficulty seeing why God would hide things and in general I have not see anything that I would regard as a miraculous insert. But I think your position is the only logical one that whether these are scientific miracles or not it has no bearing in meaning because otherwise all sorts of consequences and objections arise so of which I outlined.



I am sure this is right and my comment was a conjecture that one might have had a greater miracles if it was totally translatable. There is something called the "spotlighting" where a situation or thing can be interpreted to suit ones feelings. For example, Jesus was said to have been crucified between two people and some have said that even in death he was at the centre but if he had been placed at the end of the line the changes to be an example of how God suffered.

So here if the Qu'ran had not be literary excellent then some would have found another way to explain its uniqueness. The whole point of this is that we must be careful not to associate interpolate or extrapolate meaning with events or things or if we do it needs a lot of care.

I think this will truly take care of all the queries you keep on raising!

all the best

The Amazing Qur'an
by Gary Miller
Calling the Qur'an amazing is not something done only by Muslims, who have an appreciation for the book and who are pleased with it; it has been labeled amazing by
non-Muslims as well. In fact, even people who hate Islam very much have still called it amazing.
Assumption of the people about the Qur'an
One thing which surprises non Muslims who are examining the book very closely is that the Qur'an does not appear to them to be what they expected. What they assume is that they have an old book which came fourteen centuries ago from the Arabian Desert; and
they expect that the book should look something like that - an old book from the desert. And then they find out that it does not resemble what they expected at all. Additionally, one of the first things that some people assume is that because it is an old
book which comes from the desert, it should talk about the desert. Well the Qur'an does talk about the desert - some of its imagery describes the desert; but it also talks about the sea - what it's like to be in a storm on the sea.Some years ago, the story came to us in Toronto about a man who was in the merchant marine and made his living on the sea. A Muslim gave him a translation of the Qur'an to read. The merchant marine knew nothing about the history of Islam but was interested in reading the Qur'an. When he finished reading it, he brought it back to the Muslim and asked, "This Muhammad was he a sailor?" He was impressed at how accurately the
Qur'an describes a storm on a sea. When he was told, "No as a matter of fact, Muhammad lived in the desert," that was enough for him. He embraced Islam on the spot. He was so impressed with the Qur'an's description because he had been in a storm on the sea, and he
knew that whoever had written that description had also been in a storm on the sea. The description of "a wave, over it a wave, over it clouds" was not what someone imagining a storm on a sea to be like would have written; rather, it was written by someone who knew what a storm on the sea was like. This is one example of how the Qur'an is not tied to a
certain place and time. Certainly, the scientific ideas expressed in it also do not seem to originate from the desert fourteen centuries ago.
The theory of an atomMany centuries before the onset of Muhammad's Prophethood, there was a well-known
theory of atomism advanced by the Greek philosopher, Democritus. He and the people who came after him assumed that matter consists of tiny, indestructible, indivisible particles called atoms. The Arabs too, used to deal in the same concept; in fact, the Arabic word "dharrah" commonly referred to the smallest particle known to man. Now, modern science has discovered that this smallest unit of matter (i.e., the atom, which has all of the same properties as its element) can be split into its component parts.
This is a new idea, a development of the last century; yet, interestingly enough, this information had already been documented in the Qur'an which states: "He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom's weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that..."
Undoubtedly, fourteen centuries ago that statement would have looked unusual, even to an Arab. For him, the dharrah was the smallest thing there was. Indeed, this is proof, that the Qur'an is not outdated. Health and medicine Another example of what one might expect to find in an "old book" that touches upon the subject of health or medicine is outdated remedies or cures. Various historical sources state that the Prophet gave some advice about health and hygiene, yet most of these pieces of advice are not contained in the Qur'an. At first glance, to the non-Muslims this
appears to be a negligent omission. They cannot understand why Allah would not
"include" such helpful information in the Qur'an. Some Muslims attempt to explain this absence with the following argument: "Although the Prophet's advice was sound and applicable to the time in which he lived, Allah, in His infinite wisdom, knew that there would come later medical and scientific advances which would make the Prophet's advice appear outdated. When later discoveries occurred, people might say that such information contradicted that which the Prophet had given. Thus, since Allah would
never allow any opportunity for the non-Muslims to claim that the Qur'an contradicts itself or the teachings of the Prophet, He only included in the Qur'an information and examples which could stand the test of time."
However, when one examines the true realities of the Qur'an in terms of its existence as a divine revelation, the entire matter is quickly brought into its proper perspective, and the error in such argumentation becomes clear and understandable. It must be understood that the Qur'an is a divine revela tion, and as such, all information in it is of divine origin. Allah revealed the Qur'an from Himself. It is the words of Allah, which existed before
creation, and thus nothing can be added, subtracted or altered. In essence, the Qur'an existed and was complete before the creation of Prophet Muhammad, so it could not possibly contain any of the Prophet's own words or advice. An inclusion of such information would clearly contradict the purpose for which the Qur'an exists, compromise its authority and render it inauthentic as a divine revelation. Consequently, there was no "home remedies" in the Qur'an which one could claim to be outdated; nor does it contain any man's view about what is beneficial to health, what food is best to eat, or what will cure this or that disease. In fact, the Qur'an only mentions one item dealing with medical treatment, and it is not in dispute by anyone. It states that in honey there is
healing. And certainly, I do not think that there is anyone who will argue with that! If one assumes that the Qur'an is the product of a man's mind, then one would expect it to reflect some of what was going on in the mind of the man who "composed" it. In fact, certain encyclopedias and various books clam that the Qur'an was the product of hallucinations that Muhammad underwent. If these claims are true - if it indeed originated
from some psychological problems in Muhammad's mind - then evidence of this would be apparent in the Qur'an. Is there such evidence? In order to determine whether or not there is, one must first identify what things would have been going on in his mind at that time and then search for these thoughts and reflections in the Qur'an. The Revelation
It is common knowledge that Muhammad had a very difficult life. All of his daughters died before him except one, and he had a wife of several years who was dear and important to him, who not only preceded him in death at a very critical period of his life. As a matter of fact, she must have been quite a woman because when the first revelation came to him, he ran home to her afraid. Certainly, even today one would have a hard time
trying to find an Arab who would tell you, "I was so afraid that I ran home to my wife." They just aren't that way. Yet Muhammad felt comfortable enough with his wife to be
able to do that. That's how influential and strong woman she was. Although these
examples are only a few of the subjects that would have been on Muhammad's mind, they
are sufficient in intensity to prove my point. The Qur'an does not mention any of these
things - not the death of his children, not the death of his beloved companion and wife,
not his fear of the initial revelations, which he so beautifully shared with his wife -
nothing; yet, these topics must have hurt him, bothered him, and caused him pain and
grief during periods of his psychological reflections, then these subjects, as well as
others, would be prevalent or at least mentioned throughout. A truly scientific approach
to the Qur'an is possible because the Qur'an offers something that is not offered by other
religious scriptures, in particular, and other religions, in general. It is what scientists
demand. Today there are many people who have ideas and theories about how the
universe works. These people are all over the place, but the scientific community does
not even bother to listen to them. This is because within the last century the scientific
community has demanded a test of falsification. They say, "If you have theory, do not
bother us with it unless you bring with that theory a way for us to prove whether you are
wrong or not."
Such a test was exactly why the scientific community listened to Einstein towards the
beginning of the century. He came with a new theory and said, "I believe the universe
works like this; and here are three ways to prove whether I am wrong!" So the scientific
community subjected his theory to the tests, and within six years it passed all three. Of
course, this does not prove that he was great, but it proves that he deserved to be listened
to because he said, "This is my idea; and if you want to try to prove me wrong, do this or
try that." This is exactly what the Qur'an has - falsification tests. Some are old (in that
they have already been proven true), and some still exist today. Basically it states, "If this
book is not what it claims to be, then all you have to do is this or this or this to prove that
it is false." Of course, in 1400 years no one has been able to do "This or this or this," and
thus it is still considered true and authentic. I suggest to you that the next time you get
into dispute with someone about Islam and he claims that he has the truth and that you
are in darkness, you leave all other arguments at first and make this suggestion. Ask him,
"Is there any falsification test in your religion? Is there anything in your religion that
would prove you are wrong if I could prove to you that it exists - anything?" Well, I can
promise right now that people will not have anything - no test, no proof, nothing! This is
because they do not carry around the idea that they should not only present what they
believe but should also offer others a chance to prove they're wrong. However, Islam
does that. A perfect example of how Islam provides man with a chance to verify its
authenticity and "prove it wrong" occurs in the 4th chapter. And quiet honestly, I was
surprised when I first discovered this challenge. It states:
"Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would
surely have found therein much discrepancy."
The challenge to non-Muslims
This is a clear challenge to the non-Muslim. Basically, it invites him to find a mistake. As
a matter of fact, the seriousness and difficulty of the challenge aside, the actual
presentation of such a challenge in the first place is not even in human nature and is
inconsistent with man's personality. One doesn't take an exam in school after finishing
the exam; write a note to the instructor at the end saying, "This exam is perfect. There are
no mistakes in it. Find one if you can!" One just doesn't do that. The teacher would not
sleep until he found a mistake! And yet this is the way the Qur'an approaches people.
Another interesting attitude that exists in the Qur'an repeatedly deals with its advice to
the reader. The Qur'an informs that reader about different facts and then gives the advice:
"If you want to know more about this or that, or if you doubt what is said, then you
should ask those who have knowledge." This too is a surprising attitude. It is not usual to
have a book that comes from someone without training in geography, botany, biology,
etc., who discusses these subjects and then advises the reader to ask men of knowledge if
he doubts anything.
Yet in every age there have been Muslims who have followed the advice of the Qur'an
and made surprising discoveries. If one looks to the works of Muslim scientists in many
centuries ago, one will find them full of quotations from the Qur'an. These works state
that they did research in such a place, looking for something. And the y affirm that the
reason they looked in such and such a place was that the Qur'an pointed them in that
direction. For example, the Qur'an mentions man's origin and then tells the reader,
"Research it!" It gives the reader a hint where to look and then states that one should find
out more about it. This is the kind of thing that Muslims today largely seem to overlook -
but not always, as illustrated in the following example. A few years ago, a group of men
in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia collected all if the verses in the Qur'an which discuss
embryology - the growth of the human being in the womb. They said, "Here is what the
Qur'an says. Is it the truth?" In essence, they took the advice of the Qur'an: "Ask the men
who know." They chose, as it happened, a non-Muslim who is a professor of embryology
at the University of Toronto. His name is Keith Moore, and he is the author of textbooks
on embryology - a world expert on the subject. They invited him to Riyadh and said,
"This is what the Qur'an says about your subject. Is it true? What can you tell us?" While
he was in Riyadh, they gave him all of the help that he needed in translation and all of the
cooperation for which he asked. And he was so surprised at what he found that he
changed his textbooks. In fact, in the second edition of one of his books, called before we
are born... in the second edition about the history of embryology, he included some
material that was not in the first edition because of what he found in the Qur'an. Truly
this illustrates that the Qur'an was ahead of its time and that those who believe in the
Qur'an know what other people do not know.
Interview with Dr. Keith Moore
I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Keith Moore for a television presentation, and we
talked a great deal about this - it was illustrated by slides and so on. He mentioned that
some of the things that the Qur'an states about the growth of the human being were not
known until thirty years ago. In fact, he said that one item in particular - the Qur'an's
description of the human being as a "leech- like clot" ('alaqah) at one stage - was new to
him; but when he checked on it, he found that it was true, and so he added it to his book.
He said, "I never thought of that before," and he went to the zoology department and
asked for a picture of a leech. When he found that it looked just like the human embryo,
he decided to include both pictures in one of his textbooks. Dr. Moore also wrote a book
on clinical embryology, and when he presented this information in Toronto, it caused
quite a stir throughout Canada. It was on the front pages of some of the news papers
across Canada, and some of the headlines were quite funny. For instance, one headline
read:
"SURPRISING THING FOUND IN ANCIENT BOOK!" It seems obvious from this
example that people do not clearly understand what it is all about. As a matter of fact, one
newspaper reporter asked Professor Moore, "Don't you think that maybe the Arabs might
have known about these things - the description of the embryo, its appearance and how it
changes and grows? Maybe there were not scientists, but maybe they did something
crude dissections on their own - carved up people and examined these things."
The professor immediately pointed out to him that he [i.e., the reporter] had missed a
very important point all of the slides of the embryo that had been shown and had been
projected in the film had come from pictures taken through a microscope. He said, "It
does not matter if someone had tried to discover embryology fourteen centuries ago, they
could not have seen it!" All of the descriptions in the Qur'an of the appearance of the
embryo are of the item when it is still too small to see with the eye; therefore, one needs a
microscope to see it. Since such a device had only been around for little more than two
hundred years, Dr. Moore taunted, "Maybe fourteen centuries ago someone secretly had a
microscope and did this research, making no mistakes anywhere. Then he somehow
taught Muhammad and convinced him to put this information in his book. Then he
destroyed his equipment and kept it a secret forever. Do you believe that? You really
should not unless you bring some proof because it is such a ridiculous theory. " In fact,
when he was asked, "How do you explain this information in the Qur'an?" Dr. Moore's
reply was, "It could only have been divinely revealed."!
Although the aforementioned example of man researching information contained in the
Qur'an deals with a non-Muslim, it is still valid because he is one of those who is
knowledgeable in the subject being researched. Had some layman claimed that what the
Qur'an says about embryology is true, then one would not necessarily have to accept his
word. However, because of the high position, respect, and esteem man gives scholars,
one naturally assumes that if they research a subject and arrive at a conclusion based on
that research, then the conclusion is valid. One of Professor Moore's colleagues, Marshall
Johnson, deals extensively with geology at the University of Toronto.
The authenticity of the Qur'an
He became very interested in the fact that the Qur'an's statements about embryology are
accurate, and so he asked Muslims to collect everything contained in the Qur'an which
deals with his specialty. Again people were very surprised at the findings. Since there are
a vast number subjects discussed in the Qur'an, it would certainly require a large amount
of time to exhaust each subject. It suffices for the purpose of this discussion to state that
the Qur'an makes very clear and concise statements about various subjects while
simultaneously advising the reader to verify the authenticity of these statements with
research by scholars in those subjects. And as illustrated by the Qur'an has clearly
emerged authentic. Undoubtedly, there is an attitude in the Qur'an which is not found
anywhere else. It is interesting how when the Qur'an provides information, it often tells
the reader, "You did not know this before." Indeed, there is no scripture that exists which
makes that claim. All of the other ancient writings and scriptures that people have, do
give a lot of information, but they always state where the information came from.
For example, when the Bible discusses ancient history, it states that this king lived here,
this one fought in a certain battle, another one had so may sons, etc. Yet it always
stipulates that if you want more information, then you should read the book of so and so
because that is where the information came from. In contrast to this concept, the Qur'an
provides the reader with information and states that this information is something new.
Of course, there always exists the advice to research the information provided and verify
its authenticity. It is interesting that such a concept was never challenged by non-Muslims
fourteen centuries ago. Indeed, the Makkans who hated the Muslims, and time and time
again they heard such revelations claiming to bring new information; yet, they never
spoke up and said, "This is not new. We know where Muhammad got this information.
We learned this at school."
They could never challenge its authenticity because it really was new! In concurrence
with the advice given in the Qur'an to research information (even if it is new) when
'Umar was caliph, he chose a group of men and sent them to find the wall of Dhul-
Qarnayn. Before the Qur'anic revelation, the Arabs had never heard of such a wall, but
because the Qur'an described it, they were able to discover it. As a matter of fact, it is
now located in what is called Durbend in the Soviet Union. It must be stressed here that
the Qur'an is accurate about many, many things, but accuracy does not necessarily mean
that a book is a divine revelation. In fact, accuracy is only one of the criteria for divine
revelations.
For instance, the telephone book is accurate, but that does not mean that it is divinely
revealed. The real problem lies in that one must establish some proof of the source the
Qur'an's information. The emphasis is on the reader. One cannot simply deny the Qur'an's
authenticity without sufficient proof. If, indeed, one finds a mistake, then he has the right
to disqualify it. This is exactly what the Qur'an encourages. Once a man came up to me
after a lecture I delivered in South Africa. He was very angry about what I had said, and
so he claimed, "I am going to go home tonight and find a mistake in the Qur'an." Of
course, I said, "Congratulations. That is the most intelligent thing that you have said."
Certainly, this is the approach Muslims need to take with those who doubt the Qur'an's
authenticity, because the Qur'an itself offers the same challenge. An inevitably, after
accepting it's challenge and discovering that it is true, these people will come to believe it
because they could not disqualify it. In essence, the Qur'an earns their respect because
they themselves have had to verify its authenticity. An essential fact that cannot be
reiterated enough concerning the authenticity of the Qur'an is that one's inability to
explain a phenomenon himself does not require his acceptance of the phenomenon's
existence or another person's explanation of it.
Specifically, just because one cannot explain something does not mean that one has to
accept someone else's explanation. However, the person's refusal of other explanations
reverts the burden of proof back on himself to find a feasible answer. This general theory
applies to numerous concepts in life, but fits most wonderfully with the Qur'anic
challenge, for it creates a difficulty for one who says, "I do not believe it." At the onset of
refusal one immediately has an obligation to find an explanation himself if he feels
others' answers are inadequate. In fact, in one particular Qur'anic verse which I have
always seen mistranslated into English, Allah mentions a man who heard the truth
explained to him. It states that he was derelict in his duty because after he heard the
information, he left without checking the verity of what he had heard. In other words, one
is guilty if he hears something and does not research it and check to see whether it is true.
One is supposed to process all information and decide what is garbage to be thrown out
and what is worthwhile information to be kept and benefited from at a later date. One
cannot just let it rattle around in his head. It must be put in the proper categories and
approached from that point of view. For example, if the information is still doubtful, then
one must discern whether it's closer to being true or false. But if all of the facts have been
presented, then one must decide absolutely between these two options. And even if one is
not positive about the authenticity of the information, he is still required to process all of
the information and make the admission that he just does not know for sure. Although
this last point appears to be futile, in actuality, it is beneficial to the arrival at a positive
conclusion at a later time in that it forces the person to at least recognize, research and
review the facts. This familiarity with the information will give the person "the edge"
when future discoveries are made and additional information is presented. The important
thing is that one deals with the facts and does not simply discard them out of empathy
and disinterest.
Truthfulness of the Qur'an
The real certainty about the truthfulness of the Qur'an is evident in the confidence which
is prevalent throughout it; and this confidence comes from a different approach -
"Exhausting the Alternatives." In essence, the Qur'an states, "This book is a divine
revelation; if you do not believe that, then what is it?" In other words, the reader is
challenged to come up with some other explanation. Here is a book made of paper and
ink. Where did it come from? It says it is a divine revelation; if it is not, then what is its
source? The interesting fact is that no one has with an explanation that works. In fact, all
alternatives have bee exhausted. As has been well established by non-Muslims, these
alternatives basically are reduces to two mutually exclusive schools of thought, insisting
on one or the other. On one hand, there exists a large group of people who have
researched the Qur'an for hundreds of years and who claim, "One thing we know for sure
- that man, Muhammad, thought he was a prophet. He was crazy!" They are convinced
that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was fooled somehow. Then on the other hand, there
is another group which alleges, "Because of this evidence, one thing we know for sure is
that that man, Muhammad, was a liar!" Ironically, these two groups never seem to get
together without contradicting. In fact, many references on Islam usually claim both
theories. They start out by saying that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was crazy and
then end by saying that he was a liar. They never seem to realize that he could not have
been both!
For example, if one is deluded and really thinks that he is a prophet, and then he does not
sit up late at night planning, "How will I fool the people tomorrow so that they think I am
a prophet?" He truly believes that he is a prophet, and he trusts that the answer will be
given to him by revelation. As a matter of fact, a great deal of the Qur'an came in answer
to questions. Someone would ask Muhammad (peace be upon him) a question, and the
revelation would come with the answer to it. Certainly, if one is crazy and believes that
an angel put words in his ear, then when someone asks him a question, he thinks that the
angel will give him the answer. Because he is crazy, he really thinks that. He does not tell
someone to wait a short while and then run to his friends and ask them, "Does anyone
know the answer?" This type of behavior is characteristic of one who does not believe
that he is a prophet. What the non-Muslims refuse to accept is that you cannot have it
both ways. One can be deluded, or he can be a liar. He can be either one or neither, but he
certainly cannot be both! The emphasis is on the fact that they are unquestionably
mutually exclusive personal traits. The following scenario is a good example of the kind
of circle that non-Muslims go around in constantly. If you ask one of them, "What is the
origin of the Qur'an?" He tells you that it originated from the mind of a man who was
crazy. Then you ask him, "If it came from his head, then where did he get the information
contained in it? Certainly the Qur'an mentions many things with which the Arabs were
not familiar." So in order to explain the fact which you bring him, he changes his position
and says, "Well, maybe he was not crazy. Maybe some foreigner brought him the
information. So he lied and told people that he was a prophet." At this point then you
have to ask him, "If Muhammad was a liar, then where did he get his confidence? Why
did he behave as though he really thought he was a prophet?" Finally backed into a
corner, like a cat he quickly lashes out with the first response that comes to his mind.
Forgetting that he has already exhausted that possibility, he claims, "Well, maybe he
wasn't a liar. He was probably crazy and really thought that he was a prophet." And thus
he begins the futile circle again.
As has already been mentioned, there is much information contained in the Qur'an whose
source cannot be attributed to anyone other than Allah. For example, who told
Muhammad about the wall of Dhul-Qarnayn - a place hundreds of miles to the north?
Who told him about embryology? When people assemble facts such as these, if they are
not willing to attribute their existence to a divine source, they automatically resort to the
assumption someone brought Muhammad the information and that he used it to fool the
people. However, this theory can easily be disproved with one simple question: "If
Muhammad was a liar, where did he get his confidence? Why did he tell some people out
right to their face what others could never say?" Such confidence depends completely
upon being convinced that one has a true divine revelation. For example, the Prophet
(peace be upon him) had an uncle by the name of Abu Lahab. This man hated Islam to
such an extent that he used to follow the Prophet around in order to discredit him. If Abu
Lahab saw the Prophet (peace be upon him) speaking to a stranger, he would wait until
they parted and then would go to the stranger and ask him, "What did he tell you? Did he
say, 'Black.'? Well, it's white. Did he say, 'Morning.'? Well, it's night." He faithfully said
the exact opposite of whatever he heard Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the
Muslims say. However, about ten years before Abu Lahab died, a little chapter in the
Qur'an was revealed to him. It distinctly stated that he would go to the Fire (i.e., Hell). In
other words, it affirmed that he would never become a Muslim and would therefore be
condemned forever. For ten years all Abu Lahab had to do was say, "I heard that it has
been revealed to Muhammad that I will never change - that I will never become a Muslim
and will enter the Hellfire. Well I want to become a Muslim now. How do you like that?
What do you think of your divine revelation now?" But he never did that. And yet, that is
exactly the kind of behavior one would have expected from him since he always sought
to contradict Islam. In essence, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, "You hate me and
you want to finish me? Here, say these words, and I am finished. Come on, say them!"
But Abu Lahab never said them. Ten years! And in all that time he never accepted Islam
or even became sympathetic to the Islamic cause. How could Muhammad possibly have
known for sure that Abu Lahab would fulfill the Qur'anic revelation if he (i.e.,
Muhammad) was not truly the messenger of Allah? How could he possibly have been so
confident as to give someone 10 years to discredit his claim of Prophethood? The only
answer is that he was Allah's messenger; for in order to put forth suck a risky challenge,
one has to be entirely convinced that he has a divine revelation.
The Devine protection
Another example of the confidence which Muhammad (peace be upon him) had in his
own Prophethood and consequently in the divine protection of himself and his message is
when he left Makkah and hid in a cave with Abu Bakr during their emigration to
Madeenah. The two clearly saw people coming to kill them, and Abu Bakr was afraid.
Certainly, if Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a liar, a forger and one who was trying
to fool the people into believing that he was a prophet, one would have expected him to
say in such a circumstance to his friend, "Hey, Abu Bakr, see if you can find a back way
out of this cave." Or "Squat down in that corner over there and keep quiet." Yet, in fact,
what he said to Abu Bakr clearly illustrated his confidence. He told him, "Relax! Allah is
with us, and Allah will save us!"
Now, if one knows that he is fooling the people, where does one get this kind of attitude?
In fact, such a frame of mind is not characteristic of a liar or a forger at all. So, as has
been previously mentioned, the non-Muslims go around and around in a circle, searching
for a way out - some way to explain the findings in the Qur'an without attributing them to
their proper source. On one hand, they tell you on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, "The
man was a liar," and on the other hand, on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday they tell you,
"He was crazy." What they refuse to accept is that one cannot have it both ways; yet they
refuse to accept is that one cannot have it both ways; yet they need both excuses to
explain the information in the Qur'an.
The minister who came to visit
About seven years ago, I had a minister over to my home. In the particular room which
we were sitting there was a Qur'an on the table, face down, and so the minister was not
aware of which book it was. In the midst of a discussion, I pointed to the Qur'an and said,
"I have confidence in that book." Looking at the Qur'an but not knowing which book it
was, he replied, "Well, I tell you, if that book is not the Bible, it was written by a man!"
In response to his statement, I said, "Let me tell you something about what is in that
book." And in just three to four minutes I related to him a few things contained in the
Qur'an. After just those three or four minutes, he completely changed his position and
declared, "You are right. A man did not write that book. The Devil wrote it!" Indeed,
possessing such an attitude is very unfortunate - for many reasons. For one thing, it is a
very quick and cheap excuse. It is an instant exit out of an uncomfortable situation. As a
matter of fact, there is a famous story in the Bible that mentions how one day some of the
Jews were witnessed when Jesus raised a man from the dead. The man had been dead for
four days, and when Jesus arrived, he simply said, "Get up!" and the man arose and
walked away. At such a sight, some of the Jews who were watching said disbelievingly,
"This is the Devil. The Devil helped him!" Now this story is rehearsed often in churches
all over the world, and people cry big tears over it, saying, "Oh, if I had been there, I
would not have been as stupid as the Jews!" Yet ironically, these people do exactly what
the Jews did when in just three minutes you show them only a small part of the Qur'an
and all they can say is, "Oh, the Devil did it. The devil wrote that book!" Because they
are truly backed into a corner and have no other viable answer, they resort to the quickest
and cheapest excuse available. Another Example of people's use of this weak stance can
be found in the Makkans' explanation of the source of Muhammad's message. They used
to say, "The devils bring Muhammad that Qur'an!" But just as with every other
suggestion made, the Qur'an gives the answer. One verse in particular states:
"And they say, 'Surely he is possessed [by jinn], 'but it [i.e., the Qur'an] is not except a
reminder to the worlds."
Thus it gives an argument in reply to such a theory. In fact, there are many arguments in
the Qur'an in reply to the suggestion that devils brought Muhammad (peace be upon him)
his message. For example, in the 26th chapter Allah clearly affirms:
"No evil ones have brought it [i.e., this revelation] down. It would neither be fitting for
them, nor would they be able. Indeed they have been removed far from hearing."
And in another place in the Qur'an, Allah instructs us:
"So when you recite the Qur'an seek refuge in Allah from Shaytaan, the rejected."
Now is this how Satan writes a book? He tells one, "Before you read my book, ask God
to save you from me."? This is very, very tricky. Indeed, a man could write something
like this, but would Satan do this? Many people clearly illustrate that they cannot come to
one conclusion on this subject. On one hand, they claim that Satan would not do such a
thing and that even if he could, God would not allow him to; yet, on the other hand, they
also believe that Satan is only that much less than God. In essence they allege that the
Devil can probably do whatever God can do. And as a result, when they look at the
Qur'an, even as surprised as they are as to how amazing it is, they still insist, "The Devil
did this!" Thanks be to Allah, Muslims do not have that attitude. Although Satan may
have some abilities, they are a long way separated from the abilities of Allah. And no
Muslim is a Muslim unless he believes that. It is common knowledge even among non-
Muslims that the Devil can easily make mistakes, and it would be expected that he would
contradict himself if and when he wrote a book. For indeed, the Qur'an states:
"Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would
surely have found therein much discrepancy."
In conjunction with the excuses that non-Muslims advance in futile attempts to justify
unexplainable verses in the Qur'an, there is another attack often rendered which seems to
be a combination of the theorie s that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was crazy and a
liar. Basically, these people propose that Muhammad was insane, and as a result of his
delusion, he lied to and misled people. There is a name for this in psychology. It is
referred to as mythomania. It means simply that one tells lies and then believes them.
This is what the non-Muslims say Muhammad (peace be upon him) suffered from. But
the only problem with this proposal is that one suffering from mythomania absolutely
cannot deal with facts, and yet the whole Qur'an is based entirely upon facts. Everything
contained in it can be researched and established as true. Since facts are such a problem
for a mythomaniac, when a psychologist tries to treat one suffering from that condition,
he continually confronts him with facts. For example, if one is mentally ill and claims, "I
am the king of England," a psychologist does not say to him "No you aren't. You are
crazy!" He just does not do that. Rather, he confronts him with facts and says, "O.K., you
say you are the king of England. So tell me where the queen is today. And where is your
prime minister? And where are your guards?" Now, when the man has trouble trying to
deal with these questions, he tries to make excuses, saying Uh... the queen... she has gone
to her mother's. Uh... the prime minister... well he died." And eventually he is cured
because he cannot deal with the facts. If the psychologist continues confronting him with
enough facts, finally he faces the reality and says, "I guess I am not the king of England."
The Qur'an approaches everyone who reads it in very much the same way a psychologist
treats his mythomania patient. There is a verse in the Qur'an which states:
"Oh mankind, there has come to you an admonition [i.e., the Qur'an] from your Lord and
a healing for what is in the hearts - and guidance and mercy for the believers."
At first glance, this statement appears vague, but the meaning of this verse is clear when
one views it in light of the aforementioned example. Basically, one is healed of his
delusions by reading the Qur'an. In essence, it is therapy. It literally cures deluded people
by confronting them with facts. A prevalent attitude throughout the Qur'an is one which
says, "Oh mankind, you say such and such about this; but what about such and such?
How can you say this when you know that?" And so forth. It forces one to consider what
is relevant and what matters while simultaneously healing one of the delusions that the
facts presented to mankind by Allah can easily be explained away with flimsy theories
and excuses. It is this very sort of thing - confronting people with facts - that had captured
the attention of many non-Muslims. In fact, there exists a very interesting reference
concerning this subject in the New Catholic Encyclopedia. In an article under the subject
of the Qur'an, the Catholic Church states, "Over the centuries, many theories have been
offered as to the origin of the Qur'an... Today no sensible man accepts any of these
theories."!! Now here is the age-old Catholic Church, which has been around for so many
centuries, denying these futile attempts to explain away the Qur'an. Indeed, the Qur'an is
a problem for the Catholic Church. It states that it is revelation, so they study it.
Certainly, they would love to find proof that it is not, but they cannot. They cannot find a
viable explanation. But at least they are honest in their research and do not accept the first
unsubstantiated interpretation which comes along. The Chur ch states that in fourteen
centuries it has not yet been presented a sensible explanation. At least it admits that the
Qur'an is not an easy subject to dismiss. Certainly, other people are much less honest.
They quickly say, "Oh, the Qur'an came from here. The Qur'an came from there." And
they do not even examine the credibility of what they are stating most of the time. Of
course, such a statement by the Catholic Church leaves the everyday Christian in some
difficulty. It just may be that he has his own ideas as to the origin of the Qur'an, but as a
single member of the Church, he cannot really act upon his own theory. Such an action
would be contrary to the obedience, allegiance and loyalty which the Church demands.
By virtue of his membership, he must accept what the Catholic Church declares without
question and establish its teachings as part of his everyday routine. So, in essence, if the
Catholic Church as a whole is saying, "Do not listen to these unconfirmed reports about
the Qur'an," then what can be said about the Islamic point of view? Even non-Muslims
are admitting that there is something to the Qur'an -something that has to be
acknowledged - then why are people so stubborn and defensive and hostile when
Muslims advance the very same theory? This is certainly something for those with mind a
to contemplate - something to ponder for those of understanding!
Almighty God is the source of the Qur'an
Recently, the leading intellectual in the Catholic Church - a man by the name of Hans -
studied the Qur'an and gave his opinion of what he had read. This man has been around
for some time, and he is highly respected in the Catholic Church, and after careful
scrutiny, he reported his findings, concluding, "God has spoken to man through the man,
Muhammad." Again this is a conclusion arrived at by a non-Muslim source - the very
leading intellectual of the Catholic Church himself! I do not think that the Pope agrees
with him, but nonetheless, the opinion of such a noted, repute public figure must carry
some weight in defense of the Muslim position. He must be applauded for facing the
reality that the Qur'an is not something which can be easily pushed aside and that, in fact
God is the source of these words. As is evident from the aforementioned information, all
of the possibilities have been exhausted, so the chance of finding another possibility of
dismissing the Qur'an is nonexistent. For if the book is not a revelation, then it is a
deception; and if it is a deception, one must ask, "What is its origin" And whe re does it
deceive us?" Indeed, the true answers to these questions shed light on the Qur'an's
authenticity and silence the bitter unsubstantiated claims of the unbelievers. Certainly, if
people are going to insist that the Qur'an is a deception, then they must bring forth
evidence to support such a claim. The burden of proof is on them, not us! One is never
supposed to advance a theory without sufficient corroborating facts; so I say to them,
"Show me one deception! Show me where the Qur'an deceives me! Show me, otherwise,
don't say that it is a deception!" An interesting characteristic of the Qur'an is how it deals
with surprising phenomena which relate not only to the past but to modern times as well.
In essence, the Qur'an is not and old problem. It is still a problem even today - a problem
to the non-Muslims that is. For everyday, every week, every year brings more and more
evidence that the Qur'an is a force to be contended with - that its authenticity is no longer
to be challenged! For example, one verse in the Qur'an reads;
"Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We
clove them asunder, and made from water every living thing? Will they not then
believe?"
Ironically, this very information is exactly what they awarded the 1973 Noble Prize for -
to a couple of unbelievers. The Qur'an reveals the origin of the universe - how it began
from one piece - and mankind continues to verify this revelation, even up to now.
Additionally, the fact that all life originated from water would not have been an easy
thing to convince people of fourteen centuries ago. Indeed, if 1400 years ago you had
stood in the desert and told someone, "All of this, you see (pointing to yourself), is made
up of mostly water," no one would ha ve believed you. Proof of that was not available
until the invention of the microscope. They had to wait to find out that cytoplasm, the
basic substance of the cell, is made-up of 80% water. Nonetheless, the evidence did
come, and once again the Qur'an stood the test of time. In reference to the falsification
tests mentioned earlier, it is interesting to note that they, too, relate to both the past and
the present. Some of them were used as illustrations of Allah's omnipotence and
knowledge, while others continue to stand as challenges to the present day. An example
of the former is the statement made in the Qur'an about Abu Lahab. It clearly illustrates
that Allah, the Knower of the Unseen, knew that Abu Lahab would never change his
ways and accept Islam. Thus Allah dictated that he would be condemned to the Hellfire
forever. Such a chapter was both an illustration of Allah's divine wisdom and a warning
to those who were like Abu Lahab.
The relationship between the Muslims and the Jews
An interesting example of the latter type of falsification tests contained in the Qur'an is
the verse which mentions the relationship between the Muslims and the Jews. The verse
is careful not to narrow its scope to the relationship between individual members of each
religion, but rather, it summarizes the relationship between the two groups of people as a
whole. In essence, the Qur'an states that the Christians will always treat the Muslims
better than the Jews will treat the Muslims. Indeed, the full impact of such a statement
can only be felt after careful consideration of the real meaning of such a verse. It is true
that many Christians and many Jews have become Muslims, but as a whole, the Jewish
community is to be viewed as an avid enemy of Islam. Additionally, very few people
realize what such an open declaration in the Qur'an invites. In essence, it is an easy
chance for the Jews to prove that the Qur'an is false - that it is not a divine revelation. All
they have to do is organize themselves, treat the Muslims nicely for a few years and then
say, "Now what does your holy book say about who are your best friends in the world -
the Jews or the Christians? Look what we Jews have done for you!" That is all they have
to do to disprove the Qur'an's authenticity, yet they have not done it in 1400 years. But, as
always, the offer still stands open! All of the examples so far given concerning the
various angles from which one can approach the | Qur'an have undoubtedly been
subjective in nature; I however there does exist another angle, among others, which is
objective and whose basis is mathematical. It is surprising how authentic the Qur'an
becomes when one assembles what might be referred to as a list of good guesses.
Mathematically, it can be explained using guessing and predic tion examples. For
instance, if a person has two choices (i.e., one is right, and one is wrong), and he closes
his eyes and makes a choice, then half of the time (i.e., one time out of two) he will be
right. Basically, he has a one in two chance, for he could pick the wrong choice, or he
could pick the right choice. Now if the same person has two situations like that (i.e., he
could be right or wrong about situation number one, and he could be right or wrong about
situation number two), and he closes his eyes and guesses, then he will only be right one
fourth of the time (i.e., one time out of four). He now has a one in four chance because
now there are three ways for him to be wrong and only one way for him to be right. In
simple terms, he could make the wrong choice in situation number one and then make the
wrong choice in situation number two; OR he could make the wrong choice in situation
number one and then make the right choice in situation number two; OR he could make
the right choice in situation number one and then make the wrong choice in situation
number two; OR he could make the right choice in situation number one and then make
the right choice in situation number two. Of course, the only instance in which he could
be totally right is the last scenario where he could guess correctly in both situations. The
odds of his guessing completely correctly have become greater because the number of
situations for him to guess in have increased; and the mathematical equation representing
such a scenario is 1/2 x 1/2 (i.e., one time out of two for the first situation multiplied by
one time out of two for the second situation). Continuing on with the example, if the
same person now has three situations in which to make blind guesses, then he will only
be right one eighth of the time (i.e., one time out of eight or 1/2 X 1/2 X 1/2). Again, the
odds of choosing the correct choice in all three situations have decreased his chances of
being completely correct to only one time in eight. It must be understood that as the
number of situations increase, the chances of being right decrease, for the two
phenomena are inversely proportional. Now applying this example to the situations in the
Qur'an, if one draws up a list of all of the subjects about which the Qur'an has made
correct statements, it becomes very clear that it is highly unlikely that they ere all just
correct blind guesses. Indeed, the subjects discussed in the Qur'an are numerous, and thus
the odds of someone just making lucky guesses about all of them become practically
none. If there are a million ways or the Qur'an to be wrong, yet each time it is right, then
it is unlikely that someone was guessing. The following three examples of subjects about
which the Qur'an has made correct statements collectively illustrate how the Qur'an
continues to beat the odds. In the 16th chapter the Qur'an mentions that the female bee
leaves its home to gather food. Now, a person might guess on that, saying, "The bee that
you see flying around - it could be male, or it could be female. I think I will guess
female." Certainly, he has a one in two chance of being right. So it happens that the
Qur'an is right. But it also happens that was not what most people believed at the time
when the Qur'an was revealed. Can you tell the difference between a male and a female
bee? Well, it takes a specialist to do that, but it has been discovered that the male bee
never leaves his home to gather food. However, in Shakespeare's play, Henry the Fourth,
some of the characters discuss bees and mention that the bees are soldiers and have a
king. That is what people thought in Shakespeare's time - that the bees that one sees
flying around are male bees and that they go home and answer to a king. However, that is
not true at all. The fact is that they are females, and they answer to a queen. Yet it took
modern scientific investigations in the last 300 years to discover that this is the case.
More scientific evidence
So, back to the list of good guesses, concerning the topic of bees, the Qur'an had a 50/50
chance of being right, and the odds were one in two. In addition to the subject of bees, the
Qur'an also discusses the sun and the manner in which it travels through space. Again, a
person can guess on that subject. When the sun moves through space, there are two
options: it can travel just as a stone would travel if one threw it, or it can move of its own
accord. The Qur'an states the latter - that it moves as a result of its own motion. To do
such, the Qur'an uses a form of the word sabaha to describe the sun's movement through
space. In order to properly provide the reader with a comprehensive understanding of the
implications of this Arabic verb, the following example is given. If a man is in water and
the verb sabaha is applied in reference to his movement, it can be understood that he is
swimming, moving of his own accord and not as a result of a direct force applied to him.
Thus when this verb is used in reference to the sun's movement through space, it in no
way implies that the sun is flying uncontrollably through space as a result of being hurled
or the like. It simply means that the sun is turning and rotating as it travels. Now, this is
what the Qur'an affirms, but was it an easy thing to discover? Can any common man tell
that the sun is turning? Only in modern times was the equipment made available to
project the image of the sun onto a tabletop so that one could look at it without being
blinded. And through this process it was discovered that not only are there three spots on
the sun but that these spots move once every 25 days. This movement is referred to as the
rotation of the sun around its axis and conclusively proves that, as the Qur'an stated 1400
years ago, the sun does, indeed turn as it travels through space. And returning once again
to the subject of good guess, the odds of guessing correctly about both subjects - the sex
of bees and the movement of the sun - are one in four!
The time zones
Seeing as back fourteen centuries ago people probably did not understand much about
time zones, the Quran's statements about this subject are considerably surprising. The
concept that one family is having breakfast as the sun comes up while another family is
enjoying the brisk night air is truly something to be marveled at, even in modern time.
Indeed, fourteen centuries ago, a man could not travel more than thirty miles in one day,
and thus it took him literally months to travel from India to Morocco, for example. And
probably, when he was having supper in Morocco, he thought to himself, "Back home in
India they are having supper right now." This is because he did not realize that, in the
process of traveling, he moved across a time zone. Yet, because it is the words of Allah,
the All-Knowing, the Qur'an recognizes and acknowledges such a phenomenon. In an
interesting verse it states that when history comes to an end and the Day of Judgment
arrives, it will all occurring an instant; and this very instant will catch some people in the
daytime and some people at night. This clearly illustrates Allah's divine wisdom and His
previous knowledge of the existence of time zones, even though such a discovery was
non-existent back fourteen centuries ago. Certainly, this phenomenon is not something
which is obvious to one's eyes or a result of one's experience, and this fact, in itself,
suffices as proof of the Qur'ans authenticity.
Returning one final time to the subject of good guesses for the purpose of the present
example, the odds that someone guessed correctly about all three of the aforementioned
subjects - the sex of bees, the movement of the sun and the existence of time zones - are
one in eight! Certainly, one could continue on and on with this example, drawing up
longer and longer list of good guesses; and of course, the odds would become higher and
higher with each increase of subjects about which one could guess. But what no one can
deny is the following; the odds that Mohammed an illiterate, guessed correctly about
thousands and thousands of subjects, never once making a mistake, are so high that any
theory of his authorship of the Qur'an must be completely dismissed - even by the most
hostile enemies of Islam!
Indeed, the Qur'an expects this kind of challenge. Undoubtedly, if one said to someone
upon entering a foreign land, "I know your father. I have met him," probably the man
from that land would doubt the newcomer's word, saying, "You have just come here.
How could you know my father?" As a result, he would question him, "Tell me, is my
father tall, short, dark, fair? What is he like?" Of course, if the visitor continued
answering all of the questions correctly, the skeptic would have no choice but to say, "I
guess you do know my father. I don't know how you know him, but I guess you do!" The
situation is the same with the Qur'an. It states that it originates from the One who created
everything. So everyone has the right to say, "Convince me! If the author of this book
really originated life and everything in the heavens and on the earth, then He should
know about this, about that, and so on." And inevitably, after researching the Qur'an,
everyone will discover the same truths. Additionally, we all know something for sure: we
do not all have to be experts to verify what the Qur'an affirms. One's iman (faith) grows
as one continues to check and confirm the truths contained in the Qur'an. And one is
supposed to do so all of his life.
May God (Allah) guide everyone close to the truth.
SUPPLEMENT
An engineer at the University of Toronto who was interested in psychology and who had
read something on it, conducted researched wrote a thesis on Efficiency of Group
Discussions. The purpose of his research was to find out how much people accomplish
when they get together to talk in groups of two, three, ten, etc. The graph of his findings:
people accomplish most when they talk in groups of two. Of course, this discovery was
entirely beyond his expectations, but it is very old advice given in the Qur'an:
Additionally, the 89th chapter of the Qur'an mentions a certain city by the name of 'Iram
(a city of pillars), which was not known in ancient history and which was non-existent as
far as historians were concerned. However, the December 1978 edition of National
Geographic introduced interesting information which mentioned that in 1973, the city of
Elba was excavated in Syria. The city was discovered to be 43 centuries old, but that is
not the most amazing part. Researchers found in the library of Elba a record of all of the
cities with which Elba had done business. Believe or not, there on the list was the name
of the city of 'Iram. The people of Elba had done business with the people of 'Iram!
"Say, 'I exhort you to one thing - that you stand for Allah, [assessing the truth] by twos
and singly, and then reflect.....' In conclusion I ask you to consider with care the
following:
"And they say, 'Why are not signs sent down to him from his Lord?' Say, 'Indeed, the
signs are with Allah, and I am but a clear warner.' But is sufficient for them that We have
sent down to you the Book [i.e. Qur'an] which is rehearsed to them? Verily, in that is
mercy and a reminder to people who believe."
Reference: www.beconvinced.com

[Predator]

One can use the Bible to justify Holy war and you can do the same with the Qu'ran as we know from the 9/11 murderes - am I to blame the Qu'ran for that? The Bible is not banned in say the UAE or IRAN or Parkistan?

Looks like you havent read the quran or you dont know what you're talking about , Quran doesnt glorify murdering of innocent people. In fact Quran tell us killing one innocent is like killing the whole of mankind . Terrorist are misguided people who want to take revenge at any cost , i could well usa is biggest terrorist nation having killed the most number of people .

You say its disgusting language but understood correctly it is stating the truth either plainly or by means of allegory. For example, Michael Marcavage may be sent to prison for opposing homosexuals in public office and showing that is ungodly by reading a passage from the Bible that mentions them - would you support him or not?

Yeah but if those are words of god Why would they get banned and Reverends themselves shy away from reading it and the language shouldnt be so profane that it goes to Stop public pornography http://www.nobeliefs.com/spp.htm . if it cant be read then its not the word of god , the language of god should be able to be read by all and should be pure

If I look at the verses you cited it amounts to less than 0.1% of the Bible so in your research you ignored almost everything and selected a few lurid sounding verses or parts of verses and took them [B]completely out of context- why did you do that, what kind of honest evaluation is that ?
when it read talks of these things do you think we are supposed to feel comfortable when we hear about such things?

So do you feel comfortable reading insults to god and his contradictory atributtes of his power in your bible such as these

GOD : Qualities ill-befitting God -

(a) A "hissing" God (?) ISAIAH 5:26, 7:18, ZECHARIAH 10:8

God evolving fire from his mouth like a dragon

(b) A "roaring" God (?) ISAIAH 42:13, JEREMIAH 25:30

(c) A "barber" God (?) ISAIAH 7:20

Do you speak of God like that He wants to shave people heads and the hair of the legs , Even a barber would ask you to use immac and remove hair of the legs

(e) A God "riding" a cherub (?) 2 SAMUEL 22:11

God couldnt helicopter or a flying saucer , But rides a poor tiny girl angel ,what mockery you're making out of god .Even Superman does a better Job in that aspect

(f) A God murders 50,070 for looking into a box (?) 1 SAMUEL 6:19


GOD : His contradictory attributes -

(a) "No man hath seen God at any time" JOHN 1:18
(b) "(God) whom no man hath seen, nor can see ..." 1 TIMOTHY 6:16
(c) "And he (God) said, Thou canst see my face: for there shall
no man see me, and live." EXODUS 33:20


Contradicted by:
(a) "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man
speaketh unto his friend." EXODUS 33:11
(b) "And they (Moses, Aaron and seventy others) saw the God of
Israel . . ." EXODUS 24:10
(c) "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have
seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." GENESIS 32:30
And as a special favour God shows his back parts to Moses:
"And I (God) will take away my hand and thou shalt see my
back parts . . ." EXODUS 33:23



13. GOD : Is not a fabricator of confusion -
(a) "For God is NOT the author of confusion . . ." 1 CORINTHIANS
14:33

Contradicted by:
(a) ". . . I make peace, and CREATE EVIL . . ." ISAIAH 45:7
(b) "But the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and AN EVIL
SPIRIT from the Lord troubled him." 1 SAMUEL 16:14
(c) "And for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion,
that they should BELIEVE A LIE." 2 THESSALONIANS 2:11

14. GOD : Further contradictory qualities -

(a) GOD AS AN OMNIPOTENT BEING:
"And Jesus saith . . . for with God ALL THINGS are
possible." MARK 10:27, also MATTHEW 19:26
Contradicted by:
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drove out the
inhabitants of the mountain; but COULD NOT drive out the
inhabitants of the valley, because they had CHARIOTS OF
IRON." JUDGES 1:19

(a) GOD'S ANGER ABIDETH FOR A MINUTE:
"For his (God's) anger endureth but a MOMENT." PSALMS 30:5

Contradicted by:
"And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he
made them (the Jews) wander in the wilderness FORTY
YEARS . . ." NUMBERS 32:13



(b) GOD DOES NOT SHOW ANY SELF-REPROACH:
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of
man, that he should REPENT . . ." NUMBERS 23:19
Contradicted by:
". . . and the Lord REPENTED that he made Saul king over
Israel." 1 SAMUEL 15:35
Also: "And the Lord REPENTED of the evil which he thought to
do unto his people (Israel)." EXODUS 32:14


So the god isnt even perfect and commits sins as well , is this a quality of god


(c) GOD DWELLS IN LIGHT:
". . . (God) dwelling in the LIGHT which no man can
approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see . . ." 1
TIMOTHY 6:16

Contradicted by:
"Then spake Solomon, the Lord said that he would dwell in
the THICK DARKNESS." 1 KINGS 8:12

(d) GOD DOES NOT ENTICE MAN:
"Let no man say he is tempted, I am TEMPTED of God: for
God cannot be tempted with evil, NEITHER TEMPTETH
he any man." JAMES 1:13

Contradicted by:
"And it came to pass after these things, that God DID
TEMPT Abraham . . ." GENESIS 22:1


((e) GOD DWELLS IN LIGHT:
". . . (God) dwelling in the LIGHT which no man can
approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see . . ." 1
TIMOTHY 6:16

Contradicted by:
"Then spake Solomon, the Lord said that he would dwell in
the THICK DARKNESS." 1 KINGS 8:12


God gets refreshed a huge insult to god in the bible

for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the
seventh day he rested, and WAS REFRESHED." EXODUS 31:17


On the contrary the Holy Qur'an states:

"His throne doth extend
Over the heavens
And the earth, and He feeleth
No fatigue in guarding
And preserving them
For He is the most High,
The Supreme (in glory)." Holy Qur'an 2:255


Doesn this example show that the God of the Quran is more powerful than the God of the Bible

Here is just show you have not bothered to actually read the section because if you did you would know that the two sisters are clearly stated as being Jerusalem and Samaria - not people at all so its speaking of a debased and debauched nation and pointing out their wickedness and the dread consequences that come from it - no one, no one could read that passage as recommending sin.

I was only referring to the language used all along , things can be explained in decent language as shown For eg : compare the verses of the Quran and verse of Bible regarding the birth of jesus

The Holy Bible does not even spare God from illicit
sexual aspersions being ascribed to Him
In the case of the conception of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him),
God Almighty arranged for Mary to conceive Jesus by the intervention
of the Holy Ghost, as witnessed in the Bible as if the holy spirit has come to impregnate Mary and mary conceives :

(a) "The Holy Ghost shall COME UPON thee (the question is,
how?), and the power of the most High shall OVERSHADOW
thee (again, how?), luke i:35

Compare that to Quran

Mary said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me." He said: "So (it will be) for Allâh creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: "Be!" - and it is. Quran 3:48

That sounds like If God almighty want to create something , he just says "Be " and it comes into being. A miracle. As simple as that

In your view, I might regard talking about houris or killing people as x-rated

.
I dont see a mere mention of the houri can be considered disgusting .things in heaven cant be compared to things on earth . And regarding the language , the level of profanity is nothing like the perverted words in ezekiel 23

Incase you missed the main perverted part, here it is again:

19 Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the ***** in the land of Egypt 20 and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions

the verse claims that a lady lusted after men who’s penises were the sizes of donkeys and who’s ejaculation ( when the sperm comes out) is like that of horses. I would really love to know what is the wisdom behind knowing the size of a men’s penises and how they ejaculate. Can any Christian go teach this to his or her children? I would love to see that. Imagine a parent trying to explain this to their kid. So if anything it is the Bible which contains perverted verses such as this one.
Christians are too ashamed of it which is why they never bring it up. In fact you tell a Christian about this they will say you are lying!

- a task for you; were does the qu'ran speak about homosexuality

It does talk about homosexuality

And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Lo! ye commit lewdness such as no creature did before you. For come ye not in unto males?-- 29:28-29

Male homosexuals acts are condemned as unnatural. 29:28-29 .

is there anything anywhere is Islam that you would not want to read out loud to your daughter or mother or sister?

What are you referring to ?

I gave you statistics because it is clear you imply things are better under sharia but the facts don't seem to support that view

I gave u statistics of the country in a link my post and it looks you havent bothered to read it because you dont have the guts to admit that you're wrong ,so the facts do support it.

[Chuck]

The Bible is not banned in say the UAE or IRAN or Parkistan?

I don't know about Iran, but Bible is not banned here in UAE or Pakistan.

[Hugo]

Quote Hugo: One can use the Bible to justify Holy war and you can do the same with the Qu'ran as we know from the 9/11 murderes - am I to blame the Qu'ran for that? The Bible is not banned in say the UAE or IRAN or Parkistan?

Looks like you havent read the quran or you dont know what you're talking about , Quran doesnt glorify murdering of innocent people. In fact Quran tell us killing one innocent is like killing the whole of mankind . Terrorist are misguided people who want to take revenge at any cost , i could well usa is biggest terrorist nation having killed the most number of people .

Why don't you take the trouble to read what was written. In my quote I am PLAINLY asking you that IF someone uses the Qu'ran to justify murder (and they have done) is that a reason to blame the Qu'ran and get it banned? For example, can't you see how the following verse can be used like that to justify qanything?

And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. ( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, 2:191)

[Hugo]

Yeah but if those are words of god Why would they get banned and Reverends themselves shy away from reading it and the language shouldnt be so profane that it goes to Stop public pornography http://www.nobeliefs.com/spp.htm . if it cant be read then its not the word of god , the language of god should be able to be read by all and should be pure

The site you refer to is about pornography but it ONLY mentions the Bible - why would that be do you think and why is a movement with just one webpage? It also mentions for example what it calls "a menage a trois between Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar" so one assumes that it is phonographic to have two wives so that means the Qu'ran contains pornography as well.

The site also says "... there is a difference between the porn sold in video & adult book stores and the porn in the Bible. You can ignore the first kind of porn it is not thrust upon you, and it is sold through private businesses. You have to choose to buy a dirty book or porno video, and there are laws which prevent children from access to this porn."

Does that sound right to you, that according to this if one chooses to buy porn and take it home where children can access it it is fine?

It also says: "Please realize that most incest and child abuse crimes occur within the Christian community by Christian parents, priests, ministers, and nuns. No doubt that the incest and porn in the Bible has influenced such behavior."

Not a shred of evidence is offered here but you are happy to accept it and to suggest mas they do it is influenced by the Bible is an absurdity. If you accept this then I might as well post the same message but put 'Mulsim' instead of Christian and of course then for people like you who look for information that supports their own misguide view it become proof positive.

[Predator]

And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. ( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, 2:191

002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

You think that the verse teaches terrorism, and that the verse commands Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever we catch them. However so does the passage actually preach terrorism? Or are you is quoting this passage out of its proper context? Well the answer is that the verse is being quoted out of context, which is very sad because it is blatant mis-interpretation and blatant lying because it is not difficult to quote this passage in context, here is the context of this passage:

002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

002.192
YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful

002.193
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression

.

So here is the passage being quoted in context, and as you can see when the verse is quoted in context one will notice there is no terrorism or genocide being preached or advocated! The context is if MUSLIMS GET ATTACKED then Muslims have the right to attack back, and the context is very clear on that, the theme comes into play on verse 190, not verse 191 which non-Muslims quote alone, the non-Muslim should quote from verse 190 onwards, and once doing so one will see that this is a defensive war, not an offensive one, if people attack the Muslims then the Muslims have the right to attack back, and that is exactly what the verses are saying.

For eg : If you were a christian were prevented from entering the vatican city by a person , would you like that person ? would u go and embrace him ?

The verses even say that if the people who started the fight begin to stop and make peace than we too must also stop and make peace as well, far from terrorism.

So it is that simple, verse 191 does not advocate terrorism or genocide, it advocates self-defense as can be seen from it context starting from verse 190 which states that if Muslims are attacked then we can attack back, and the context goes on to say that if the enemies stop attacking and make peace then we too should make peace, very simply and easy!

[Uthman]

Let's get back on topic please. :)

[Eliphaz]

It puzzles me how this thread is about whether the Qur’an is from God, and yet people are constantly mentioning the Bible and how it is so rubbish? What is that? A knee-jerk reaction of ‘well if you think the Qur’an is bad, you should check out your Bible… so there’?

Greetings Eliphaz,

Thank you for your reply.

The Qur'an is accessible to everyone. As I mentioned earlier, you don't have to be an Arab to appreciate its beauty. Simply listening to the sound of the Qur'an being recited brings peace and tranquility, even if the person is not able to appreciate the finer points of the language and style of the Qur'an.

As they say, ignorance is bliss. How I wish I could go back to not understanding it and purely enjoying it based on the sound of recitation. (By the way, the same could be said for recitations in any religion or culture from the chants of the Buddhists to those of the Hindus.)

... The Wabr is a small animal that resembles a cat, and the largest thing on it is its ears and its torso, while the rest of it is ugly. Musaylimah intended by the composition of these nonsensical verses to produce something which would oppose the Qur'an. Yet, it was not even convincing to the idol worshipper of that time.
[/INDENT]I think the verses you quoted are a different example of someone attempting to write in the style of the Qur'an.

I don’t see how the alternative attempt you quoted is any more sophisticated than the one about the elephant and the long trunk. I think Musaylimah is a convincing straw-man for the ‘can’t produce a single surah’ argument.

These are only desperate attempts to explain what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came with, and they are not new. Allaah (swt) says in the Qur'an,

Those who disbelieve say: "This is nothing but a lie that he has invented, and others have helped him in it.'' In fact, they have produced an unjust wrong and a lie. And they say: "Tales of the ancients which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.'' Say: "It has been sent down by Him Who knows the secret of the heavens and the earth. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.'' [Al-Furqan: 4-6]

In the explanation of these verses, it mentions:
[INDENT]It is ... a common fact that Muhammad the Messenger of Allah never learned to read or write, either at the beginning or the end of his life. He grew up among them for approximately forty years, from the time he was born until the time when his mission began. They knew all about him, and about his honest and sound character and how he would never lie or do anything immoral or bad. They even used to call him Al-Amin (the Trustworthy One) from a young age, until his mission began, because they saw how truthful and honest he was. When Allah honored him with that which He honored him, they declared their enmity towards him and came up with all these accusations which any reasonable person would know he was innocent of. They were not sure what to accuse him of. Sometimes they said that he was a sorcerer, at other times they would say he was a poet, or crazy, or a liar. So Allah said:

It was not a desperate attempt but a logical explanation of how the stories could have got there other than God planting them in Muhammad’s head. The stories of the Prophets, which are the main thing borrowed from the OT (I will be checking out the story of Yusuf in more depth) are so simple they could have been lifted, stripped down and modified without any need for tuition under a Christian or Jewish scholar.

Rather than teaching him their scriptures, the knowledgeable among the Jews and Christians recognised that he was the Messenger of truth who was prophecised in their very scriptures, hence the respect and behaviour towards him on the part of Bahira the Christian monk and Waraqah bin Nawfal and others.

This was before he actually became a Prophet and Islam was revealed. Please don’t insult our knowledge of the history of the Prophet. Their regard for him was based on a ‘gut feeling’ and I’m pretty sure shortly after that one of them dies and either way neither figures in the biography of the Prophet much after that.

There is yet more contradicting information to the notion that the Jews and Christians taught Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Br. Uthman mentioned earlier that the details given in the Qur'an with regards to certain historical events sometimes contradict those given in the Bible, and in addition to this, some stories in the Qur'an are not mentioned in the Bible or they are told differently. The stories it mentions such as those of the 'Ad and Thamud were not known to any people, whether they were Christians, Jews, Sabians, Zoroastrians or the Pagans of Makkah.

The reasons the Qur’anic versions of the Biblical stories are different could be many reasons other than Divine Inspiration. They needed to be updated to ‘fit’ the Qur’anic message that all these Prophets are somehow connected: ergo, Jesus is lifted up before he gets crucified, no-one ever drinks, Isaac is changed to Ishmael, Lot never sleeps with his daughters. Have you ever wondered why the story of Moses is mentioned in so much depth and detail compared to any other Prophet? What about Jesus? We never learn little of him beyond the virgin birth in Surah Al Imran. To me there is a big inconsistency there.

The stories of ‘Ad and Thamud are so unremarkable, and are almost identical in composition that the fact that they were unheard of does not mean that they couldn’t be made up. Even a small child who was illiterate could invent such stories. It is simply a case of ‘Man comes to village, man warns village, no-one listens, man leaves village, God destroys village with stones/blast/earthquake/take your pick.’

I didn’t comment on the earlier argument about the Jews because it was even less convincing.

Another aspect to consider is, putting aside conjecture and going by established facts of the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allaa be upon him) biography, the main time when Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came into contact with Jews and Christians was in Madinah. During the time he preached in Makkah for 13 years, most of his revelations contained the stories of previous prophets. Yet in Madinah, when he came into contact with the Jews and Christians, his revelations were no longer about previous prophets but primarily on subjects of religious legislation. From this perspective, how can we say that he borrowed ideas from Jews and Christians when he preached those ideas before he met Jews and Christians?

I have already discussed that he travelled extensively to the north as part of trade with his uncle Abu Talib since his teenage years, and that there were many Christian and Jewish tribes in these areas. Also, you already mentioned Bahira and Waraqah. He also visited Medina prior to Hijra, for example during the funeral of his mother at Abwa when he was six, and I’m pretty sure he would have gone there at least several more times between age six and Hijra.

The Arabic word used is Bid', which has been translated as a number between 3-9. The fact that the prediction is not given to the exact moment is of little consequence, because the story surrounding the revelation of these verses is no less than remarkable and a clear prediction took place. Please read the post here:

It is not that it isn’t given to the exact moment, it is that it is not even given to the exact decade. Okay, for the sake of argument, I’m going to make a prediction right now: In between 3 and 9 years, America will withdraw from Iraq. If it comes true, then would I be a Prophet?

Al-Bukhari recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "The Prophet , while in a dome-shaped tent on the day of the battle of Badr, said,

'O Allah! I ask you for the fulfillment of Your covenant and promise. O Allah! If You wish (to destroy the believers), You will never be worshipped on the earth after today.' Abu Bakr caught him by the hand and said, `This is sufficient, O Allah's Messenger! You have sufficiently asked and petitioned Allah.' The Prophet was clad in his armor at that time and went out, saying,

Their multitude will be put to flight and they will show their backs. Nay, but the Hour is their appointed time and that Hour will be more grievous and more bitter.''

This is again a case of if it didn’t happen, then there would be no proof of the prediction having failed because the believers would not have survived the battle of Badr to have written the Qur’an down.

Regarding the verse in question, it is clearly referring to the formation of milk:

And verily! In the cattle, there is a lesson for you. We give you to drink of that which is in their bellies, from between excretions and blood, pure milk; palatable to the drinkers.

You can see what Dr. Maurice Bucaille has to say here: http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/B...0Animal%20Milk

I am aware of Bucaille, but I wonder how many other western scientists have verified and written about the scientific miracles of the Qur’an. I will try to read the article when I get time, but again I feel that the ones we have dealt with are not ‘amazing’ enough to even warrant further investigation. The embryo, is, as I say, is the one thing warranting further research, but that is more a shortcoming of my own than anything else.

I doubt you have studied the Shariah enough to realise what it truly constitutes. After the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), his Companions continued to uphold the Shariah and a huge amount can be learnt from their success. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say it doesn't work - perhaps you can be more specific. But it is common for people to confuse the actions of some Muslims with Shariah law - we should be clear that not every Muslim leader represents Shariah law. Btw, we have some threads on this topic which you might be interested in, such as:
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...ariah-law.html

I admit, I don’t know enough about shariah because most Muslims never do have to know much about shariah considering it is mostly the declared domain of the scholars and jurists. I’m talking about how the khalifah descended into corruption, Muslim-on-Muslim violence - fitnah all over the place - and this was even before the four ‘rightly-guided’ caliphs were out of office. Muslims seem to think that having an Islamic State will get the world back on track, but one only needs to look at those tumultuous years, to see that shariah does not work. Furthermore, the issue of apostasy and the punishment thereafter, as discussed in other threads, is so loosely defined and flagrantly in contradiction of ‘no compulsion in religion’ it really takes away any level of credibility from shariah no matter what spin you put on it. Again, call me dumb but its all about mental gymnastics it seems.

It seems you have allowed preconceived opinions to get in the way of sincere searching...

If by searching you mean performing mental gymnastics in order to convince oneself that something is from God, then yes.

Of course the reward for actions are a motive for people to do them, as Allaah (swt) has linked certain rewards with certain actions, just as He has linked certain punishments with certain sins. But it is Allaah (swt) who gives people the ability to carry out such actions - you cannot necessarily accomplish something just because it has an incentive behind it.

I agree you cannot always carry out something just because there is an incentive – the incentive has to be good (I recommend you read Freakonomics if you haven’t already). I think that intercession is a strong enough incentive that one will do it. By memorising the Qur’an the parents can also brag that their son is a hafiz, and of course there is that weak hadith that family members can get fast-tracked to Heaven with their hafiz sons/daughters, so to me that is a pretty good incentive.

I would just like to change the direction of discussion a little and pose the same kind of question but in a slightly oblique fashion.

1. I cannot find a case where the explanation if that is the right word makes any difference or adds anything to the meaning of the verse.

I find that explanations often just add a load of conjecture giving the full context of a particular verse. If you read tafsir it just gives you more conjecture, more ambiguity and more room for people to turn around and say ‘aha! But this is what it really means, you fools who have no understanding!’)

2. If there is let's call it extra meaning then it was hidden even from your most pious forefathers and one presumes there might be things hidden from us. That would mean that sharia must be deficient because the forefathers could not have been in possession of all the facts.

To be honest whether certain interpretations are right or wrong is just a matter of having infallible faith in the scholars.

3. Just a though but I wondered if every cited supposed miracle is evident in both Arabic and say English or German or whatever. When I compare several English translation often the miracle 'disappears' in one or other of them.

The fact the full meaning is lost is, for me, damaging enough to the Qur’an’s case of being a book from God, let alone the miracle aspect. But going beyond that, I think that if the miracles are evident in English, I’m not seeing it, and that’s from reading two recommended translations.

I think this will truly take care of all the queries you keep on raising!

all the best

Wow another copy-pasted essay, well I read it and have tried to pull out all the things which are relevant:

The main points the author [Gary Miller] states are:

If Muhammad was a liar, who gave him confidence?
If he suffered from mythomania/craziness who gave him facts?
Who told him about embryology (leech-like clot)?
Who told him about Dhul Qarnayns wall? (in Soviet Union apparently – then why did Muslims who conquered China think it was the Great Wall, and why have I never heard this anywhere else from any Muslims?)

Female bee leaving hive?

"Your Lord revealed to the (female) bees: 'Build dwellings in the mountains and the trees, and also in the structures which men erect. Then eat from every kind of fruit and travel the paths of your Lord, which have been made easy for you to follow.' From inside them comes a drink of varying colors, containing healing for mankind. There is certainly a Sign in that for people who reflect." (16:68-69)

Make your own mind up.

Contains no contradictions therefore must be divine – only if you don’t want it to and are able to explain everything away with ‘context’
The fact that a leading intellectual in the Catholic Church, by the name of ‘Hans’s said Muhammad spoke to me carries some weight in defending Muslim position

Big bang and we all came from water –the Qur’an does not lay out the big bang, it just talks about ‘cloving asunder’ the Heavens and Earth. Whilst this can be taken to mean splitting apart something, which might make a bang of some sort I suppose, it does not describe the Big Bang in any credible detail. The fact we are made from water is great but there are more verses talking about us coming sperm or clay than there are about water, when the latter could be said to be another way of putting the former.

The Jewish community is viewed to be an enemy of Islam – talk about self-fulfilling prophecy
A brief lesson in probability –

Returning one final time to the subject of good guesses for the purpose of the present example, the odds that someone guessed correctly about all three of the aforementioned subjects - the sex of bees, the movement of the sun and the existence of time zones – are one in eight

(Apparent) movement of the sun (and moon) is something everyone observes. Why is this seen as such a brilliant guess? The sex of bees leaving the hive, well again it is defined in such a way that it is inconclusive at best. Again, like the milk ayah, you can spin it whatever way you want. The existence of time zones, I’m not clear on where he even showed this exists in the Qur’an.

the odds that Mohammed an illiterate, guessed correctly about thousands and thousands of subjects, never once making a mistake, are so high that any theory of his authorship of the Qur'an must be completely dismissed - even by the most
hostile enemies of Islam!

Then why isn’t it. Thousands and thousands of subjects? There 6,000 ayahs in the Qur’an, so are you telling me he made a prediction every six ayahs? And if he did, and they were truly impressive, then why are they being dismissed and why have they, by and large, always been dismissed by the vast majority of people from non-Muslim countries, scientists and non-scientists alike? Why is it that whenever someone ‘reverts’ they are paraded in front of the mosque like a beacon of hope for Muslims that, ‘yes, our religion is appealing!’?

Lastly, that the city of ‘Iram actually exists – guess where – Syria! Coincidence much?

Also Skye that numbers miracle (e.g. number of times man and woman named in Qur’an) has been utterly refuted even by Muslim sources so I suggest you check your facts before you post them!

[Eliphaz]

Anyway a few pages back Muhammad gave a list of reasons why the Qur’an is the word of God. I want to now post a list of reasons why I think the Qur’an isn’t the word of God:

1. God would not reveal in one language knowing that some people would not understand His word fully

2. The Qur’an claims that those who commit shirk (polytheism) are destined for Hell forever whilst God supposedly knew the Christians would fall into doing this by setting up partners/sons/whatever with God. God would know the confusion this has caused would occur, and therefore unless God wills confusion (therefore he wouldn’t be God) the Qur'an cannot be from God

3. The Qur’an’s versions of the stories of the Prophets are overly similar to those in the Old Testament and no new meaningful details are added nor is anything of value added in the form of additional stories of the Prophets

4. The science of the Qur’an appears to be a matter of taking one tiny ayah to mean something it does not.

5. The Qur’an cannot be understood on its own, despite repeating itself many times it does not explain itself in enough detail to not require a class of scholars to interpret it for us like we are children

6. No God who has created such mercy in humans and in nature would enforce the punishments written in the Qur’an, describing people whose skin will be burned off then replaced, fed boiling water, and trees from which devil heads are hanging, for all eternity, for simply believing there may be more than one god or simply unable to believe in a God period. I feel many Muslims do not accept that eternity is a very long time even for very bad people and that no human judge in his right mind could ever impose this on anyone

Peace

[جوري]

Wow another copy-pasted essay, well I read it and have tried to pull out all the things which are relevant:

Don't like it then don't read it I don't recall sticking a gun to your head nor specifying you with the article?
I think in fact it was quite relevant given the same questions are asked over and over, without actual reference to Quranic verses in question in that same superficial style that you have graced us with!

The main points the author [Gary Miller] states are:

If Muhammad was a liar, who gave him confidence?
If he suffered from mythomania/craziness who gave him facts?
Who told him about embryology (leech-like clot)?
Who told him about Dhul Qarnayns wall? (in Soviet Union apparently – then why did Muslims who conquered China think it was the Great Wall, and why have I never heard this anywhere else from any Muslims?)

I understand that a cut and paste can seem daunting for you as such you seem to exert little effort reading or comprehending what is actually written and engage us to a purposeful dialogue? If it is too much for you to sort through (which I suspect that it was) then is better to ignore it than affirm a point of your own ignorance? The article followed very much a systematic approach!
the least you can do it meet it half way through following a like manner without reaching into your hat for some silly rabbit?
Three lines don't cover seventeen pages and though I have cut and pasted it with reference I did in fact bother read it, surely if you want us to sit down and address your concerns the least you can do is show us what has caused you so much ire?

Female bee leaving hive?

"Your Lord revealed to the (female) bees: 'Build dwellings in the mountains and the trees, and also in the structures which men erect. Then eat from every kind of fruit and travel the paths of your Lord, which have been made easy for you to follow.' From inside them comes a drink of varying colors, containing healing for mankind. There is certainly a Sign in that for people who reflect." (16:68-69)

I am really not following? Do you have a point? where is the bee leaving in the verse?

Make your own mind up.

About what exactly, perhaps if you had a point, then we can work with it, I can't work with an imaginary fault or your lack of knowledge of the natural world!

Contains no contradictions therefore must be divine – only if you don’t want it to and are able to explain everything away with ‘context’

If you find contradictions then bring them forth!

The fact that a leading intellectual in the Catholic Church, by the name of ‘Hans’s said Muhammad spoke to me carries some weight in defending Muslim position

I wasn't aware we are after a defense? The man set out to do exactly what you are wanting to do now but at least he approached it with some high fidelity hence his conversion--The fact that another body which opposes this religion deeply can't find an explanation to this text to quell its own parishioners should be taken note of and he would know of that given the obvious reasons... again you are welcome not to find significance in that!

Big bang and we all came from water –the Qur’an does not lay out the big bang, it just talks about ‘cloving asunder’ the Heavens and Earth. Whilst this can be taken to mean splitting apart something, which might make a bang of some sort I suppose, it does not describe the Big Bang in any credible detail. The fact we are made from water is great but there are more verses talking about us coming sperm or clay than there are about water, when the latter could be said to be another way of putting the former.

The Quran is a book of signs not a book of science and even though in science it is perfectly legitimate to describe events in gross terms and not dwell for just like the law of combiatorics fulfills a purpose so do plain or allegorical verses:

In modern pathology it is perfectly sound to use terms such as:

strawberry gallbladder a term used when the surrounding mucosa is congested
chocolate cyst to describe endometriosis
orphan Annie eye used to describe thyroid papillary carcinoma
onion skinning to describe to describe periosteal reaction to a specific tumor.
fried egg appearance to describe an Oligodendroglioma....
and I can go on but point is made for our purposes here!

if you don't like the terms and find them un-scientific the way you mock 'leech like' or cloving asunder or atom or anything less then you are certainly free to your chuckles and mocks.. however as you'd simply be laughed off as an ignorant buffoon to the scientific community viewed as someone who has spent no time contributing or studying and plenty of time complaining. Likewise you'll be viewed by the theologians and religious alike unlearned in exegesis and rendering your desired explanation!

The Jewish community is viewed to be an enemy of Islam – talk about self-fulfilling prophecy

care to elaborate?

A brief lesson in probability –

I don't think you work well with probability given the many you can't and haven't attempted to account for which we plainly listed for you.
You don't seem to enjoy what is plainly written or what is excerpted.. perhaps you can tell us the purpose of this exercise if all is met with your disapproval?

Movement of the sun is something everyone observes. Why is this seen as such a brilliant guess? The sex of bees leaving the hive, well again it is defined in such a way that it is inconclusive at best. Again, like the milk ayah, you can spin it whatever way you want. The existence of time zones, I’m not clear on where he even showed this exists in the Qur’an.

When you have people persecuted for believing the earth is round and I have so demonstrated a few posts ago or not stationary or that other planets don't revolve around the earth, it makes such finds in the Quran very significant!
a few months ago we had a gentleman here who posed himself as a scientist and didn't believe the sun itself revolved in its orbit and another who couldn't understand how moon years are longer but exhibit shorter days.. as for the rest, I really have no idea what you are talking about? You seem very angry but not goal directed. If you want to discuss something in particular then do so in a logical fashion!

Then why isn’t it.

Then why isn't it what?

Thousands and thousands of subjects? There 6,000 ayahs in the Qur’an, so are you telling me he made a prediction every six ayahs? And if he did, and they were truly impressive, then why are they being dismissed and why have they, by and large, always been dismissed by the vast majority of people from non-Muslim countries, scientists and non-scientists alike? Why is it that whenever someone ‘reverts’ they are paraded in front of the mosque like a beacon of hope for Muslims that, ‘yes, our religion is appealing!’?

what is with the drivel? -- I don't understand what you want?

18:54 THUS, INDEED, have We given in this Qur'an many facets to every kind of lesson [designed] for [the benefit of] mankind.60 However, man is, above all else, always given to contention:


it doesn't matter what the Quran contains-- you have no answer for two verses of it let alone 6000+, what you have are contentions, if it is something to reflect on 'it is obvious' even though it wasn't obvious to those persecuting others for centuries for those exact said obvious things. If it a prophecy, it is self-fulfilling, it is poetic there is always Charles Baudelaire, if it occult then it is imagined, if it confirms the previous scriptures then it is copied if no explanation to the revelation then he had a mini-computer to organize based on rhyme, if not an Arab who taught him all that is contradictory to their beliefs by the most celebrated of poets, then a non-muslim, non-arab wrote it all together ..

The problem here isn't in the Quran or its contents or its followers, it is in the little bull**** you makeup to assuage your personal inclinations-- none which you've argued to a level or appropriately refuted!
It will always be something, if five then why not six or four and so on and so on.
I don't think Islam could be anymore maligned than it is on daily basis the fact that they still flock to Islam by the thousands daily, should denote that it stands on its own merit not as you suggest out of people parading it and so tells us NBC not some Muslim source

Media Tags are no longer supported

Lastly, that the city of ‘Iram actually exists – guess where – Syria! Coincidence much?

I haven't seen a practical 'first' to see a lastly, do you have a point and can you tie well for us, so that the beginning of your thought processes flows well with the your conclusion?

Also Skye that numbers miracle (e.g. number of times man and woman named in Qur’an) has been utterly refuted even by Muslim sources so I suggest you check your facts before you post them!

Why when I can read the Quran in Arabic for myself? has answering Islam accounted for all the ways women and men are mentioned.. for instance can they tell the difference between الذَّكَرُ to denote male to الذِّكْرِ to denote message or reminder? can they as well distinguish الأُنثَى from النِّسَاء?.. and more importantly have you found a way to refute the rest of the numerical miracles (and I so consider them) for otherwise I'd like for you to refute the laws behind combinatorics, which state, the probability of a word occurring a specific number of times in the text decreasing as the text grows longer, as the number of possibilities increases rapidly. That means if you took a book that was 20 000 pages, and the word night was mentioned exactly as many times as day, it would be far more astonishing than if you found the same thing in a single page report. Also, if the word repetitions are small, then there is a greater chance that it was intentionally done that way. But if the repetition number is bigger, it is practically impossible.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ord-god-4.html

you try so hard but even your acrid remarks fail to equal your vacuous attempts to discredit the Quran and in the end you do exactly the opposite of what you'd set out to do..

I have a question for you-- why can't you be happy being an atheist without having to contrast it to someone else having faulty beliefs especially when attempting to discredit said beliefs in such a sophomoric fashion that it is almost an insult to waste ones time refuting you?
Do your beliefs to the lack of existence of God (which I assume you are from your participation on atheist thread) have to be contingent on someone else' beliefs being false?


all the best

[جوري]

Anyway a few pages back Muhammad gave a list of reasons why the Qur’an is the word of God. I want to now post a list of reasons why I think the Qur’an isn’t the word of God:

You haven't satisfactorily refuted Muhammad's list or even that which Dr. Miller has introduced to make the leap of your own list.. ma 3lyna let's address your list!

1. God would not reveal in one language knowing that some people would not understand His word fully

That lacks all logical relation, I certainly would not compare The Quran as authored by God to a science book authored by a scientist.. however, student's failure to understand the book or follow it correctly and receiving a failing grade in a course doesn't denote error in the laws of physics, in the authorship or the author him/herself, rather the educatee needs to examine his/her shortcomings or ask for help in areas that appear confusing!

2. The Qur’an claims that those who commit shirk (polytheism) are destined for Hell forever whilst God supposedly knew the Christians to fall into doing this by setting up partners/sons/whatever with God. God would know the confusion this has caused would occur and therefore unless God wills confusion (therefore he wouldn’t be God) it is not from God

I am not sure this qualifies as a sentence let alone a reason.
Again, if you were taught in class that 1+1=2 and you designate a different logic making 1+1 to equal three or five or whatever else, the error is still not in the law of mathematics, the authorship or the author.. There is nothing in my mind worse than committing error save for failure to take responsibility for it!

3. The Qur’an’s versions of the stories of the Prophets are overly similar to those in the Old Testament and no new meaningful details are added nor is anything of value added in the form of additional stories of the Prophets

It exonerated the prophets from wrong doing for starters:

Lot had sex with his two daughters. One might even conclude that he had God's help in this, as he was both very old and very drunk at the time. There was no punishment for any of them. On the contrary, both daughters were rewarded with sons who founded nations (Gen 19:33-38). Earlier (Gen 19:8), Lot had offered his daughters to be used by a mob. And Peter said that Lot was a "righteous man" (2Peter 2:8).



to



7:80 We also (sent) Lut: he said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you?



6:86 And Isma'il and Al-Yasa', and Yunus, and Lut: and to all We gave favour above the nations:





Messengers don't forbid Lewd acts and commit them themselves. So not only is there great value in relieving folks of their old confusion which you have certainly failed to account for how the prophet (p) could have known of especially when they stand to contradict old scriptures while managing two completely different styles of text.

There is certainly is great value to undo the damage of the scribes of the previous scriptures and to establish the proper criteria and that is a true gift from God for surely God can't be just while letting people astray to their devices!



[l 2:38] We said: Go down, all of you, from hence; but verily there cometh unto you from Me a guidance; and whoso followeth My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

18: 29 And say: "The truth [has now come] from your Sustainer: let, then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it.

Free will is a great ain't it? unless of course you find a way to start a grievance for that as well!

4. The science of the Qur’an appears to be a matter of taking one tiny ayah to mean something it does not.

see my previous detail reply, if there is a refutation to that effect I am yet to read it!

5. The Qur’an cannot be understood on its own, despite repeating itself many times it does not explain itself in enough detail to not require a class of scholars to interpret it for us like we are children

That is not true, that is wall you've built out of whim and certified by the number of converts who find themselves to Islam in spite of great effort courtesy of folks like you to make of it what it clearly isn't!
The Quran is easy to read and soul-soaring to listen to and an active reward to abide by for the results are immediate to this life if one can't foresee the next!

6. No God who has created such mercy in humans and in nature would enforce the punishments written in the Qur’an, describing people whose skin will be burned off then replaced, fed boiling water, and trees from which devil heads are hanging, for all eternity, for simply believing there may be more than one god or simply unable to believe in a God period. I feel many Muslims do not accept that eternity is a very long time even for very bad people and that no human judge in his right mind could ever impose this on anyone

Peace

You don't know the first thing of how justice will be dispensed to whom and why or why not thus I'd refrain from speaking on behalf of the creator as if you were the creator. Matters of the soul/repentance/punishment/ rewards are not delegated to us, our lack of belief or dislike of what is written doesn't make a matter anymore true or false.. Believing that you have done well on an exam because Mrs. Smith is a good and fair teacher and would never see you sit in the course to repeat it when she knows how important graduation is for you and because you are such a good guy isn't enough support to indicate that you have actually passed the test.

I really wish you'd put some effort into your 'refutations' as they fall more along the line of a personal belief than constructive facts!

all the best

[CosmicPathos]

Anyway a few pages back Muhammad gave a list of reasons why the Qur’an is the word of God. I want to now post a list of reasons why I think the Qur’an isn’t the word of God:

1. God would not reveal in one language knowing that some people would not understand His word fully

2. The Qur’an claims that those who commit shirk (polytheism) are destined for Hell forever whilst God supposedly knew the Christians to fall into doing this by setting up partners/sons/whatever with God. God would know the confusion this has caused would occur and therefore unless God wills confusion (therefore he wouldn’t be God) it is not from God

3. The Qur’an’s versions of the stories of the Prophets are overly similar to those in the Old Testament and no new meaningful details are added nor is anything of value added in the form of additional stories of the Prophets

4. The science of the Qur’an appears to be a matter of taking one tiny ayah to mean something it does not.

5. The Qur’an cannot be understood on its own, despite repeating itself many times it does not explain itself in enough detail to not require a class of scholars to interpret it for us like we are children

6. No God who has created such mercy in humans and in nature would enforce the punishments written in the Qur’an, describing people whose skin will be burned off then replaced, fed boiling water, and trees from which devil heads are hanging, for all eternity, for simply believing there may be more than one god or simply unable to believe in a God period. I feel many Muslims do not accept that eternity is a very long time even for very bad people and that no human judge in his right mind could ever impose this on anyone

Peace

1- On the other hand, I find it more logical for God to use a single language for revealing His religion, so that coherence and unity can be created among different speakers through one chosen language of expression. Hence, your claim is not absolute/universal.

2- If God can Will confusion, why cant He be God? God does what He wills. Is it a part of the definition of His existence to not cause confusion? Not really. He exists without any reason to define Him. At least that is Islamic God. Since confusion has occurred in Christianity, it means God willed it. It, however, does not mean that God loves confusion. God wills things even though He "detests" them. Islamic God is very different from Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Bahai etc God or gods or goddesses.


3- Qurani'c versions of stories are quite different from OT/NT, if not that much in material (even this is not true), then at least their delivery is professional, Divine, awe-inspiring and inspirational.

4- Not really, the verses are taken as literally as possible to show the "scientific facts." How do you know what "its not?"

5- I can understand Quran quite well and try to implement in my life (allhamdulillah) and I have not read a single tafseer in its entirety.

6- God does what He wills. He chose eternity as a punishment for rejection of His existence in a finite world. Disagreement with this choice does not make him non-existent. It rather makes you a rebel.

[Uthman]

Greetings Eliphaz,

The reasons the Qur’anic versions of the Biblical stories are different could be many reasons other than Divine Inspiration. They needed to be updated to ‘fit’ the Qur’anic message that all these Prophets are somehow connected

This fails to explain why the narratives given in the Qur'an are proven (thanks to modern research) to be more accurate historically than those given in the Bible. The inconsistencies that exist between the narratives given in the Bible and in the Qur'an go beyond simple differences in the storyline.

Now if indeed Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) had plagiarised the Bible (supposing, for the sake of argument, that he had recourse to it in the first place, even though he didn't), he would also have plagiarised it's historical mistakes. He would not have known what the historical innaccuracies are in the first place, let alone correct them. Even if he had jigged the stories around a little to make them 'fit', it is implausible that, in doing so, he would have accidentally corrected the historical inaccuracies contained in the stories which he wanted to borrow.

For examples, please check out the video from my earlier post and I would appreciate your comments.

In fact, I will post it again here:

Media Tags are no longer supported

Regards

[Muhammad]

Greetings Hugo,

Thanks for your reply.

In terms of the literary merit of the Qu'ran then I am sure it is as you say but I suppose my position would be that at least in my view other books have similar merit and secondly, I cannot see in any strict logical sense that it follows it must be from God.

You've said two different things here and both cannot be correct at the same time: either the Qur'an stands out from all other books in literary merit, or it is merely similar to them. I don't really see how you can form an opinion about this without actually analysing the text of the Qur'an for yourself and comparing it to other books - clearly, in a discussion being held in English, we are very limited in appreciating this aspect of the Qur'an. However, even for a non-Arab, it is still possible to realise that the Qur'an's language and style is one of the strongest aspects of its miraculous nature. By looking at the impact that the eloquence of the Qur'an had on its first listeners, we gain a clear picture of the standard of the Qur'an in comparison to anything that the masters of language ever heard. They couldn't find any fault with it nor explain how an illiterate man could have produced it, nor could they produce anything like it themselves. They were in the best position to disprove the Qur'an's literary merit above all other work, yet they failed miserably.

This, together with all the other sciences of the Qur'an, clearly shows that the Qur'an is a divine revelation from God. Remember that the miraculous nature of the Qur'an is not by any single aspect (e.g the Qur'an's language and style) only, rather it is due to all its facets simultaneously.

This I would more or less agree with though I have difficulty seeing why God would hide things and in general I have not see anything that I would regard as a miraculous insert. But I think your position is the only logical one that whether these are scientific miracles or not it has no bearing in meaning because otherwise all sorts of consequences and objections arise so of which I outlined.

But where has God "hidden" the scientific references? Perhaps some of them are brief, but that does not mean they are hidden. Some of them are much more detailed than others, such as how Allaah (swt) describes the creation of man in the womb in stages, and the description of the water cycle etc.

It cannot be denied that there are scientific references in the Qur'an and this is a feature of its miraculous nature. When understood in the light of modern science, it gives a deeper appreciation of the meaning. So if something can be understood in further detail and provides further evidence of the truth of the Qur'an, surely we can say that there is a bearing on meaning as opposed to none whatsoever?

I would like to point out, however, that a proper methodology needs to be applied in extracting such examples of scientific facts. It is true that some scientific facts have been read in where they do not exist by some who are not very familiar with the interpretation of the Qur'an.

Here are some discussions/articles on scientific facts mentioned in the Qur'an:

Embryology:
http://www.islamicboard.com/443221-post70.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...ogy-quran.html
http://www.quranicstudies.com/articl...mbryology.html

Ocean Phenomena:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...n-ocean-2.html

Water Cycle:
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive...ng=E&id=134578

I am sure this is right and my comment was a conjecture that one might have had a greater miracles if it was totally translatable.

Is it not sufficient that the message of the Qur'an is universal?

Originally posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
On one hand you have the basic fact that translation can not capture exactly and perfectly all the subtleties and nuances associated with the beauty of the original verse, while on the other hand you have the fact that the message and teachings expounded in that scripture are universal in that they can be, and are practiced and understood by people from any background, as the Qur'an trancends culture, nationality, ethnicity and every other superficial barrier which divides human beings. No other system of laws has been introduced sucessfuly and implemented by peoples across different continents and cultures.

So here if the Qu'ran had not be literary excellent then some would have found another way to explain its uniqueness. The whole point of this is that we must be careful not to associate interpolate or extrapolate meaning with events or things or if we do it needs a lot of care.

As mentioned above, the Qur'an's literary merit is not the only aspect of its miraculous nature, rather its beauty is from all angles that one can look at it.

Peace.

[Muhammad]

Greetings Eliphaz,

You will have to excuse yet another long post (see the note at the end). :)

It puzzles me how this thread is about whether the Qur’an is from God, and yet people are constantly mentioning the Bible and how it is so rubbish? What is that? A knee-jerk reaction of ‘well if you think the Qur’an is bad, you should check out your Bible… so there’?

I don't really know where the Qur'an vs Bible discussion popped out from... though there does seem to be a bit of that creeping into our dialogue after you made the allegation about the Qur'an being copied from the Bible.

As they say, ignorance is bliss. How I wish I could go back to not understanding it and purely enjoying it based on the sound of recitation. (By the way, the same could be said for recitations in any religion or culture from the chants of the Buddhists to those of the Hindus.)

Firstly, you've admitted that the beauty of the Qur'an's style can be appreciated by anyone, so that's that cleared up.

Regarding the point about other religious recitations, adherents of those religions probably do claim their recitations are peaceful etc. I've even heard a couple of them myself. But from what I know about the Qur'an and what I've seen from other religions, it is very clear that they are incomparable. Some religions use music to accompany the recital of their scripture, while others involve the repetition of just a few words over and over again. Yet the Qur'an does not need any such accompaniment as if it is some kind of entertainment, nor is it a meaningless melody that is repeated in some kind of mystical way. Rather it is a clear message of truth that is upright and captivating, free from any blemish or shortcoming.

The Qur'an is much more than mere chanting, rather there is a whole science dedicated to its correct recitation such that every letter has rights and dues of characteristics. As someone on a blog put it,"the pronunciation of letters, the degrees in tones, nasalization and the different qualities are so well documented in Arabic that the script comes together as a well-defined, well-oiled machine." In this way, anyone who has studied the Qur'an will quickly see how profound and unique it is.

Moreover, speaking of the sound of the Qur’an, the effect that the Qur'an has on its listeners is another aspect of its miraculous nature. The effect it had on various unbelievers at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is sufficient to appreciate this fact - people such as Jubayr ibn Mut'im, al-Waleed ibn Mugheerah and others. Just by hearing the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) recite Surah At-Toor in the Maghrib Prayer, Jubayr became a Muslim! The Qur'an itself discusses the effect it has on its listeners, both disbelievers and believers. As for the believers, it increases them in faith as well as their fear of Allaah (swt), such that it is very common for a reciter of the Qur'an to become emotional and be reduced to tears.

Allah has sent down the Best Statement, a Book (this Qur'an), its parts resembling each other (in goodness and truth) (and) oft-repeated. The skins of those who fear their Lord shiver from it (when they recite it or hear it). Then their skin and their heart soften to the remembrance of Allah. That is the guidance of Allah. He Guides therewith whom He wills; and whomever Allah sends astray, for him there is no guide. [Az-Zumar: 23]

No other book has such a powerful effect on its listeners, and the Qur’anic recitation is far above any other.


Moving on to the third point - earlier you complained that the Qur'an is inaccessible yet now you openly prefer ignorance to knowledge. You also changed the subject from the language and style of the Qur'an to the actual message of the Qur'an (which you've attacked). But the issues you have with its message seem to have been mentioned later, so I will leave that for now.

I don’t see how the alternative attempt you quoted is any more sophisticated than the one about the elephant and the long trunk. I think Musaylimah is a convincing straw-man for the ‘can’t produce a single surah’ argument.

You are right that both of them were unsophisticated, which was the main point - I was only posting the full story of Musaylimah and pointing out his version. But far from being a straw-man, Musaylimah is an example of how anyone trying to imitate the Qur'an is guaranteed to be met with a wretched failure.

It was not a desperate attempt but a logical explanation of how the stories could have got there other than God planting them in Muhammad’s head.

The explanations you have given are very far from logical and I hope it will become apparent below that the only logical conclusion is that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) received revelation from Allaah (swt). (Note that many of the points overlap, and therefore parts of some also apply to others etc.)

Before going any further, let’s summarise the main arguments you have presented regarding the stories in the Qur’an:

1. The stories are so simple that they would be easy to copy without needing tuition
2. The stories are so simple that they would be easy to make up
3. Tuition was received from somewhere
4. Any differences between Qur’anic and Biblical narratives are because stories had to be modified to “fit” the Qur’anic message

Now, all of these cannot be true at the same time. For example, either the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was taught by Christians/Jews or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t, then no matter how simple a story might be, there is no way to explain how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to know of it without being able to access, let alone read, an Arabic Bible himself. (According to the research presented here, there was no Arabic Gospel which existed at that time, and it was only until much later until it did!)

So you need to be very clear on what theory you believe and then it would be a lot easier to focus on that. At the moment, it seems you are throwing in random theories that contradict each other.

The other obvious issue that arises from looking at your list of arguments is, if some stories were made up, others somehow copied, others modified, over a long period of time, perhaps after seeking help from a number of different individuals scattered in different regions, the chance that someone could produce something as harmonious, consistent and eloquent as the Qur’an is very little. Rather it would have been incoherent, contradictory and inconsistent. And as we are not talking about a prized poet of Makkah but rather an illiterate man, the chances are even smaller. So again you need to think about your theories more carefully.

Moving on to some specific claims:

The stories of the Prophets, which are the main thing borrowed from the OT (I will be checking out the story of Yusuf in more depth) are so simple they could have been lifted, stripped down and modified without any need for tuition under a Christian or Jewish scholar.

To compile the stories of the Prophets would be nowhere near as simple as you claim - perhaps you are not very familiar with the Qur'an. These stories are repeated in different ways throughout the Qur'an, mentioned in varying levels of detail and would be revealed at different times.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said, commenting on the repetition of the story of Moosa and his people:

Allaah mentions this story in several places in the Qur'aan, and in every place He highlights a different idea and conclusion, just as Allaah, His Messenger and His Book are called by different names, each name indicating a meaning that is not indicated by another name. There is no repetition in that, rather it is a kind of diversity, like the names of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as he is called Muhammad, Ahmad, al-Haashir, al-‘Aaqib, al-Muqaffa, the Prophet of Mercy, the Prophet of Repentance, and each name points to a meaning that is not indicated by any other name; the person is the same but the attributes are numerous...

The same applies to sentences that are complete in meaning. The story is told in one way that highlights one point, then it is told in another way which highlights a different point. The story is the same story, but its details are numerous, and every sentence conveys a meaning that is not indicated by other sentences.

For someone to compile all of this in such a skilful and meaningful way, without any discrepancies between the different narratives that were revealed at different times, it would clearly require a lot of time and effort to say the least. It would have been difficult enough for a literate person, what then the case for one illiterate! So with neither tuition, nor the ability, nor even an Arabic Bible available, this first suggestion of yours has no legs to stand on. And even if one claims he did have tuition, then the above point about producing something so consistent and eloquent would still apply. But we shall focus on the issue of tuition later.

This was before he actually became a Prophet and Islam was revealed. Please don’t insult our knowledge of the history of the Prophet. Their regard for him was based on a ‘gut feeling’ and I’m pretty sure shortly after that one of them dies and either way neither figures in the biography of the Prophet much after that.

I am aware that Waraqah bin Nawfal and Bahira the monk met the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) either before he became a Prophet or, in the case of Waraqah, in the early stages of prophethood, yet the point I was making was that they did not teach him their scriptures. Waraqa's attitude toward the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when the latter received the first revelation is very noteworthy as being further evidence that the Qur'an could not have been copied from the Bible and that it was a revelation from God. And it wasn't only his reaction but that of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) himself and his wife Khadeejah. This point is mentioned in more detail in the following post:

http://www.islamicboard.com/194052-post32.html

The reasons the Qur’anic versions of the Biblical stories are different could be many reasons other than Divine Inspiration. They needed to be updated to ‘fit’ the Qur’anic message that all these Prophets are somehow connected: ergo, Jesus is lifted up before he gets crucified, no-one ever drinks, Isaac is changed to Ishmael, Lot never sleeps with his daughters. Have you ever wondered why the story of Moses is mentioned in so much depth and detail compared to any other Prophet? What about Jesus? We never learn little of him beyond the virgin birth in Surah Al Imran. To me there is a big inconsistency there.

A key concept that you have failed to understand is the Islamic belief that the original Gospel and Tawrah were also revelations from Allaah (swt), but they became corrupted by people over time. Therefore, the Qur'an came to correct the message that had been distorted, and is the most encompassing, glorious and perfect of them all, containing all of their good and more. This is important to understand because,

"similarity between any two compositions or books does not in itself constitute sufficient evidence that one was copied from the other, or the latter from the earlier one. Both of them could be based on a common third source. This is precisely the argument of the Qur'ân. There are certain portions of the Bible that might have remained intact and if God is the source of both revelations that should explain the existence of parallels."

So just because some stories are similar does not allow one to immediately force the conclusion that the Qur'an is the result of plagiarism. Otherwise, one can use this same fallacious argument against the Bible and say it borrowed from earlier sources wherever there are parallels.

The large number of differences between Qur'anic and Biblical narratives and how they were viewed by the people of that time all goes against the claim that stories were borrowed then modified. Besides the fact that there's no evidence presented for this claim, its error can also be seen from the following examples:

There are also major variations in the stories of Abraham, Ishmael and Issac, Lot, Moses and Jesus(P). The idea that the Qur'ân has largely borrowed from the Bible is certainly erroneous. Infact even those scholars who postulate the borrowing theory like Phillip Hitti hasten to add that:

...the resemblences do not warrant the conclusion of borrowing or quoting.

or that he was not a slavish imitator[23]. The implication is that Muhammad(P) had thoroughly grasped and internalised the Bible, excessively edited it and then recast it in his own words. Richard Bell, however, who is at pains to prove the direct dependence of Muhammad(P) on the Bible also insists that he was not working on any real acquaintance with the Bible itself.[24]

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...Bparallel.html

Variations in such famous stories would have been easy to refute by those well-versed in history if they had been made up, yet the truth was evident.

Another example is that the knowledgeable among the Jews and Christians learning of the Qur’an would have known whether some of its details were true or not because they had hid the truth from their own scriptures. Using the example of Isaac and Ishmael:

...Ibn Ishaq reported from Buraydah bin Sufyan bin Farwah Al-Aslami that Muhammad bin Ka`b Al-Qurazi told them that he mentioned that to `Umar bin `Abd Al-`Aziz, may Allah be pleased with him, when he was Khalifah, while he was with him in Syria. `Umar said to him, "This is something about which I have never given any thought, but I see that it is as you say.'' Then he sent for a man who was with him in Syria, a Jew who had become a Muslim and was committed to Islam, and he thought that he had been one of their scholars. `Umar bin `Abd Al-`Aziz, may Allah be pleased with him, asked him about that. Muhammad bin Ka`b said, "I was with `Umar bin `Abd Al-`Aziz. `Umar said to him, `Which of the two sons of Ibrahim was he commanded to sacrifice' He said, `Isma`il. By Allah, O Commander of the faithful, the Jews know this, but they were jealous of you Arabs because it was your father about whom Allah issued this command and the virtue that Allah mentioned was because of his patience in obeying the command. So they denied that and claimed that it was Ishaq, because he is their father.'''

http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=37&tid=44305

Not only this, but in some cases they were better informed about certain stories and hence they used this to test the truth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as I have already mentioned in an earlier post:

Ibn `Abbas said: "The Quraysh sent An-Nadr bin Al-Harith and `Uqbah bin Abi Mu`it to the Jewish rabbis in Al-Madinah, and told them: `Ask them (the rabbis) about Muhammad, and describe him to them, and tell them what he is saying. They are the people of the first Book, and they have more knowledge of the Prophets than we do.' So they set out and when they reached Al-Madinah, they asked the Jewish rabbis about the Messenger of Allah . They described him to them and told them some of what he had said. They said, `You are the people of the Tawrah and we have come to you so that you can tell us about this companion of ours.' They (the rabbis) said, `Ask him about three things which we will tell you to ask, and if he answers them then he is a Prophet who has been sent (by Allah); if he does not, then he is saying things that are not true, in which case how you will deal with him will be up to you. Ask him about some young men in ancient times, what was their story For theirs is a strange and wondrous tale. Ask him about a man who travelled a great deal and reached the east and the west of the earth. What was his story And ask him about the Ruh (soul or spirit) -- what is it If he tells you about these things, then he is a Prophet, so follow him, but if he does not tell you, then he is a man who is making things up, so deal with him as you see fit.' So An-Nadr and `Uqbah left and came back to the Quraysh, and said: `O people of Quraysh, we have come to you with a decisive solution which will put an end to the problem between you and Muhammad. The Jewish rabbis told us to ask him about some matters,' and they told the Quraysh what they were. Then they came to the Messenger of Allah and said, `O Muhammad, tell us,' and they asked him about the things they had been told to ask. The Messenger of Allah said, (I will tell you tomorrow about what you have asked me.) but he did not say `If Allah wills.' So they went away, and the Messenger of Allah stayed for fifteen days without any revelation from Allah concerning that, and Jibril, peace be upon him, did not come to him either. The people of Makkah started to doubt him, and said, `Muhammad promised to tell us the next day, and now fifteen days have gone by and he has not told us anything in response to the questions we asked.' The Messenger of Allah felt sad because of the delay in revelation, and was grieved by what the people of Makkah were saying about him. Then Jibril came to him from Allah with the Surah about the companions of Al-Kahf, which also contained a rebuke for feeling sad about the idolators. The Surah also told him about the things they had asked him about, the young men and the traveler. The question about the Ruh was answered in the Ayah; (And they ask you concerning the Ruh (the spirit); say: "The Ruh...'') [17:85].

http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=18&tid=29908

This is a very clear evidence that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was truthful, as he could not have known what questions were going to be asked of him and hence had no way of knowing about these stories prior to being asked.

So the truth presented in the Qur’an both in its narratives and the purity of its teachings (e.g. the itegrity of prophets) make it clear that it is indeed a revelation from Allaah (swt). Had it been derived from other scriptures, it would also have contained some of their mistakes and it would have been apparent that it was not a true revelation and Jews and Christians themselves would not have accepted its truth.

To finish with this point, you mentioned something about the stories of Moses and Jesus. The story of Moses is indeed mentioned in great detail - this in itself is an indication of the truth of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) for if he were to author the Qur'an himself, one would expect him to write more about his own life. Jesus' story is also mentioned in quite a bit of detail (more than just his virgin birth as you claimed) - it begins from before the birth of his mother and mentions her upbringing and dedication, Jesus' own birth and the miracles that he brought to his people, his conversations with his disciples as well as the story of the table from heaven, accusations raised by the Jews and how he was not crucified, etc. Your lack of knowledge about the Qur'an is becoming more evident, so I would advise you to read it properly before passing judgements on it.

The stories of ‘Ad and Thamud are so unremarkable, and are almost identical in composition that the fact that they were unheard of does not mean that they couldn’t be made up. Even a small child who was illiterate could invent such stories. It is simply a case of ‘Man comes to village, man warns village, no-one listens, man leaves village, God destroys village with stones/blast/earthquake/take your pick.’

I would think previous nations being destroyed by violent winds, strong earthquakes and overwhelming shouts are very remarkable stories indeed for anyone hearing about them. Moreover, the conciseness with which a story is told does not mean it is unremarkable, rather if someone can narrate a valuable lesson in few words, that itself is a remarkable thing. This is in contrast to other books that are filled with irrelevant historical details that are of no concern to anyone, such as the long lists of names and numbers of people listed in many chapters. Furthermore, as mentioned above, these stories are repeated in different ways, some of them going into much more detail and thus their composition varies greatly as anyone who has read the Qur'an would know.

Furthermore, there are many other things in the Qur’an that are not mentioned in the Bible:

... The borrowing theory is further weakened by the presence in the Qur'ân of stories or details which are absent in the Bible. The stories of the people of Ad and Thamud and their prophets Hud and Saleh(P) are not mentioned in the Bible. Some of the Qur'ânic details which have no parallels in the Bible include the dialogue which Prophet Noah(P) had with his son before the deluge, the dialogue between Abraham(P) and his father and between Abraham(P) and the tyrannical ruler (Nimrod). The miraculous escape of Abraham(P) from the fire and the miracle of resurrection he was shown from God when he brought back to life dead birds. Moses'(P) slaughter of the cow inorder to bring back to life a murdered man who revealed his killer, is absent from the Bible and so is the long dialogue betwen Moses(P) and the Israelites on what kind animal should be slaughtered. Also absent in the Bible are Jesus'(P) miraculous speech in the cradle and his fashioning out of clay a similitude of a bird and Mary's(P) miraculous sustenance from God.

If you don't believe in these stories, that's a different issue, but there's no need to resort to silly remarks to support your argument. As for the claim that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was a liar, see later. But one question that comes to mind here is, if he made up so many things, why did he have to resort to borrowing for the rest?

I didn’t comment on the earlier argument about the Jews because it was even less convincing.

Yet you offer no explanation as to what makes it so non-convincing. The fact that the Qur'an contains many verses which narrate the secrets of the knowledge that the Jews possessed - which they hid, and the stories of their earlier generations, and mentions the texts in the Books of the Jews that are known to only the rabbis and scholars, and the sections where they altered and distorted the rulings of the Tawrah... this is ample evidence of the truth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) as he had no way of knowing this information.

I have already discussed that he travelled extensively to the north as part of trade with his uncle Abu Talib since his teenage years, and that there were many Christian and Jewish tribes in these areas. Also, you already mentioned Bahira and Waraqah. He also visited Medina prior to Hijra, for example during the funeral of his mother at Abwa when he was six, and I’m pretty sure he would have gone there at least several more times between age six and Hijra.

Here we come to the specific issue of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) being taught by Jews/Christians. This mention of, “I’m pretty sure he would have gone there…” is mere conjecture and if you make a claim, the burden is upon you to back it up with concrete historical facts, or else anyone can say anything based upon what they’re “pretty sure” of.

There are many problems with this theory - some of which I've already mentioned and more below:

… The assertion of Judeo-Christian borrowing raises a number of questions. Jamal Badawi puts forward the following six questions:

1. Why is it in spite of the abundance of historical material on Muhammad(P)'s life, and in spite of the extensive research on his life for centuries by his severe critics, that it was not possible to discover the mysterious teacher(s) through whom Muhammad(P) might have learned all that?

2. It is known that Muhammad(P) was opposed, ridiculed and persecuted for nearly 13 years by his own contemporaries. With this magnitude of severe enemies, was it not possible for them to prove to the masses that Muhammad(P)'s claim of revelation was sheer fabrication? Was it not possible for them to reveal and name the person whom they alleged to be the human source or sources of his teachings? Even some of his adversaries who had made this assertion, changed their minds later on and accused him, instead, of magic or being possessed by evil... etc.

3. Muhammad(P) was raised among his people and every aspect of his life was exposed to them, especially by the openness that characterises tribal life in the desert. How could the multitudes of his contemporaries, including many of his close relatives who knew him so well, how could they believe in his truthfulness if they had any doubt that he was claiming credit for ideas taught to him by some other teachers without bothering to give them credit ?

4. What kind of teacher might have taught Muhammad(P) a coherent and complete religion that changed the face of history? Why didn't he or they (if any) speak against the alleged student who continued learning from them, while ignoring them and claiming some other divine source for his teachings?

5. How could many Jews and Christians amongst his contemporaries become Muslims and believe in his truthfulness if they knew he was copying from their scriptures or learning from their priests or rabbis?

6. It is known that some of the Qur'ânic revelations to Muhammad(P) in the presence of people. The Qur'ân was revealed over the span of 23 years, where then that was mysterious, perhaps invisible teacher of Muhammad(P)? How could he have hidden himself for so long? Or how could Muhammad(P) who was constantly surrounded by companions, how was he able to make frequent secret visits to that mysterious teacher or teachers for 23 years without even being caught once?

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...dex.html#Imply

Regarding the stories of the Qur’an and therefore its authorship in general, the main argument that you have presented is the borrowing theory. This implies that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was fabricating and plagiarizing material and thus deceived the people by claiming to have received divine inspiration. This is at the heart of the argument and deserves to be dealt with in detail.

In reality there are only three possibilities with regards to the authorship of the Qur'an: either the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was a liar, or he was deluded, or he was truthful in saying he received revelation from Allaah (swt). When we examine each of these, the only rational position is that he was indeed truthful. The argument you've chosen is that he was a liar, and you can read a previous discussion about this, showing many reasons why it could not be so:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-thread-2.html (read the last couple of points in each post)

Another post here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/193795-post26.html


If you want more arguments against the theory of borrowing, please read the links here (I’ve already referred to some of them above):

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...dex.html#Imply

Another post here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-theories.html

It is not that it isn’t given to the exact moment, it is that it is not even given to the exact decade. Okay, for the sake of argument, I’m going to make a prediction right now: In between 3 and 9 years, America will withdraw from Iraq. If it comes true, then would I be a Prophet?

In saying this, you are ignoring a number of things. Firstly, it is given to the exact decade as the prediction has a clear time limit of nine years. Secondly, you ignore the historical context where the victory of the Romans was very unlikely – clearly you did not read the link I gave you earlier:

…The history is remarkable, for the reason that by the time of Muhammad, Rome was an empire in decay. The period of 395-476 CE is described in scholastic works as the fall of the Western Empire. Alaric, chief of the Visigoths, led the army which sacked Rome in August, 410 CE. Gaiseric, king of the Vandals and the Alani, sacked Rome in the summer of 455 CE. Attila the Hun overran the area in the mid-400's, and the last emperor of the intact and undivided Roman empire was deposed in the late 5th century. So a prediction which surfaced nearly two centruies later, stating that the already disintegrating Roman empire would gain a victory over the huge and seemingly superior Persian army, would have seemed rash on a human level. And so it appears to have been judged by those who denied the revelation - men such as Ubay Ibn Khalf…

http://www.islamicboard.com/566482-post2.html

As for your so-called prediction, it can hardly be called such, considering President Obama’s promise of withdrawal in much less than nine years! Moreover, we are only dealing with one aspect of the Qur’an here – I never said that making a prediction about the future would be sufficient proof for prophethood.

Lastly, as you didn’t read the link, you probably missed another interesting point about the Qur’anic prediction:

An odd prediction in completion of the above prophecy is the final line, "And on that Day, the believers (i.e., Muslims) will rejoice." In the absence of microwave and satellite relays, radios, CNN, etc., news of such events took days to weeks, sometimes even months (if weather forbade travel) to achieve transmission. How, then, could the prediction that the Muslims would be rejoicing on the very day the Persians were defeated be made with such confidence? Yet, such was precisely the case, for the predicted defeat of the Persians occurred on the exact same day that the Muslims celebrated their own victory over the disbelievers at the Battle of Badr. Worldly coincidence or divine plan?

This is again a case of if it didn’t happen, then there would be no proof of the prediction having failed because the believers would not have survived the battle of Badr to have written the Qur’an down.

But that doesn’t take away from the fact that the prediction came true. Just as with the establishment of Islam as a ruling authority or the victory of the Romans – they could have gone wrong, but they didn’t. The fact is that each prediction came true consistently, despite the circumstances which made some, if not all of them very unlikely.

I am aware of Bucaille, but I wonder how many other western scientists have verified and written about the scientific miracles of the Qur’an. I will try to read the article when I get time, but again I feel that the ones we have dealt with are not ‘amazing’ enough to even warrant further investigation. The embryo, is, as I say, is the one thing warranting further research, but that is more a shortcoming of my own than anything else.

Look at some of the links I gave to Hugo:

Embryology:
http://www.islamicboard.com/443221-post70.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...ogy-quran.html (Embryology in the Qur'an)
http://www.quranicstudies.com/articl...mbryology.html

Ocean Phenomena:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...n-ocean-2.html (Qur'anic desciption of the Ocean)

Water Cycle:
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive...ng=E&id=134578

And there are others.

I admit, I don’t know enough about shariah because most Muslims never do have to know much about shariah considering it is mostly the declared domain of the scholars and jurists. I’m talking about how the khalifah descended into corruption, Muslim-on-Muslim violence - fitnah all over the place - and this was even before the four ‘rightly-guided’ caliphs were out of office. Muslims seem to think that having an Islamic State will get the world back on track, but one only needs to look at those tumultuous years, to see that shariah does not work. Furthermore, the issue of apostasy and the punishment thereafter, as discussed in other threads, is so loosely defined and flagrantly in contradiction of ‘no compulsion in religion’ it really takes away any level of credibility from shariah no matter what spin you put on it. Again, call me dumb but its all about mental gymnastics it seems.

Learning about Shariah is open to everyone who wants to. Muslims are actually encouraged to learn about Shariah as it is essentially learning about Islam. So the scholars and jurists are there to pass on this knowledge, not to conceal it.

Regarding the fitnah you mention, there will always be fitnah no matter what, yet the implementation of Shariah is not represented by the actions of some misguided Muslims. For example, if somebody commits murder, that does not mean that the law of the land is to blame, rather it is the individual who has not acted according to that law. What you’ve done is to judge the Shariah based upon people that don’t represent it, instead of actually studying it for yourself and looking at the people implementing it. You’ve overlooked all the success and goodness that the Muslims attained by applying the Shariah and diverted your attention to difficulties caused by other things. Moreover, you have not provided any example of how it does not work and of course you cannot until you've studied what Shariah actually is.

The issue of apostasy is very clear. As you admit that your knowledge of the Shariah is not sufficient, it’s not possible for you to make such conclusions about the “credibility” of Shariah. Here are some links to help you on the issue:

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...-apostasy.html
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...Misconceptions

If by searching you mean performing mental gymnastics in order to convince oneself that something is from God, then yes.

It’s not about “mental gymnastics”. If you already have an opinion about something that prevents you from accepting its truth, then you need to go back and question your intentions.

I agree you cannot always carry out something just because there is an incentive – the incentive has to be good (I recommend you read Freakonomics if you haven’t already). I think that intercession is a strong enough incentive that one will do it. By memorising the Qur’an the parents can also brag that their son is a hafiz, and of course there is that weak hadith that family members can get fast-tracked to Heaven with their hafiz sons/daughters, so to me that is a pretty good incentive.

It doesn’t matter how good the incentive is, incentive only encourages people to do something, it doesn’t guarantee they will accomplish it. If this was solely about reward, I have already mentioned that there are ample ways in Islam to reap huge rewards. If the Qur’an was just like any other book, it wouldn’t be memorised so readily.

If the Church offered a good enough incentive to memorise the Bible cover to cover in its original language, or the Jews were to memorise their Torah for the same, do you really think many millions of them across the world could achieve this feat, including young children and the elderly? What about the people who wouldn’t really need a strong incentive like their scholars, priests and rabbis – how many of them have memorized the scriptures in the original language?

The fact is that no other nation was given the blessing of being able to memorise its holy scripture. Every Muslim knows by experience the ease with which the Qur’an is memorised. In contrast, an attempt to memorise a passage out of another work is very difficult – the meaning may be put to memory, but the actual words and sentences are far more harder to retain.

Perhaps you can try it for yourself and memorise a page of the Qur’an and a page of another book… you can come back and tell us the results!

Peace.

P.S. As some of our points have become quite detailed and the discussion is growing rapidly, I would suggest that we either focus on one issue at a time or we deal with them in separate posts, particularly the issue of the authorship of the Qur'an which spans several points.

[Hugo]

I'm not sure why he didn't explain it fully - perhaps due to time constraints. The following video gives more justice to the topic and goes some way to actually explain how the Qur'an is a literary miracle:

This reply refers to post no 2 and if you want to watch the video you will find it there. Unfortunately visually it is very poor and the sound is not always good but not so bad as to be unable to follow the talk. The talk tried to establish the Qu'ran as a literary miracle by considering its nature, it language/linguistics and the challenge we are all familiar with to produce something similar. The argument presented is that the Qu'ran is unique and from this he attempts to show by a logical argument and an argument based on the notion of the miraculous that it could only have come from the creator - God though he does say that only make sense IF you believe in a creator. I will summarize his main points though I will say at the beginning that I accept expert opinion that it is a literary masterpiece of its time and in Arabic.

1. The Qu'ran engages the intellect and the emotions and encourages reflection
2. Who can the author be? The greatest Arabic experts of the day could not match the Qu'ran
3. It has a unique literary form, has or is its own genre, has eloquence and is rhetorical.

His arguments
1. Words have meaning and he cites an example where there is only one word that will do. However, I see nothing special here as there are words in any language that are often the only one that is able to expresses a certain idea. Indeed, the Qu'ran uses only about 3,000 different words and of those 80% of the actual words used can be accounted for by just 600 or so. It follows that there is no way the Qu'ran can express every idea that exists and one might argue that such a small word count restricts what it can say.

2. One cannot change any words for it would not sound 'right' and its meaning may be lost. But this can be said of so many written works that as an argument it has no weight at all.

3. It uses many literary devises: analogy, metaphor, hyperbole etc. But again this is true of many works although it might not have been true 14 centuries ago but then again we have to understand that the number of written Arabic works at the tiome was tiny.

4. It is not poetry and its not prose but something all of its own. I am sure this is right but not sure what its significance might be and again one can cite many authors where we have a peculiar styles used.

From God - He offers two sort of proofs.
1. Rational reduction where one start with a premise and reaches a conclusion logically. His premise is that no one has been able to replicate even a part of the Qu'ran and secondly that Prophet Mohammed could not have done it over 23 years and kept it the same stylistically. His argument is that it follows it must have been a supranational creation.

If this argument is valid then it would apply everywhere, not just to the Qu'ran: painting, music, written books etc - so anything that cannot be replicated must be supernatural - it does not work as an argument does it because always we have the hidden premise that there is a supernatural force of some kind and that cannot be established one way of the other? The other weakness here is that he effectively concluded that because something has not been done it therefore cannot be done and that just seems not to hold water.

2. His final proof is to speak of miracles and I have no comment here since this is a matter of belief not logical proof.

[Muhammad]

Greetings Eliphaz,

This is a response to your list of reasons why you reject the Qur’an as being the Word of God.

1. God would not reveal in one language knowing that some people would not understand His word fully

Originally posted by Ansar Al-'Adl:

The fact that the Qur'an's message is universal and transcends culture, nationality and ethnicity is not in any way negated by its revelation in a specific language. The message of Islam can be expounded and explained (and it indeed is) in any language. While it is true that knowledge of the arabic language is necessary for Islamic scholarship and a more complete appreciation of the Qur'an's miraculous beauty, this is not necessary for the basic practice of Islam and more importantly, anyone can learn arabic if they have the resources and invest a moderate amount of time and effort! Some of the greatest scholars of Islam have been non-arabs.
[...]
Yes, people born speaking the arabic language do have a certain advantage in gaining understanding of the religion, but how is that advantage any different from an individual who has the opportunity and financial resources to go to an Islamic University over an individual who does not?? Moreover, most arabs don't even have that great of an advantage since the arabic of the Qur'an is still not the same as the street dialects of arabs and still requires a certain amount of learning irrespective of whether the student is arab or not. So whether you know arabic or not, nothing changes in terms of your capacity to learn and implement the religion and that is what you will ultimately be held accountable for.

2. The Qur’an claims that those who commit shirk (polytheism) are destined for Hell forever whilst God supposedly knew the Christians would fall into doing this by setting up partners/sons/whatever with God. God would know the confusion this has caused would occur, and therefore unless God wills confusion (therefore he wouldn’t be God) the Qur'an cannot be from God

It took me a while to understand what you were saying here because it isn't clear. It seems you are saying that because some people became confused about the truth, it isn't fair that God should punish them (correct me if I am wrong).

This argument does not hold weight because the truth is very clear and simple: there is only One God worthy of being worshipped. It is people who have come up with confusing ideas by distorting the message. Yet out of Allaah (swt)'s mercy, He has continuously sent prophets and messengers with miracles and revelation to clarify that confusion and guide people back to the simple truth. Here we can appreciate Allaah (swt)'s Justice, in that He does not punish anyone until He has established proof against them by sending a Messenger to them:

And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning). [Al-Israa: 15]

Those who deny the message will receive punishment. As for specific cases of people who could not understand or know of the message, then Allaah (swt) will judge with equity and fairness as He is the Most Just and the Most Wise, and there are hadeeths detailing this issue.


The last part of your point suggests you are faulting the Will of Allaah (swt) and on that point, you can read:

http://www.islamicboard.com/69102-post50.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/31830-post1.html
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...orious%20Quran

Also - Whom Allaah Guides:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...orious%20Quran

3. The Qur’an’s versions of the stories of the Prophets are overly similar to those in the Old Testament and no new meaningful details are added nor is anything of value added in the form of additional stories of the Prophets

We've already looked at this in detail in our other posts. Similarity does not necessitate borrowing, and moreover there is a lot of added information in the Qur'an that isn't in the Bible. One can also show how the stories in the Qur'an are much more meaningful than those in the Bible, because instead of being filled with irrelevant information, they are concise and very clear; they are also free from shameful role models depicted in the Bible and instead teach many lessons, morals and good examples to be followed.

4. The science of the Qur’an appears to be a matter of taking one tiny ayah to mean something it does not.

While there are some who adopt an incorrect methodology in deriving scientific miracles from the Qur'an, it cannot be denied that they do exist. Take emrbyology for an example - it isn't just one "tiny ayah" but instead several verses throughout the Qur'an.

5. The Qur’an cannot be understood on its own, despite repeating itself many times it does not explain itself in enough detail to not require a class of scholars to interpret it for us like we are children

Originally posted by Ansar Al-'Adl:

Since it is the inherent nature of language that allows for the possibility of misinterpretations in practically any set of instructions, God sent a messenger with the scripture to explain it and demonstrate how to implement it's teachings. The teachings of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh are referred to as the Sunnah, and the Qur'an and the Sunnah form the sources of legislation and guidance in Islam. Thus, for one to determine the ruling on any particular issue it entails sound knowledge of both these sources. So anyone can understand the Qur'an so long as they invest the time to acquire knowledge of these two sources. You can't just go from a superficial reading of a medical textbook to acting as a doctor and treating patients in the hospital, you need to study in medical school first. Likewise one needs to be qualified in terms of their Islamic knowledge in order to give rulings in Islamic jurisprudence. Knowledge is a prerequisite in any field. The fact that you need knowledge in no way negates the clarity of the texts you are acquiring knowledge from. They are two seperate issues.

6. No God who has created such mercy in humans and in nature would enforce the punishments written in the Qur’an, describing people whose skin will be burned off then replaced, fed boiling water, and trees from which devil heads are hanging, for all eternity, for simply believing there may be more than one god or simply unable to believe in a God period.

The fact that Allaah (swt) has created Hell does not mean He isn't Merciful. Rather it is the punishment befitting the worst crime of rejecting the greatest commandment and purpose of life: Tawheed, and committing the most serious of all that Allaah (swt) forbade, Shirk. It is the most serious because a person is violating the right of Allaah (swt) and thus he has violated the greatest of all rights, which is the Tawheed of Allaah (swt).

However Allaah (swt) has created Hell is not for anyone to question. He is the Most Just, Most Knowledgeable and the Most Wise. The very fact that there is a Paradise and Hell shows the justice in Allaah (swt)'s Plan. So the issue you have is simply not wanting to accept an aspect of the unseen based upon personal desire, though there isn't actually any flaw in the Islamic belief itself. Moreover, for a person who already believes in Allaah (swt), the rest of the belief in the unseen falls into place (see the point further below). Perhaps you need to take a step back and consider whether you believe in Him or not in the first place.

Another thing you should ask yourself is whether one's own desire is acceptable as a criterion between good and evil, such that whatever he admires and sees as good in his own desires becomes his religion and way, and whatever his desires portray as evil, he abandons it. Allaah (swt) mentions in the Qur'an,

Have you seen him who has taken as his god his own vain desire? Would you then be a Wakil (a disposer of his affairs or a watcher) over him? [Al-Furqan: 43]

Ibn`Abbas said: "During the Jahiliyyah, a man would worship a white rock for a while, then if he saw another that looked better, he would worship that and leave the first.''

I feel many Muslims do not accept that eternity is a very long time even for very bad people and that no human judge in his right mind could ever impose this on anyone

The eternity is also based on justice, because Allaah (swt) knows that if these people were to live on earth forever, they would continue to disbelieve forever. So you see that if you accept one aspect of Islamic belief like eternity in Hell, you must be consistent and accept all of Islamic belief such as Allaah (swt)'s perfect Knowledge and Justice, which then helps one to understand fully.

As for the last comment about human judges - you are right that they couldn't impose this on anyone, namely because they wouldn't have the ability to do anything infinitely in the first place!

Peace.

[Rasema2]

The fact that Allaah (swt) has created Hell does not mean He isn't Merciful. Rather it is the punishment befitting the worst crime of rejecting the greatest commandment and purpose of life: Tawheed, and committing the most serious of all that Allaah (swt) forbade, Shirk. It is the most serious because a person is violating the right of Allaah (swt) and thus he has violated the greatest of all rights, which is the Tawheed of Allaah (swt).

I just wanted to add to this.
1. You clearly don't know who God is, not that we do. God revealed 99 beautiful names about Him. One of His names that destroy your argument that God is evil is that He is the most FAIR. Will he grant you paradise because you don't deserve it? Of course not.

2. Why does God need to test me when apparently He knows that I'll be a kuffar? Would it be fair for God to punish you for something you have never ever done? No. So, Allah is the most fair, He doesn't punish you because He is evil, but because He is fair. ahhhhhh

[Rasema2]

Oh, about proving the Qur'an. Have we proved God? No. Have we proved the Qur'an? No. Why are Qur'anic verses arigorical? Do you know what ajat means? A SIGH. As simple as that, an Aja(verses) in Arabic, aja, means a sign.

[Rasema2]

DO YOU KNOW ALLAH? A CHILD WILL TELL YOU.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Np7...eature=channel

[MMohammed]

Yes.Could you find a like of it?
The Quraish of the time of our Prophet(S.A) were very good at their language.When they heard these verses, they remained open-mouthed.Omer bin Khattab when heard it planned to become a Muslim.It also doesn't seems a man's word.It is different from our casual language.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


If anyones in doubt;


Chapter Surah Rahman [The Most Merciful];
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IioQqtjuVk


that is in of itself proving the Qur'ans miraculousness without explanation required..

[Eliphaz]

Dear br. Muhammad,

Apologies for the delay in getting back.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to spit up the discussion into its respective topics. I think we really have four ‘proof’ areas: stories of the prophets, historic predictions, scientific agreement and irreproducibility of the Qur’an. If it is okay with you I think we can drop the issue of the Qur’an’s beautiful-sounding recitation, which is clearly a subjective argument and is neither here nor there as far as divine origin is concerned.

As the last one is the only one the Qur’an itself proclaims as its own self-evidence, (which of course is a circular logic) but I just want to say something about that one first. It seems that in relying on accounts from the 7th century we are forced to deal with such weak villains as Musalymah. But you have argued the he is not a straw-man before pretty much defining him as such, by saying that his ‘unsophisticated’ attempt is ‘example of how anyone trying to imitate the Qur'an is guaranteed to be met with a wretched failure.’

From Wikipedia:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

I think it is pretty much conclusive that Musalymah is a straw man. His lyrics about elephants and wabrs are perfectly ridiculous enough to be knocked down by even the most simple-minded of people, and one can’t help but feel that was the reason they were recorded. If there is any definition of a straw-man then Musalymah fits it, as do many other Makkans fit typical two-dimensional roles in the story of the Prophet where they either miraculously convert or spectacularly shoot an intellectual own goal.

Secondly, on to the more serious discussion of Prophetic stories and how they got there, I agree that the theories cannot all be true for a given case. But that does mean that none of them are true. It is simply a case of probability, as we have no records other than what the very limited information on the Prophet’s early life tells us. Point 2 was only intended for the ‘new’ stories of ‘Ad, Thamud and ‘Iram. I agree that it was more difficult for the stories of say, Moses to be made up. Regarding the remarkableness of the ‘Ad and Thamud stories, I guess this is more a matter of personal conviction, as I am sure many would find these stories, far from being inspirational or remarkable, to be harrowing examples of mass-murder.

If I can just talk about the video br. Uthman brought in at this point which was from Abdul Raheem Green, (which I also apologise I couldn’t get around to watching earlier due to time constraints). Green picks three stories, namely those of Noah, Joseph and Moses, which he asserts could not have been copied from any Biblical sources primarily because they are more historically and scientifically accurate than those in the Bible. He mentions archaeological evidence of the ark of Noah has been found on Mt. Judi in Turkey, to the ‘exact same dimensions’ as described in the Qur’an. This is in stark contrast to the story of the Bible where it comes to rest on Mt. Ararat, which is ‘historically inaccurate’ as this is a ‘recently-named mountain’. If this is the case, people should be converting in droves!

First of all, where is this ‘evidence’? To be honest if you believe they have found archaeological evidence of Noah’s ark you will believe anything, and I think that this really does not say a lot for Green. Second of all, the Bible describes the ark as coming to rest on the mountains (pl) of Ararat, i.e. this is mountain range. Even Jews had agreed that this could mean Mt. Judi. Doing a cursory search just to humour this claim, I have found that there are an equivalent number of claims that a ‘large boat shaped something/plank/something-or-other biblical-looking’ exists on any number of other mountains, and that all and every claim of a ‘boat-shaped object’ on Mt. Judi seems to have been either relinquished or has never been backed up. So I think in all seriousness we should move on from this embarrassing point. The fact that the Qur’an changes the flood to a ‘localised’ flood (although this is not explicitly mentioned – more a case of reading into what isn’t mentioned) as opposed to the Bible’s ‘universal cataclysm’, is again, Green argues, scientifically preferable considering ‘there is not enough water on earth to cause a universal flood’. Really? Thanks for that!

On the other two, Moses and Joseph, the way Green tries to prove these two were not lifted out the Biblical accounts is a wonderful story (he is a decent story-teller I’ll give him that) of how certain details are not present in the Biblical version and are facts could not have been known by Muhammad and would have not existed if Muhammad copied straight out the Bible. Considering it boils down to a single word ‘Haman’ and ‘King’ in each story respectively, and how Green goes on to say that this is ‘amazing’ clearly shows that he is living in his own world where everything fits if you want it to.

What it comes down to is this: Muhammad probably couldn’t read or write, but he didn’t have to. He probably didn’t study the Bible or Torah directly, but he didn’t have to. Coming from a story-telling tradition and mingling with Christian and Jewish traders during more than thirty years of trade in the Hijaz and further (if you deny he encountered these peoples before the Qur’an came you are ignoring historical facts), Muhammad just had to edit out the parts which didn’t make sense to him. As Green himself says (paraphrasing) 'all the accounts we have do not give us any information (as to how Muhammad found this information)'. All I can repeat is that old saying by Churchill: 'History is written by the victors.'

[Eliphaz]

To finish with this point, you mentioned something about the stories of Moses and Jesus. The story of Moses is indeed mentioned in great detail - this in itself is an indication of the truth of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) for if he were to author the Qur'an himself, one would expect him to write more about his own life. Jesus' story is also mentioned in quite a bit of detail (more than just his virgin birth as you claimed) - it begins from before the birth of his mother and mentions her upbringing and dedication, Jesus' own birth and the miracles that he brought to his people, his conversations with his disciples as well as the story of the table from heaven, accusations raised by the Jews and how he was not crucified, etc. Your lack of knowledge about the Qur'an is becoming more evident, so I would advise you to read it properly before passing judgements on it.

Let's look at the facts. Moses is mentioned over 130 times in the Qur'an whilst Jesus a squat 25

What we learn about Moses in the Qur'an corroborates the Old Testament account on the main points. What we learn about Jesus is mainly about his birth, ascension, and almost nothing in between but a few miracles. I remember reading the Qur'an actually looking forward to information on Jesus's life not just the beginning and end of it and a rattled-off list of miracles in between. Muhammad's predecessor, the guy who would come back to fight Dajjal and all that? Let's face it, Jesus is severely underrepresented in the Qur'an compared to almost every other Prophet, which raises some questions of how Muhammad really knew about him other than the 'highlights' as compared to Moses's or Yusuf's lives, where we are treated to fairly detailed accounts.

Whenever Jesus is mentioned it is usually just a case of reprimanding Christians for setting up sons of God. It seems there is more interest in telling off the naughty Christians than actually telling us what Jesus was like as a person.

[Eliphaz]

I have a question for you-- why can't you be happy being an atheist without having to contrast it to someone else having faulty beliefs especially when attempting to discredit said beliefs in such a sophomoric fashion that it is almost an insult to waste ones time refuting you?
Do your beliefs to the lack of existence of God (which I assume you are from your participation on atheist thread) have to be contingent on someone else' beliefs being false?

I am not an atheist. If my arguments are so poor and it is such an insult to yourself, then why do you waste your own time typing out long responses to them? You criticise me for responding to your copy-pasted essay when you decided to answer a post I had made earlier which was similarly not aimed at you!

Your assertion that the 'Argument for Existence of Holy God' thread is an exclusively atheist thread just goes to show how you view the world in stark black and white: those who believe in God according to revealed scripture vs. those who are atheists. Well I believe in God but do not believe that He would be so short-sighted as to reveal scripture written in only one language to a world where people speak so many languages, and thus the margin for mistranslation (and thus misdirection) is so great. That is just for starters, as I hope you have gathered, for there are many, many other reasons why I do not agree with the Bible, Qur'an, Vedas, and what-ever-else have you.

The Qur'an, Bible or indeed Vedas do not have a monopoly on who or what God is. I see God every day in the beauty of the universe and in human compassion, I do not need a scripture, particularly one of the above, to tell me what God is.

[Rasema2]

The Qur'an, Bible or indeed Vedas do not have a monopoly on who or what God is. I see God every day in the beauty of the universe and in human compassion, I do not need a scripture, particularly one of the above, to tell me what God is.

I woulndn't waste my time reading your arguments about the Qur'aan.
1. The Qur'aan has the chain of authority that proves it original and that proves it being 1400 years old. There, your argument is chrashed especially knowng that the big bang is in the Qur'aan.

A book compiled over 23 years 1400 years ago being unchanged is a miracle. It's a silly argument to claim that it is not. Because this silly denial is in the argument against the Koran being miraculous, it makes me assume that the rest of your arguments are silly as well. You would be doing your brain a service to stop using this argument.

The Qur'aan is by God, a literall word of God. God had said enough about Himself but he hasn't described HOW he looks like. If God had willed, He woulds have revealed himself, but 99 beautiful names are sufficient. It makes me laugh when you say that there is nothing about God on who or what God is. Um, please visit Islamic qa and type in Who is Allah?

Moses is mentioned over 130 times in the Qur'an whilst Jesus a squat 25

This makes me laugh so hard. A single verse destroys your argument.
Say: "We believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham,
Isma`il, Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and in (Books) given to Moses, Jesus and the Prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between one and another among them and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)."
[Al-Qur'an 3:84]



Have you read the Qur'aan?

The Qur'aan is not a competition of Prophets(pbut). The verse that says that(Prophets(pbut) they are all equal to Allah. The Qur'aan refutes the stuff people made up in the holy books about some Prophets(pbut). They all had the same mission and there is a good link I can give you about their methology of calling to worship Allah only.

[Eliphaz]

I woulndn't waste my time reading your arguments about the Qur'aan.
1. The Qur'aan has the chain of authority that proves it original and that proves it being 1400 years old. There, your argument is chrashed especially knowng that the big bang is in the Qur'aan.

A book compiled over 23 years 1400 years ago being unchanged is a miracle. It's a silly argument to claim that it is not. Because this silly denial is in the argument against the Koran being miraculous, it makes me assume that the rest of your arguments are silly as well. You would be doing your brain a service to stop using this argument.

The Qur'aan is by God, a literall word of God. God had said enough about Himself but he hasn't described HOW he looks like. If God had willed, He woulds have revealed himself, but 99 beautiful names are sufficient. It makes me laugh when you say that there is nothing about God on who or what God is. Um, please visit Islamic qa and type in Who is Allah?

This makes me laugh so hard. A single verse destroys your argument. The Qur'aan is not a competition of Prophets(pbut). The verse that says that(Prophets(pbut) they are all equal to Allah.

Sorry I think you misunderstood me. I am not saying the Qur'an was changed or tampered with in any way like the Bible. I have no problem agreeing that the chain or narration is accurate on the Qur'an as I have already said that Arabs were renowned for their ability to recollect information.

For a book to remained unchanged does not prove it is a miracle, if you would only allow yourself to realise this. If in 1400 years times a first-edition Harry Potter exists word-for-word somewhere in the world it would not make J.K. Rowling a Prophet. The Qur'an has survived because Arabic has survived and is still a spoken language, and as I said before, Islam owes more to Arabic than Arabic owes to Islam.

I know the Qur'an describes what Allah is like, particularly Surah Ikhlas, which I still find a beautiful surah because it appeals to any believer in God. It's just that once you get beyond that Allah and God become two irreconcilable beings to me.

[جوري]

I am not an atheist. If my arguments are so poor and it is such an insult to yourself, then why do you waste your own time typing out long responses to them?

If you'll browse through my old posts you'll see that I have repeatedly asserted, I never reply back with a non-Muslim in mind. Doing work with high fidelity even if one were a mere shoe shine is a sign of a good Muslim!

You criticise me for responding to your copy-pasted essay when you decided to answer a post I had made earlier which was similarly not aimed at you!

I have answered you in both styles, neither which you've liked. Usually to assert a point folks reference to some other literature, that is what differentiates opinion from facts!

Your assertion that the 'Argument for Existence of Holy God' thread is an exclusively atheist thread just goes to show how you view the world in stark black and white: those who believe in God according to revealed scripture vs. those who are atheists. Well I believe in God but do not believe that He would be so short-sighted as to reveal scripture written in only one language to a world where people speak so many languages, and thus the margin for mistranslation (and thus misdirection) is so great. That is just for starters, as I hope you have gathered, for there are many, many other reasons why I do not agree with the Bible, Qur'an, Vedas, and what-ever-else have you.

You are free to your beliefs, it doesn't mean they have any basis in reality!
This particular grievance of yours was answered with great details, if you still hold on to the position of ignorance then the fault indeed lies with you not the efforts of folks here!

The Qur'an, Bible or indeed Vedas do not have a monopoly on who or what God is. I see God every day in the beauty of the universe and in human compassion, I do not need a scripture, particularly one of the above, to tell me what God is.

Whatever you tell yourself to get through this is fine with me. Test questions usually have more than one correct answer, but only one will score you a point!
Everything indeed has little truths in it!

I think Muslims on board clarified the Islamic position so that it is crystal. Anything beyond this is your own personal opinion and beliefs to which you are entitled!

all the best!

[Rasema2]

Who is Allah?
http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/gospel/g4105efm.htm

2 – His names are beautiful and His attributes are sublime, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And (all) the Most Beautiful Names belong to Allaah, so call on Him by them, and leave the company of those who belie or deny (or utter impious speech against) His Names. They will be requited for what they used to do”



http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/72870

[Rasema2]

Sorry I think you misunderstood me. I am not saying the Qur'an was changed or tampered with in any way like the Bible. I have no problem agreeing that the chain or narration is accurate on the Qur'an as I have already said that Arabs were renowned for their ability to recollect information.

For a book to remained unchanged does not prove it is a miracle, if you would only allow yourself to realise this. If in 1400 years times a first-edition Harry Potter exists word-for-word somewhere in the world it would not make J.K. Rowling a Prophet. The Qur'an has survived because Arabic has survived and is still a spoken language, and as I said before, Islam owes more to Arabic than Arabic owes to Islam.

I know the Qur'an describes what Allah is like, particularly Surah Ikhlas, which I still find a beautiful surah because it appeals to any believer in God. It's just that once you get beyond that Allah and God become two irreconcilable beings to me.

For a book to remained unchanged does not prove it is a miracle, if you would only allow yourself to realise this.

If in 1400 years times a first-edition Harry Potter exists word-for-word somewhere in the world it would not make J.K. Rowling a Prophet. in 1400 years times a first-edition Harry Potter exists word-for-word somewhere in the world it would not make J.K. Rowling a Prophet.

Please do not compare
1. That was an if.

2.I've just realized that you're completely missing the point. The Qur'an claims to be the Word of God, i.e. He literally revealed those words as His. For this to be true, they cannot change once they've been revealed, otherwise they would no longer be the Words of God. The other scriptures you've mentioned don't necessarily claim to be the literal words of God (certainly not Buddhist sciptures) so being unchanged is of less importance. There is nothing miraculous about any particular text remaining unchanged for thousands of years. Presumably, if I wrote a fiction book today it would remain unchanged til the end of time. That's not miraculous. I don't need to provide evidence that the scriptures you mentioned have changed as they have no original manuscripts to verify. If you claim they are unchanged you certainly wouldn't be able to prove it. The Qur'an is the only scripture that has such a strong oral tradition from it's revelation and can prove that it is unchanged.

3. Stories and holy scriptures are completly different. Have the stories been memorized word for word?

4. The Qur'aan is not a book, remember. Yes

know the Qur'an describes what Allah is like, particularly Surah Ikhlas, which I still find a beautiful surah because it appeals to any believer in God. It's just that once you get beyond that Allah and God become two irreconcilable beings to me.

Beyond surah ikhlaas you don't need to know.

That would destroy the purpose of life. You want God to prove Himself through a scripture, reveal Himself through a scripture... That isn't how the most Knowledgeable does things. The Qur'aan says that God cannot be heard or seen by a human except through: Insirationin ( what I am experiencing. Hasn't the Qur'aan ever replied to something you very actually were thinking at the moment?), from behind a barrier(In the manner He spoke to Moses(pbuh), or by His sending a message through a Messanger revealing what He wills.

If you are so connected to the creation and the nature of Allah, than you should know this. The way the Qur'aan is composed is very, very different from the Bible or any other "book" out there. The Qur'aan is not a book. The Qur'aan is a form of poetry, pose, rhyme. Every verse in the Qur'aan rhymes with itself and the verses ouround it. The Qur'aan has two broad categories of verse: ones with clear concrete meanings, and ones with less- clear more anological and allegorical meanings. The important commands of Islam regarding its belief system, stories of the prophets(pbut) laws and commands are in clear verses. The allegorical verses speak about the creation of Allah. They are aregorical for many reasons.
1. To not prove Allah.

2. To study them. What does the Qur'aan mean? A recitation, or something studied. This is done by me. I read the Qur'aan, then observe the creation. Allah says I created the sky without any pillars holding it(my wording) then I look at the sky and witness that. Allah doesn't just say something, He also shows it. He doesn't say in the Qur'aan how He looks like, I can't see it.

I pondered over the universe with the help of the Qur'aan, and that is how I became a practicing Muslim. To me, it was all a joke about hell and paradise untill I read the Qur'aan. It is a beutiful experience I'll never ever forget.

I just realised that I can stand you better than the Christians.

[Eliphaz]

Please do not compare
1. That was an if.

2.I've just realized that you're completely missing the point. The Qur'an claims to be the Word of God, i.e. He literally revealed those words as His. For this to be true, they cannot change once they've been revealed, otherwise they would no longer be the Words of God. The other scriptures you've mentioned don't necessarily claim to be the literal words of God (certainly not Buddhist sciptures) so being unchanged is of less importance. There is nothing miraculous about any particular text remaining unchanged for thousands of years. Presumably, if I wrote a fiction book today it would remain unchanged til the end of time. That's not miraculous. I don't need to provide evidence that the scriptures you mentioned have changed as they have no original manuscripts to verify. If you claim they are unchanged you certainly wouldn't be able to prove it. The Qur'an is the only scripture that has such a strong oral tradition from it's revelation and can prove that it is unchanged.

3. Stories and holy scriptures are completly different. Have the stories been memorized word for word?

4. The Qur'aan is not a book, remember. Yes

Beyond surah ikhlaas you don't need to know.

That would destroy the purpose of life. You want God to prove Himself through a scripture, reveal Himself through a scripture... That isn't how the most Knowledgeable does things. The Qur'aan says that God cannot be heard or seen by a human except through: Insirationin ( what I am experiencing. Hasn't the Qur'aan ever replied to something you very actually were thinking at the moment?), from behind a barrier(In the manner He spoke to Moses(pbuh), or by His sending a message through a Messanger revealing what He wills.

If you are so connected to the creation and the nature of Allah, than you should know this. The way the Qur'aan is composed is very, very different from the Bible or any other "book" out there. The Qur'aan is not a book. The Qur'aan is a form of poetry, pose, rhyme. Every verse in the Qur'aan rhymes with itself and the verses ouround it. The Qur'aan has two broad categories of verse: ones with clear concrete meanings, and ones with less- clear more anological and allegorical meanings. The important commands of Islam regarding its belief system, stories of the prophets(pbut) laws and commands are in clear verses. The allegorical verses speak about the creation of Allah. They are aregorical for many reasons.
1. To not prove Allah.

2. To study them. What does the Qur'aan mean? A recitation, or something studied. This is done by me. I read the Qur'aan, then observe the creation. Allah says I created the sky without any pillars holding it(my wording) then I look at the sky and witness that. Allah doesn't just say something, He also shows it. He doesn't say in the Qur'aan how He looks like, I can't see it.

I pondered over the universe with the help of the Qur'aan, and that is how I became a practicing Muslim. To me, it was all a joke about hell and paradise untill I read the Qur'aan. It is a beutiful experience I'll never ever forget.

I just realised that I can stand you better than the Christians.

:D Thank you. I am glad someone is not lumping me into the usual 'munafiq' or 'mushriq' categories for I am neither a hypocrite or a polytheist, nor am I one of the 'ahl al kitab'.

Yes, I agree, beyond Surah Ikhlas we do not need to know any more! Why can't we leave the other 113 Surahs out!* To me the pure monotheism, the five pillars of Islam are what makes it such an attractive faith to remain in (or convert to for Christians/Jews). But if I think of those five pillars as the ground floor and everything else as ancillary floors, it is these extra floors which are actually reducing the structural integrity of Islam in my opinion. If it had just been five pillars, pure and simple, then Islam would have had a much stronger position.

I believe that everyone has a predisposition towards either belief or disbelief, and that nothing can ultimately change that. It is, I feel a combination of parent religion, life experience and stubborness one way or the other!

I am, I suppose, like Abu Sufyan, who at first, when the Muslims were marching upon Makkah to take it over, arrived and was only able to say 'La illaha illallah', but could not finish it. If that makes me one of the people who will be punished forever then at least I know I was honest to myself. As Thomas Paine said:

'Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe.'

*Yes I am aware this can and will never happen.

[Rasema2]

:D Thank you. I am glad someone is not lumping me into the usual 'munafiq' or 'mushriq' categories for I am neither a hypocrite or a polytheist, nor am I one of the 'ahl al kitab'.

Yes, I agree, beyond Surah Ikhlas we do not need to know any more! Why can't we leave the other 113 Surahs out!* To me the pure monotheism, the five pillars of Islam are what makes it such an attractive faith to remain in (or convert to for Christians/Jews). But if I think of those five pillars as the ground floor and everything else as ancillary floors, it is these extra floors which are actually reducing the structural integrity of Islam in my opinion. If it had just been five pillars, pure and simple, then Islam would have had a much stronger position.

I believe that everyone has a predisposition towards either belief or disbelief, and that nothing can ultimately change that. It is, I feel a combination of parent religion, life experience and stubborness one way or the other!

I am, I suppose, like Abu Sufyan, who at first, when the Muslims were marching upon Makkah to take it over, arrived and was only able to say 'La illaha illallah', but could not finish it. If that makes me one of the people who will be punished forever then at least I know I was honest to myself. As Thomas Paine said:

'Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe.'

*Yes I am aware this can and will never happen.

I'll admit that I didn't understand you. English isn't my first language. But I would like to thank you for asking us about Islam in such a polite way. It is important to always hear the other side too. You must realise that, I remember that verse which says "What if this Qur'aan is true...?" Ask yourself that. You wouldn't harm yourself accepting it but you would rejecting it.


Allah did not create a second of this life in vain. He gave you hearing and sight to seek the truth and to accept the truth superior to all other theories and speculations. We sin all throughout the day and our creator still provides us life. He didn't throw us on Jupiter, Mars or any other planet, but planet Earth. All you have to do is live in His name, fear, love and Hhope in Him. Balance these three things.

Why can't we leave the other 113 Surahs out!*

We don't believe that Islam is merly a religion. We believe that Islam is the way in which our creator wants us to live our lives. Islam doesn't belong to us, it belongs to Allah. We simply try to live our lives in the way that we think would please God while avoiding anything that displeases Him.

the Qur'aan is not an easy thing to read but it is to memorize and recite. God sent Muhammad,sallallahu alahi wa salam) to make Islam clear to us. If the Qur'aan was clear than there would be other books like it. And if Allah explianed everything that is permitted and forbidden the Qur'aan would be 10 times its size. So Muhammad(saws) is the Qur'an. The prophet Muhammad was a living example of the Qur'an's teachings and he was sent by Allah to convey, and to explain in detail, the words of Allah. Instead, He revealed things in the Qur'an based on His wisdom, and He sent prophet Muhammad to explain the rest.



Paradise is a consequence of earning the pleasure of Allah. Hell fire is the consequence of earning His displeasure.

Any of us Muslims are capable of going either way. We are not"saved" just because we are Muslim. I fast m
Mondays and Thursdays, pray extras, and I still don't know my final destination. I am not suposed to tell people this due to the fact that we are supposed to conceal the good about ourselves as we do the bad.

It is not Allah who excudes you out of Islam. It is you who either chooses the way, then it is up to Allah to nake your result in Hell fire. We Muslims don't exclude you nor make you enter fire.
Those who never heard of Islam will be tested on the judgement day werhet to enter paradise or not.

Islam is has a belief system (6) and an action system (5). This is the major stuff for those who are either poor or wealthy. But for those with wealth they are obligated to seek knowledge of Islam, men and women, from catle to grave.

[Rasema2]

I believe that everyone has a predisposition towards either belief or disbelief, and that nothing can ultimately change that. It is, I feel a combination of parent religion, life experience and stubborness one way or the other!

You mean that you believe that one attains their religion either through heredity or environment, or both?

If so, there is a verse which says that Allah knows what each womb carries. We do not believe that it is luck that one is born as a Muslim. We don't believe in luck, we believe Allah's will. So even if it is genetic, it is Allah's will. Allah could have made us a single race and religion, but He wants to test us. I know you heard that many times...
He gave us freewill to choose submittion only to Him, not His creation. Who do you love more?

[Rasema2]

Wow, I think I get your reply now, I can't believe that after I took all my time to respond to you in the best manners of mine, you give me some that. Do you really think that that makes sence, or do you think that you know more about Islam than we do?

Your reply doesn't make sence at all. But why would I bother replying when all you will do is ignore the argument you get beatten at and create another one, then come back to the previous one and so on...

I'm such a fool to forget that ....

[Hugo]

Wow, I think I get your reply now, I can't believe that after I took all my time to respond to you in the best manners of mine, you give me some that. Do you really think that that makes sence, or do you think that you know more about Islam than we do?

Your reply doesn't make sence at all. But why would I bother replying when all you will do is ignore the argument you get beatten at and create another one, then come back to the previous one and so on...

I'm such a fool to forget that ....

Any chance of letting us know what or who you are talking to or about?

[Hugo]

If the Qur'aan was clear than there would be other books like it.

I take this to mean you are saying the Qu'ran is NOT clear so would that be proof that it is not a miracle? It would be a surprise is this is true since the Qu'ran has a tiny vocabulary of about 3000 different words and by modern standards any child would have a vocabulary of perhaps 10 times that. I agree that the Qu'ran cannot say everything so that must mean God's revelation is incomplete?

Those who never heard of Islam will be tested on the judgement day werhet to enter paradise or not.

If as you say you don't know if you will get into paradise and so presumably every one will be tested so what is the ultimate point of Islam since it guarantees nothing?

[Hugo]

I don't need to provide evidence that the scriptures you mentioned have changed as they have no original manuscripts to verify. If you claim they are unchanged you certainly wouldn't be able to prove it. The Qur'an is the only scripture that has such a strong oral tradition from it's revelation and can prove that it is unchanged.

This seems to be a proof that the Qu'ran is not authentic since there is no original copy in existence. In any case, if we wanted to strictly prove authenticity we would have to go back to the authors original and again for the Qu'ran that is not accessible is it?

I just realised that I can stand you better than the Christians.

Not sure what this last line means - you hate Christians?

[Muhammad]

Greetings Eliphaz,

Apologies for the delay in getting back.

No problem... it can be difficult keeping up with large discussions like this. :)

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to spit up the discussion into its respective topics. I think we really have four ‘proof’ areas: stories of the prophets, historic predictions, scientific agreement and irreproducibility of the Qur’an. If it is okay with you I think we can drop the issue of the Qur’an’s beautiful-sounding recitation, which is clearly a subjective argument and is neither here nor there as far as divine origin is concerned.

It is incorrect to say we have only "four proof areas" because earlier I gave a list of 13 miraculous facets of the Qur'an, none of which have been rebutted. If we are focusing on just a few for the sake of ease, that's different.

As for the euphonious quality of the Qur'an, it is also unacceptable to brush it aside as being merely subjective, because it is something very easy to appreciate even for non-Arabs and non-Muslims, as their accounts clearly illustrate. There are also the accounts of the tremendous effect on the community in which the Qur'an was revealed. Moreover, both you and Hugo are repeatedly making the mistake of singling one facet out as proof for divine origin, when in reality the miraculous nature of the Qur'an is not by any one of its unique facets only but rather all of them in combination, as I said at the outset.

As the last one is the only one the Qur’an itself proclaims as its own self-evidence, (which of course is a circular logic) but I just want to say something about that one first.

It isn't a matter of self-evidence, rather it is a challenge that has been unmet and therefore serves as a real evidence.

It seems that in relying on accounts from the 7th century we are forced to deal with such weak villains as Musalymah. But you have argued the he is not a straw-man before pretty much defining him as such, by saying that his ‘unsophisticated’ attempt is ‘example of how anyone trying to imitate the Qur'an is guaranteed to be met with a wretched failure.’

From Wikipedia:

I think it is pretty much conclusive that Musalymah is a straw man. His lyrics about elephants and wabrs are perfectly ridiculous enough to be knocked down by even the most simple-minded of people, and one can’t help but feel that was the reason they were recorded. If there is any definition of a straw-man then Musalymah fits it, as do many other Makkans fit typical two-dimensional roles in the story of the Prophet where they either miraculously convert or spectacularly shoot an intellectual own goal.

I'm afraid I still do not see how the example of Musaylimah is a strawman. If I understand correctly, for him to be a strawman, one would have to establish that he didn't exist. Or, from the definition you quoted from Wikipedia, I would have to misrepresent your argument or the original position, which I don't recall having done. But simply because Musaylimah's attempt looks ridiculous does not mean his example is an invalid one.

Furthermore, Musaylimah lived amongst the people who were the most proficient in language, therefore the time period should produce the strongest opponents. Although his lyrics might seem silly, looking at the Arabic might help to demonstrate what he was doing. His attempt was clearly modelled after the opening verses of Sûrah al-Qâri`ah or Sûrah al-Hâqqah. Yet, his superficial imitation was not even convincing to the idol worshipper of that time.

The fact of the matter is that if anyone succeeded in meeting the Qur'an's challenge, surely their attempt would have been publicised instantly, no? The Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) contemporaries were severe enemies who spared no effort in trying to stop him from completing his mission. Bearing this in mind, the argument that there was some kind of historical bias does not hold.

Lastly, let us not forget that Musaylimah is only an example being used here. Whether you accept him or not has little bearing on this issue. The fact that the Qur'an is inimitable is very evident for all to see.

The famous Arabist from University of Oxford, Hamilton Gibb was open upon about the style of the Qur'an. In his words:

...the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle, and with remarkable boldness and self confidence Mohammad appealed as a supreme confirmation of his mission to the Koran itself. Like all Arabs they were the connoisseurs of language and rhetoric. Well, then if the Koran were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not), then let them accept the Koran as an outstanding evident miracle.[8]

And in some other place, talking about the Prophet(P) and the Qur'an, he states:

Though, to be sure, the question of the literary merit is one not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of Arabic language; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep-toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammad did.[9]

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...acle/ijaz.html

Secondly, on to the more serious discussion of Prophetic stories and how they got there, I agree that the theories cannot all be true for a given case. But that does mean that none of them are true. It is simply a case of probability, as we have no records other than what the very limited information on the Prophet’s early life tells us. Point 2 was only intended for the ‘new’ stories of ‘Ad, Thamud and ‘Iram. I agree that it was more difficult for the stories of say, Moses to be made up.

But the problem with your argument is that the probability becomes more and more insignificant the more we examine the facts. Regarding the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) early life, the following sums it up quite well (from my previous post):

3. Muhammad(P) was raised among his people and every aspect of his life was exposed to them, especially by the openness that characterises tribal life in the desert. How could the multitudes of his contemporaries, including many of his close relatives who knew him so well, how could they believe in his truthfulness if they had any doubt that he was claiming credit for ideas taught to him by some other teachers without bothering to give them credit ?

So once we consider all the aspects, such as the truthfulness and integrity of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) well known to the very people who later opposed him, together with the unfeasibility of the borrowing theory as expanded earlier, it becomes impossible to come to any other conclusion than the Qur'an was divine in origin.

Regarding the remarkableness of the ‘Ad and Thamud stories, I guess this is more a matter of personal conviction, as I am sure many would find these stories, far from being inspirational or remarkable, to be harrowing examples of mass-murder.

It is far beyond personal conviction. The problem seems to be the manner in which you are approaching the Qur'an. The historical information stated in the Qur'an is not meant to teach history but is meant for much more than that. The stories found in the Qur'an contain very important lessons and admonitions. The essential aspect is not searching for the missing facts that are not mentioned in the Qur'an - what the Qur'an contains is sufficient. The essential aspect is to study what the Qur'an states and to understand what the lessons and messages of those stories are.

When Allaah (swt) punishes people, that is through His justice and wisdom. And in the punishment of the evil people that preceded us is a great example, proof and reminder for the rest of mankind.

And indeed We have destroyed towns (populations) round about you, and We have (repeatedly) shown (them) the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in various ways that they might return (to the truth and believe in the Oneness of Allah ـ Islamic Monotheism). [46:27]



Regarding the video by Abdul Raheem Green, I haven't watched it myself and I'm not really in a position to comment on it. But there was one area that overlapped with something I mentioned in my previous post, which was details that could not have been known by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)/not mentioned in the Bible. None of that has been commented on.

What it comes down to is this: Muhammad probably couldn’t read or write, but he didn’t have to. He probably didn’t study the Bible or Torah directly, but he didn’t have to. Coming from a story-telling tradition and mingling with Christian and Jewish traders during more than thirty years of trade in the Hijaz and further (if you deny he encountered these peoples before the Qur’an came you are ignoring historical facts), Muhammad just had to edit out the parts which didn’t make sense to him. As Green himself says (paraphrasing) 'all the accounts we have do not give us any information (as to how Muhammad found this information)'. All I can repeat is that old saying by Churchill: 'History is written by the victors.'

By repeating this, you have ignored all the arguments against this in my previous post. Moreover, it is contradictory. How could Muhammad (peace and blessings of Alaah be upon him) "edit out" anything when he couldn't read and write? To edit something, you first need to read and understand it, and then you need to write the new version. Although the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went on trade journeys, that is nowhere near sufficient evidence of being taught by Jews and Christians. If we say there was a certain period in his life during which he went on trade journeys, that doesn't mean he was on trade journeys the whole time. And as for the actual journeys, it seems he was often doing business for other people, hence he wouldn't be making much profit if all he was doing was mingling with Jews and Christians.

This is only the tip of the icerberg. There are countless other unanswered questions.

From what I've seen in your posts, it appears that you are very quick in jumping from one weak theory to another. There is no solid argument against the ones that have been presented, only conjecture that keeps changing. I would advise that you re-consider your stance on the Qur'an and Islam and study it with the proper approach. The only logical conclusion that can be arrived at in the end is that Islam is the truth and the Qur'an is the Book of Allaah (swt).

Peace.

[Muhammad]

Let's look at the facts. Moses is mentioned over 130 times in the Qur'an whilst Jesus a squat 25

What we learn about Moses in the Qur'an corroborates the Old Testament account on the main points. What we learn about Jesus is mainly about his birth, ascension, and almost nothing in between but a few miracles. I remember reading the Qur'an actually looking forward to information on Jesus's life not just the beginning and end of it and a rattled-off list of miracles in between. Muhammad's predecessor, the guy who would come back to fight Dajjal and all that? Let's face it, Jesus is severely underrepresented in the Qur'an compared to almost every other Prophet, which raises some questions of how Muhammad really knew about him other than the 'highlights' as compared to Moses's or Yusuf's lives, where we are treated to fairly detailed accounts.

Whenever Jesus is mentioned it is usually just a case of reprimanding Christians for setting up sons of God. It seems there is more interest in telling off the naughty Christians than actually telling us what Jesus was like as a person.

As I said above, "the problem seems to be the manner in which you are approaching the Qur'an. The historical information stated in the Qur'an is not meant to teach history but is meant for much more than that. The stories found in the Qur'an contain very important lessons and admonitions. The essential aspect is not searching for the missing facts that are not mentioned in the Qur'an - what the Qur'an contains is sufficient. The essential aspect is to study what the Qur'an states and to understand what the lessons and messages of those stories are."

I think this pretty much answers your post.

EDIT - Note that there is some further information about Jesus in the Hadeeth. And the fact that the Qur'anic presentation of Jesus is very different to that found in the Bible, it further weakens the borrowing theory.

[Hugo]

1. The Qur'aan has the chain of authority that proves it original and that proves it being 1400 years old. There, your argument is chrashed especially knowng that the big bang is in the Qur'aan.

A book compiled over 23 years 1400 years ago being unchanged is a miracle. It's a silly argument to claim that it is not. Because this silly denial is in the argument against the Koran being miraculous, it makes me assume that the rest of your arguments are silly as well. You would be doing your brain a service to stop using this argument.

I think you miss the point, 'original' to who, there is no available original is there so it is not a complete chain of authority. Dr Al_Azami in his book, 'the History of the Qu'ranic text' on page xxi in the preface says '...[thanks to] the people behind the Madina Mushaf for printing the most accurate Qu'ranic text in the world'. So if words mean anything there must be millions of texts out, going back 1,400 years there that are not accurate.

The Qur'aan is by God, a literall word of God. God had said enough about Himself but he hasn't described HOW he looks like. If God had willed, He woulds have revealed himself, but 99 beautiful names are sufficient. It makes me laugh when you say that there is nothing about God on who or what God is. Um, please visit Islamic qa and type in Who is Allah?

Let us be clear that in this thread stating something is a long way from proving it. Some names are in the Qu'ran but others are not and one often finds on sites that deal with these names that memorizing them is a guarantee of your place in paradise so it often to me sounds like Islam does not promote understanding only recitation.

This makes me laugh so hard. A single verse destroys your argument. Say: "We believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma`il, Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and in (Books) given to Moses, Jesus and the Prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between one and another among them and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)." [Al-Qur'an 3:84]

I assume you MUST be talking about the Bible as we have it today otherwise we have no access to anything that was revealed to any of these people.

The Qur'aan is not a competition of Prophets(pbut). The verse that says that(Prophets(pbut) they are all equal to Allah. The Qur'aan refutes the stuff people made up in the holy books about some Prophets(pbut). They all had the same mission and there is a good link I can give you about their methology of calling to worship Allah only.

I cannot make any sense of this: what verse says all the prophets are equal to Allah? What 'stuff' are you talking about here and who are these people who created it?

[جوري]

Hugo,

I fail to understand why you continue to rebut a school girl who is clearly banned?


all the best

[Hugo]

You've said two different things here and both cannot be correct at the same time: either the Qur'an stands out from all other books in literary merit, or it is merely similar to them. I don't really see how you can form an opinion about this without actually analysing the text of the Qur'an for yourself and comparing it to other books - clearly, in a discussion being held in English, we are very limited in appreciating this aspect of the Qur'an.

I think you will find that I said I accept the view by Arabic experts that the Qu'ran has high literary merit - that does not mean I accept it as from God. I as you know can only read it in English and its high literary quantity does not seem to come through - at least to me. I just need some clarification from you to be sure we are on the same wavelength. When you speak of the Qu'ran standing out from other books do you just mean that in terms of its own time an context or do you mean any book in existence or any book yet to be written?

However, even for a non-Arab, it is still possible to realise that the Qur'an's language and style is one of the strongest aspects of its miraculous nature. By looking at the impact that the eloquence of the Qur'an had on its first listeners, we gain a clear picture of the standard of the Qur'an in comparison to anything that the masters of language ever heard. They couldn't find any fault with it nor explain how an illiterate man could have produced it, nor could they produce anything like it themselves. They were in the best position to disprove the Qur'an's literary merit above all other work, yet they failed miserably.

I am not sure your first sentence is correct - I have listened to Qu'ranic recitation and I say this without meaning any disrespect, but it invariably it sounds mournful and colourless to me but that maybe because my homeland is steeped in words and music and its language is soft and melodious by nature. In terms of the eloquence we know the Qu'ran has a very small vocabulary with 80% of its covered by just 600 different words. One wonders what 'master' of language would say about a book with such a limited vocabulary? It perhaps is not surprising that they could not reproduce it because that really seems to be the norm not the rule in literature. One can make a huge list of authors who even though we have all their works and endless books on their works no one can create anew what they created.

This, together with all the other sciences of the Qur'an, clearly shows that the Qur'an is a divine revelation from God. Remember that the miraculous nature of the Qur'an is not by any single aspect (e.g the Qur'an's language and style) only, rather it is due to all its facets simultaneously.

You have a point but this is all circumstantial evidence and you are discounting anything that might negate what you say. What I find most odd in all this is that for a Christian all these so called 'proofs' is so alien an idea because they are taken up wholly by what the Bible means, what is God saying?

It cannot be denied that there are scientific references in the Qur'an and this is a feature of its miraculous nature. When understood in the light of modern science, it gives a deeper appreciation of the meaning. So if something can be understood in further detail and provides further evidence of the truth of the Qur'an, surely we can say that there is a bearing on meaning as opposed to none whatsoever?

Of course it can be denied and there are numerous refutations even in this thread of supposed scientific facts. I am not opposed to the idea that the Qu'ran should agree with science. For example, the Genesis story of creation agrees with current scientific understanding but when one visits some sites every word or nuance in the Qu'ran has a miracle in there somewhere and its just become to me nonsense.

On one hand you have the basic fact that translation cannot capture exactly and perfectly all the subtleties and nuances associated with the beauty of the original verse, while on the other hand you have the fact that the message and teachings expounded in that scripture are universal in that they can be, and are practiced and understood by people from any background, as the Qur'an trancends culture, nationality, ethnicity and every other superficial barrier which divides human beings. No other system of laws has been introduced sucessfuly and implemented by peoples across different continents and cultures.

Yes but I would say the same for the Bible and that cannot be denied. You have a system of laws but as you must know most of them are not in the Qu'ran are they and were added later into the body of law.

[جوري]

I think you will find that I said I accept the view by Arabic experts that the Qu'ran has high literary merit - that does not mean I accept it as from God. I as you know can only read it in English and its high literary quantity does not seem to come through - at least to me. I just need some clarification from you to be sure we are on the same wavelength. When you speak of the Qu'ran standing out from other books do you just mean that in terms of its own time an context or do you mean any book in existence or any book yet to be written?

1- Ok
2-That is your prerogative
3-خير الكلام ما قل و دل ( it is a little known fact that to be adept you must accomplish great feats with the fewest words possible) why use 50 words to describe something that you can in two?

for instance. in suret An'nazi'at..
two words وَالنَّازِعَاتِ غَرْقًا are translated into Pickthal 79:1] By those who drag forth to destruction,
can only denote, that the deficiency lies in English not in Arabic!
4- What I understand is you'd rather have quantity over quality?
5- In terms of a book that should be of guidance to mankind, establishing the basics in Politics, economics, social structure, spiritual needs, psychological needs and transcendence.. Again, entire empires were founded based on that one book!

I am not sure your first sentence is correct - I have listened to Qu'ranic recitation and I say this without meaning any disrespect, but it invariably it sounds mournful and colourless to me but that maybe because my homeland is steeped in words and music and its language is soft and melodious by nature. In terms of the eloquence we know the Qu'ran has a very small vocabulary with 80% of its covered by just 600 different words. One wonders what 'master' of language would say about a book with such a limited vocabulary? It perhaps is not surprising that they could not reproduce it because that really seems to be the norm not the rule in literature. One can make a huge list of authors who even though we have all their works and endless books on their works no one can create anew what they created.

1- Again, subjective and with prior bias, many people have been known to convert just out of listening to Quranic recitations, the fact that it on its own can stand (establishing all mentioned in paragraph one) without the need of fillers on the side makes it superior not only in addressing spiritual/emotional needs but establishing itself as a complete way of life!

further, you don't recognize the influence of the Qur’aan being revealed on seven ahruf:
According to the laws behind combinatorics, the probability of a word occuring a specific number of times in the text decreasing as the text grows longer, as the number of possibilites increases rapidly. That means if you took a book that was 20 000 pages, and the word night was mentioned exactly as many times as day, it would be far more astonishing than if you found the same thing in a single page report. Also, if the word repetitions are small, then there is a greater chance that it was intentionally done that way. But if the repetition number is bigger, it is practically impossible.
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ord-god-4.html

so you are right, it can not be repeated because no human is able to reproduce it and still have it be a coherent piece covering all the afore mentioned!

You have a point but this is all circumstantial evidence and you are discounting anything that might negate what you say. What I find most odd in all this is that for a Christian all these so called 'proofs' is so alien an idea because they are taken up wholly by what the Bible means, what is God saying?

I think it is a mere question of logic.. what a christian accepts is based on emotionality not even as far as the Quran is concerned but as far as the bible being in agreement with itself!

It cannot be denied that there are scientific references in the Qur'an and this is a feature of its miraculous nature. When understood in the light of modern science, it gives a deeper appreciation of the meaning. So if something can be understood in further detail and provides further evidence of the truth of the Qur'an, surely we can say that there is a bearing on meaning as opposed to none whatsoever?

The science mentioned in the Quran isn't meant to establish a discipline in a particular field, rather, these are the signs of the Lord.. in other words, if the God of the Quran takes credit for what he created by telling you plainly what is in concert with science not in opposition of it.

Of course it can be denied and there are numerous refutations even in this thread of supposed scientific facts. I am not opposed to the idea that the Qu'ran should agree with science. For example, the Genesis story of creation agrees with current scientific understanding but when one visits some sites every word or nuance in the Qu'ran has a miracle in there somewhere and its just become to me nonsense.

The refutations aren't solid they are conjectural rather than having adequate evidence and thus can be easily dismissed!

Yes but I would say the same for the Bible and that cannot be denied. You have a system of laws but as you must know most of them are not in the Qu'ran are they and were added later into the body of law.

The bible can't be made to compare with the Quran, if anything at all of Islamic literature it can be compared with, it is the hadith, but even so, the hadith has a chain of narration with which one can sort through what is correct and what can be dismissed, such isn't at all the case with the bible, which fails to stand on its own accord, and doesn't claim to be from God because simply it isn't!

all the best

[Hugo]

Now if indeed Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) had plagiarised the Bible (supposing, for the sake of argument, that he had recourse to it in the first place, even though he didn't), he would also have plagiarised it's historical mistakes. He would not have known what the historical innaccuracies are in the first place, let alone correct them. Even if he had jigged the stories around a little to make them 'fit', it is implausible that, in doing so, he would have accidentally corrected the historical inaccuracies contained in the stories which he wanted to borrow. For examples, please check out the video (Post 209) from my earlier post and I would appreciate your comments.

I have commented on this video by Mr Green before and one of its failings is that we get almost no clear references to anything he says; so everywhere we find things like 'a man said, students at Cambridge did.. a book by a German author...' and so on. Anyway, I will comment on his talk about Joseph and Moses and the essence of what he says; essentially his argument is that Prophet Mohammed could not have known certain things so therefore the Qu'ran must in some way be supernatural. I don't find this at all compelling as to me its seem to turn the Prophet of Islam into someone who seems to have seen nothing, heard nothing and experienced nothing and somehow any knowledge he did have was from God - it simply is not a credible presumption. I will try to deal with his points in turn.

1. He talks about hieroglyphs and the Rosetta stone and by a roundabout argument implies that the word for a kind of quarry manager is used in the Qu'ran and was used in Egypt in the time of Moses but it was only recently discovered to be an Egyptian term, Prophet Mohammed could not have know it at the time, so ipso facto it must have come from God. Buts this hold no water for firstly in a recent book by Ehsan Masood (Science and Islam) it is suggested that the Cops might have partially deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphs long before Islam and indeed their work might have given rise to the Arabic scripts itself and was certainly used by later Islamic scientists. So the term might well have been know, well known at the time of the Prophet.

2. Secondly, Joseph rose to be viceroy when Egypt was dominated by the Hyksos - meaning 'foreign chiefs' and was applied to Asiatic invaders by the Pharaohs of the middle kingdom. The Hyksos were of Semitic stock and so were closely akin to the Hebrews and ruled Egypt from about 1690 to 1580BCE and it is plausible historically that Joseph arrived in Egypt about this time. So Pharaohs and Hyksos kings existed at the same time and fought against one other and the fact the Bible says King and the Qu'ran say Pharaoh only conform what we know and what would have been known everywhere so there is nothing special or miraculous here. The Hyksos were eventually expelled from Egypt in the 18th dynasty or around 1550BCE and Egypt became indisputably he greatest power of its day.

[Hugo]

( it is a little known fact that to be adept you must accomplish great feats with the fewest words possible) why use 50 words to describe something that you can in two?

The point is that the smaller your vocabulary the less you can say simply because there will be no words to use - why do you think the Qu'ran borrows so freely from Persian and Syriac? It also calls into question these so called 'masters of language' if their mastery could only cover the number of words a child might know.

for instance. in suret An'nazi'at.. two words وَالنَّازِعَاتِ غَرْقًا are translated into Pickthal 79:1 By those who drag forth to destruction, can only denote, that the deficiency lies in English not in Arabic!

This is obviously a silly argument, this if its anything is a deficiency of the translator not English.

What I understand is you'd rather have quantity over quality?

No you miss the point, if ones vocabulary is small then there are some things you cannot say because you have no words or even collections of words to say them.

In terms of a book that should be of guidance to mankind, establishing the basics in Politics, economics, social structure, spiritual needs, psychological needs and transcendence.. Again, entire empires were founded based on that one book!

But other empires were created on other books/idea so this is no argument for anything special about the Qu'ran or indeed any other book. If it is as comprehensive as you say it is why do you need Sharia and the rest of it?

Again, subjective and with prior bias, many people have been known to convert just out of listening to Quranic recitations, the fact that it on its own can stand (establishing all mentioned in paragraph one) without the need of fillers on the side makes it superior not only in addressing spiritual/emotional needs but establishing itself as a complete way of life!

Of course its subjective, any judgement has to be and the fact that people have been converted by listening to it means nothing because the same can be said about the Bible or the communist manifesto. I have read the Qu'ran many time but it does not satisfy me emotional. spiritually or intellectuality so it is not superior in my view and at the same time one can find millions of Christians or Buddhist who will use the very same totally subjective argument you are using.

further, you don't recognize the influence of the Qur’aan being revealed on seven ahruf: According to the laws behind combinatorics, the probability of a word occuring a specific number of times in the text decreasing as the text grows longer, as the number of possibilites increases rapidly. That means if you took a book that was 20 000 pages, and the word night was mentioned exactly as many times as day, it would be far more astonishing than if you found the same thing in a single page report. Also, if the word repetitions are small, then there is a greater chance that it was intentionally done that way. But if the repetition number is bigger, it is practically impossible.

This sounds like a muddle to me because it must be dependent to some degree on the word itself. Can you be a bit more precise as to which bit of combinatorics you are talking about?

so you are right, it can not be repeated because no human is able to reproduce it and still have it be a coherent piece covering all the afore mentioned!

But my point was this applies to almost all top quality writing not just to the Qu'ran

I think it is a mere question of logic.. what a christian accepts is based on emotionality not even as far as the Quran is concerned but as far as the bible being in agreement with itself!

You like many others get muddled over logic because you fail to understand how the emotions work and how without them you cannot make judgements. You see your problem is that you think that if you list criteria then after that its a matter of logic but that is far from the truth and until you understand that you will never appreciate that always with faith there are issues.

The science mentioned in the Quran isn't meant to establish a discipline in a particular field, rather, these are the signs of the Lord.. in other words, if the God of the Quran takes credit for what he created by telling you plainly what is in concert with science not in opposition of it.

That is what YOU are saying because that is what you are programmed to say, in this thread many so called scientific elements has been shown to be weak or non existent. Look at the huge post you gave from Gary Miller's site where he gives hardly any references and treats the Prophet as if he heard nothing, saw nothing and experienced nothing. Take his first example about 'merchant marine' (no other information) and argues that the bits about the sea in the Qu'ran could only come from God but never considers any other possibilities such as people on the trade routes passing on sea stories or knowing about the Greek sea myths that were in wide circulation. NO, you trust in Miller not me or even your own natural scepticism - can you see my point, you have no criticality and often if it feels like you have to accept all these things else you let Islam down.

The refutations aren't solid they are conjectural rather than having adequate evidence and thus can be easily dismissed!

But so are the so called miracles - there is NO way to know that God planted those words to take on a Gary Miller explanation

The bible can't be made to compare with the Quran, if anything at all of Islamic literature it can be compared with, it is the hadith, but even so, the hadith has a chain of narration with which one can sort through what is correct and what can be dismissed, such isn't at all the case with the bible, which fails to stand on its own accord, and doesn't claim to be from God because simply it isn't!

What kind of argument is this as there are hundreds of things that cannot be compared to the Qu'ran; this sounds like clutching at straws. All we have here is your statement - have you even considered Abraham - he had nothing but God's call, no book of any kind.

[Muhammad]

On the issue of preservation:

I think you miss the point, 'original' to who, there is no available original is there so it is not a complete chain of authority. Dr Al_Azami in his book, 'the History of the Qu'ranic text' on page xxi in the preface says '...[thanks to] the people behind the Madina Mushaf for printing the most accurate Qu'ranic text in the world'. So if words mean anything there must be millions of texts out, going back 1,400 years there that are not accurate.

It appears you are not very familiar with the preservation of the Qur'an. If one researches this aspect of the Qur'an, there will be no doubt in his mind that the Qur'an that is present today is the same Qur'an that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught to his Companions. What you quoted from Dr Al Azami's book might be referring to something else - perhaps you need to consider the context in which it is found. But to think there are "millions" of inaccurate texts of the Qur'an is absurd. The following sheds more light on the issue:

Originally posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

One fallacy that many people commit in discussing the preservation of the Qur'an is ignoring its oral and educational tradition, focusing merely on the textual. The Qur'an is a living text, in that its recitation forms an integral part of the daily religious practice of each and every muslim in the world. The Imam recites from the Qur'an in the congregational prayers, and during Ramadan every year the entire Qur'an is recited from cover to cover in each mosque by the Imam from memory. Now let's take the example of the Holy Mosque in Makkah where literally millions of worshippers congregate during the prayers in Ramadan. Standing in that congregation there are countless thousands who have memorized the Qur'an and have come from every corner of the world and many more thousands who follow along with a pocket Qur'an. Even the slightest mispronunciation of a vowelization mark is instantly corrected.

Muslims everywhere memorize the Qur'an, many millions memorizing the entire Qur'an from cover to cover, such that Huffaadh (singl. Hafidh - one who has memorized the entire Qur'an by heart) are ubiquitous within the muslim community. It is not uncommon nor surprising to find children even as young as six or seven or younger who have completed their memorization of the entire Qur'an. If all the books in the entire world were to be lost or destroyed, only the Qur'an would be recovered letter for letter as it is preserved in the hearts of so many millions.

As far as the textual history goes, I'd like to mention a few points. The criteria used in the compilation of the Qur'an was that for each verse there had to be at least two witnesses, each of whom having not only memorized the verse (since practically all the companions had memorized the Qur'an) but had with them the parchment on which they recorded the verse in the presence of the Prophet himself. Uthman ordered the writing of several other copies of the text and sent them to the major cities, each accompanied with a knowledgeable recitor from amongst the companions to teach the people...

Moreover:

In fact, the vast majority of non-muslim orientalists, many of whom were quite hostile and quite vehement in their attacks on Islam, have yet agreed that the Qur'anic text is unaltered (note: obviously since they are non-muslim they will refer to the Qur'an as the words of Muhammad saws).

'This Text of the Qur'an is the purest of all works of alike antiquity' (Wherry, Commentary on the Koran, I. p. 349).

'Othman's recension has remained the authorised text from the time it was made until the present day' (Palmer, The Qur'an, p. lix).

'The text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself' (Arnold, Islamic Faith, p. 9).

'All sects and parties have the same text of the Qur'an' (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 18).

'It is an immense merit in the Kuran that there is no doubt as to its genuineness That very word we can now read with full confidence that it has remained unchanged through nearly thirteen hundred years' (LSK., p.3)

'The recension of 'Othman has been handed down unaltered. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text' (Muir, Life of Mohammed, pp. XXII-XXIII).

'In the Kuran we have, beyond all reasonable doubt, the exact words of Mohammed without subtraction and without addition' (Bosworth Smith, Mohammamed and Mohammedanism, p. 22)

'The Koran was his own creation; and it lies before us practically unchanged from the form which he himself gave it' (Torrey, Jewish Foundations of Islam, p.2).

'Modern critics agree that that the copies current today are almost exact replicas of the original mother-text as compiled by Zayd, and that, on the whole, the text of the Koran today is as Muhammad prodcued it. As some Semitic scholar remarked, there are probably more variations in the reading of one chapter of Genesis in Hebrew than there are in the entire Koran' (Hitti, History of the Arabs, p. 123).

[جوري]

The point is that the smaller your vocabulary the less you can say simply because there will be no words to use - why do you think the Qu'ran borrows so freely from Persian and Syriac? It also calls into question these so called 'masters of language' if their mastery could only cover the number of words a child might know.

Except less wasn't said, and I quote the Quran itself:

18:54
THUS, INDEED, have We given in this Qur'an many facets to every kind of lesson [designed] for [the benefit of] mankind. However, man is, above all else, always given to contention:
The Quran itself has a comparable number of verses to the bible (if we are to go by volume and not quality) The Quran has 6236 verses whereas the bible has 7958
http://www.deafmissions.com/tally/bkchptrvrs.html


and look at the mass confusion those 7000+ verses have caused?

If you allege that the Quran borrows from syriac and persian I am going to ask ask that you prove it. We don't take declamatory statements at face value here!

This is obviously a silly argument, this if its anything is a deficiency of the translator not English.

It is really not, no one foreign or domestic has been able to capture the essence of the Quran in a comparable fashion to the Quran itself. If we are going by sheer linguistics alone and nothing else making it very impressive!

No you miss the point, if ones vocabulary is small then there are some things you cannot say because you have no words or even collections of words to say them.

See my above comment!

But other empires were created on other books/idea so this is no argument for anything special about the Qu'ran or indeed any other book. If it is as comprehensive as you say it is why do you need Sharia and the rest of it?

No other empire based on a religious book has been as successful as the successive Islamic empires until the last two hundred years or so of the Ottomans. History attests to this not me..
Sharia'a is based on the Quran!

Of course its subjective, any judgement has to be and the fact that people have been converted by listening to it means nothing because the same can be said about the Bible or the communist manifesto. I have read the Qu'ran many time but it does not satisfy me emotional. spiritually or intellectuality so it is not superior in my view and at the same time one can find millions of Christians or Buddhist who will use the very same totally subjective argument you are using.

As stated, that is your view.. for every subjective view you present I can find 10,000 to oppose it.. Of course you must understand that I've to take the 'intellectually' part with nothing more than a grain of salt for I can't possibly measure the intellect of someone who professes that a god can be born, suckle and die, choose ineffectual apostles and abrogate his commandments through his nemesis in high intellectual honors.
I'd perhaps hold your argument in better light it if were courtesy of an atheist but not a christian!

This sounds like a muddle to me because it must be dependent to some degree on the word itself. Can you be a bit more precise as to which bit of combinatorics you are talking about?

I think the law is self-explanatory. I can't substitute expressions used for lesser ones, for you to be able to take it down to a lower common denominator!

But my point was this applies to almost all top quality writing not just to the Qu'ran

Which top quality writing has influenced people more than the Quran?
if you look at Shakespeare or a book on histology it ends with the area of interest it addresses. The Quran addresses everything governing man's spiritual and material life and for centuries and globally!

You like many others get muddled over logic because you fail to understand how the emotions work and how without them you cannot make judgements. You see your problem is that you think that if you list criteria then after that its a matter of logic but that is far from the truth and until you understand that you will never appreciate that always with faith there are issues.

Truth is a fact that can be verified, it has logic, as doyle stated...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. We have the Quran as a self-evident truth ready for your testing, where it came from, its style, its content when subjected to history the region and in terms of reproducibility-- and you so far haven't been able to establish how we are far from the truth? especially given your brand of truth is so monolithic and can't be verifiable by logic, by recorded history or even by comparison to other Abrahamic religions. Forgive me I say this with utmost respect but how can I possibly regard anything you say as plausible when your own personal beliefs or what you propose as an alternative is so utterly absurd?
Can man arrive to the existence of God by logic alone, absolutely, the same path that leads to non-belief is the same one that leads to strong belief, but I guarantee that no belief in pure form will lead to something like a three headed god, it is pure concoction of idle men!

That is what YOU are saying because that is what you are programmed to say, in this thread many so called scientific elements has been shown to be weak or non existent. Look at the huge post you gave from Gary Miller's site where he gives hardly any references and treats the Prophet as if he heard nothing, saw nothing and experienced nothing. Take his first example about 'merchant marine' (no other information) and argues that the bits about the sea in the Qu'ran could only come from God but never considers any other possibilities such as people on the trade routes passing on sea stories or knowing about the Greek sea myths that were in wide circulation. NO, you trust in Miller not me or even your own natural scepticism - can you see my point, you have no criticality and often if it feels like you have to accept all these things else you let Islam down.

possibilities have to have some semblance of reality in them not concocted nonsense.. in order for anything you say to have some merit, it has to be verifiable and not some mere conjectures thrown in the air as plausible, plus you have to account for them for every such event in the Quran, you have to establish a purpose for the existence of said verses why labor on allegedly borrowed text especially when it is greatly at odds and sure to lead to turmoil? you have to propose a method of integration of previous text if at all in the poetic style of the Quran in the span of years apart without computers of filing and a reason for the prophet to have done this plus have on the side a completely different text being the hadith, along with all other events that have occurred at the time as in why be in the desert and write a verse of the sea he'd never witnessed, and explain why with all of this he still died poor with his armor pawned to a Jew?
It isn't because I trust miller, it is because I am read and can reason and add more than one truthful variable to the formula before I concede to the obvious!

But so are the so called miracles - there is NO way to know that God planted those words to take on a Gary Miller explanation

What other logical verifiable explanation is there?

What kind of argument is this as there are hundreds of things that cannot be compared to the Qu'ran; this sounds like clutching at straws. All we have here is your statement - have you even considered Abraham - he had nothing but God's call, no book of any kind.

None of the messengers had books until books were revealed unto them..
Abraham had what we call Suhuf (according to the Quran)


إِنَّ هَذَا لَفِي الصُّحُفِ الْأُولَى {18}
[Pickthal 87:18] Lo! This is in the former scrolls.
صُحُفِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُوسَى {19}
[Pickthal 87:19] The Books of Abraham and Moses.

*****

BTW, you had once sent me a PM writing to consider when Abraham wandered in the land of Israel, I didn't comment on it at the time, but Israel is Jacob (p) who clearly came after Abraham, so how can he have wondered in a place that didn't exist Isra (el) to walk toward God, is a name given to a man not a place that had not yet come in existence? You see, I don't find your history itself to be accurate to find merit in the doubts you propose!

all the best!

[Hugo]

It appears you are not very familiar with the preservation of the Qur'an. If one researches this aspect of the Qur'an, there will be no doubt in his mind that the Qur'an that is present today is the same Qur'an that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught to his Companions. What you quoted from Dr Al Azami's book might be referring to something else - perhaps you need to consider the context in which it is found. But to think there are "millions" of inaccurate texts of the Qur'an is absurd. The following sheds more light on the issue:

I am familiar with preservation but based on what you have written I am not sure you understand the difficulties or the meaning of some of the words used in your quotations. To begin with, Dr Al Azami may have been talking about something else but what was it if words are to have any meaning?

One fallacy that many people commit in discussing the preservation of the Qur'an is ignoring its oral and educational tradition, focusing merely on the textual....

I think you are missing the points.

1. The original Qu'ran according to Islamic doctrine is in heaven so it is not accessible so you whole faith rests on one man and what he said happened. I mean no disrespect here I am simply stating the facts.

2. You keep saying that verses were written down immediately but this did not happen right from the start did it and NONE of those written verses have been preserved. Also you have to explain why it was necessary to make an official copy and distribute it as well as destroy what existed if what existed was unchanged and never had changed.

3. If what you say is true then there must be somewhere lets call it an official copy that is used to put it simply by the printers. Or to use Dr Al Azami again, what did the people who prepared this 'most accurate Quranic text' use to get it - surely you are not suggested they did it from memory?

4. As far as I can see all you have is a tradition that say the verses were recorded but no documentary evidence at all from the prophets time. The companions might have had the 'parchment' as you say but we don't have any of that now do we and as far as I know none of Uthman's metropolitan copies still exists?

'Othman's recension has remained the authorised text from the time it was made until the present day' [/B](Palmer, The Qur'an, p. lix).

'The text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself'[/B] (Arnold, Islamic Faith, p. 9).

'The recension of 'Othman has been handed down unaltered. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text'[/B] (Muir, Life of Mohammed, pp. XXII-XXIII).

Recension is the practice of editing or revising a text based on critical analysis so here Palmer, Arnold and Muir are only saying what they might have said about the Bible or any other ancient text so they are not saying its unchanged they are saying it was changed. The best you can say is that you have Uthamns edited copy nothing more but as I said earlier - where is one such copy.

[Muhammad]

Greetings Hugo,

I think you will find that I said I accept the view by Arabic experts that the Qu'ran has high literary merit - that does not mean I accept it as from God.

I wasn't implying you accept it as being from God... anyhow, I think I now understand what you meant.

I just need some clarification from you to be sure we are on the same wavelength. When you speak of the Qu'ran standing out from other books do you just mean that in terms of its own time an context or do you mean any book in existence or any book yet to be written?

The Qur'an stands out from any book written or yet to be written. It will remain an evidence of the truth to guide people until the end of time. And this is because the message of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was not for a specific people at his time as with previous prophets, rather it was a message for the whole of mankind and hence the Qur'an is a permanent miracle free from the constraints of time and place.

I am not sure your first sentence is correct - I have listened to Qu'ranic recitation and I say this without meaning any disrespect, but it invariably it sounds mournful and colourless to me but that maybe because my homeland is steeped in words and music and its language is soft and melodious by nature.

We weren't simply talking about the sound of the Qur'anic recitation here, though it may be related. My main point was the impact that the Qur'an had on its first listeners and what we can learn from this as regards its unique nature.

As for the sound of the Qur'anic recitation, it has a unique euphonious quality to it. There is a whole science dedicated to the Qur'an's correct recitation such that every letter has rights and dues of characteristics. As someone on a blog put it,"the pronunciation of letters, the degrees in tones, nasalization and the different qualities are so well documented in Arabic that the script comes together as a well-defined, well-oiled machine." In this way, anyone who has studied the Qur'an will quickly see how profound and unique it is.

Furthermore, the beautification of the Qur'an with one's voice (whilst observing the rules of its recitation) will vary from reciter to reciter, depending on the differing characteristics that will naturally occur in their voices and the way they use them. This means that if there was one voice you didn't like, there are probably thousands of others that you can listen to. So for example, although two different people will be following the same set of rules in reciting the Qur'an, their recitations might sound very different in terms of the way they use their natural voices to beautify it (which btw is not meant to be overdone so as to turn it into a musical melody).

You can browse the following thread to get a better idea of what I mean: http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...ations-45.html

In terms of the eloquence we know the Qu'ran has a very small vocabulary with 80% of its covered by just 600 different words. One wonders what 'master' of language would say about a book with such a limited vocabulary?

This is completely irrelevant and does not detract in any way from the status of the Qur'an. Who is to say what number of different words is sufficient? I am sure you will appreciate that the literary excellence of a work goes far beyond the number of different words used. Moreover, you forget that many linguists and orientalists have highlighted how the Qur'an exemplifies the peak of literary beauty. If your point had any weight whatsoever, I am sure the scholars of language would have pounced on it long ago. Furthermore:

The failure of those at the peak of their trade - mastery of the Arabic language - to rival the Qur’an which challenged them should make one think. So too should the differing reactions the Qur’an received from those best placed to challenge its origin. Gibb states,

"Well then, if the Qur’an were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not) then let them accept the Qur’an as an outstanding evidential miracle."

Schact describes the nature of the Qur’anic style,

"The Koran was also a linguistic document of incomparable importance. It was viewed as a source of grammatical and lexicographical information. Its stylistic inimitability not-withstanding, it even came to be treated as a standard for theories of literary criticism."

As H. Abdul-Raof said,

"Scholars, linguists and Arabists need a sound linguistic competence in Classical Arabic but also an advanced
knowledge in Arabic syntax and rhetoric in order to appreciate the complex linguistic and rhetorical patterns of
Qur’anic structures. Most importantly he or she must refer to the major exegeses in order to derive and provide
the accurate underlying meaning of a Qur’anic expression, preposition or particle."

It perhaps is not surprising that they could not reproduce it because that really seems to be the norm not the rule in literature. One can make a huge list of authors who even though we have all their works and endless books on their works no one can create anew what they created.

The reason for your statement is due to a very superficial understanding of how the Qur'an is unique. However, further research and study into the Qur'an will allow one to quickly appreciate how the Qur'an is incomparable to any other work. For instance, the Qur’an does not fall into any of the known forms of Arabic but is instead a totally unique expression. The form of its language cannot be described as prose or poetry. It is like a category of its own in Arabic composition. Furthermore, there are many literary and linguistic devices that render it stylistically distinct.

H A R Gibb. states:

“As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, having
neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming the
inimitability not only of its contents but also of its style….. and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the
expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose1 in which
all the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.”

For more information about this, please see:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...acle/ijaz.html

http://www.theinimitablequran.com/fi...arguments.html

You have a point but this is all circumstantial evidence and you are discounting anything that might negate what you say.

Circumstantial how? If there is something to negate the proof of the Qur'an, you are welcome to bring it forth.

What I find most odd in all this is that for a Christian all these so called 'proofs' is so alien an idea because they are taken up wholly by what the Bible means, what is God saying?

And I have already mentioned that the guidance contained in the Qur'an is its true purpose. Even in the message itself there is a uniqueness in terms of its comprehensiveness, consistency, universality etc. (as mentioned earlier). The Qur'an is unique from every facet one approaches it, and it is only a matter of which facet you want to discuss. So if we are focusing on the literary aspect of the Qur'an, that doesn't mean we are disregarding any of its others, including its message.

Of course it can be denied and there are numerous refutations even in this thread of supposed scientific facts. I am not opposed to the idea that the Qu'ran should agree with science. For example, the Genesis story of creation agrees with current scientific understanding but when one visits some sites every word or nuance in the Qu'ran has a miracle in there somewhere and its just become to me nonsense.

We're not talking about every single site out there as obviously there are sites for both Christians and Muslims that are not representative of authentic teachings. I'm talking about established scientific facts where no distortion is necessary, and it is these that cannot be denied.

Yes but I would say the same for the Bible and that cannot be denied. You have a system of laws but as you must know most of them are not in the Qu'ran are they and were added later into the body of law.

Actually, it is easily denied for the Bible. The Qur'an is by far the most widely followed and acted-upon book in the world. As for the Bible, most Christians follow the Church over the Bible, and each denomination has its own bible anyway. The fact that there is no other book in the world that forms the constitution of the lives of billions of followers is itself a sign.

Moreover, the laws of Islam were perfected during the lifetime of the Messnger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The sources of Islamic legislation are both the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him. Thus, for one to determine the ruling on any particular issue it entails sound knowledge of both these sources.

Peace.

P.S. As for your statement:

why do you think the Qu'ran borrows so freely from Persian and Syriac?

This has been answered here:

http://www.theinimitablequran.com/foreignwords.pdf

To conclude, claims made by some critics are debased by understanding the nature of languages and
how they naturalise foreign words into their vocabulary. This phenomenon happens as a result of
different cultures and races integrating and coming together. Furthermore the Qur’an can be described as
'plain Arabic' because the foreign words in the Qur’an had already been naturalised and were already
part of the Arabic language before revelation.

[Muhammad]

To begin with, Dr Al Azami may have been talking about something else but what was it if words are to have any meaning?

Perhaps it would help if you quoted the whole sentence to begin with.

1. The original Qu'ran according to Islamic doctrine is in heaven so it is not accessible so you whole faith rests on one man and what he said happened. I mean no disrespect here I am simply stating the facts.

What you are saying is a gross misunderstanding of the facts. There is no such thing as different versions of the Qur'an as anyone who has looked into the matter knows.

The very first stage in the revelation of the Qur'an is that it was written in what is known as the Preserved Tablet, which is with Allaah (swt). This is the Tablet upon which is written all of the things that will happen from the creation of the heavens and the earth until the end of time. Therefore, included in the Preserved Tablet is the text of the Qur'an. During the final stage of the revelation process, the angel Gabriel would then bring those portions of the Qur'an which Allaah (swt) commanded him to bring, in a gradual revelation occurring over a period of 23 years. So any notion of an "original" Qur'an being inaccessible is completely baseless.

Furthermore, the possibility that the revelation of the Qur'an might have been tampered with during the revelation process is ruled out by Allaah (swt) so that no doubt can remain regarding its authenticity. For example, the trustworthiness of Gabriel has been guaranteed by Allaah (swt) in the Qur'an, and it also mentions a severe punishment for forging any revelation. One can also consider the character and integrity of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who was chosen by Allaah (swt) to be the recipient of the Qur'an. If he would never lie about any small issue even before prophethood, then with greater reason he would never lie against Allaah (swt). There are many other reasons why the notion that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah) lied in any aspect is an irrational one. We would have to hold a separate discussion to go into detail.

2. You keep saying that verses were written down immediately but this did not happen right from the start did it and NONE of those written verses have been preserved. Also you have to explain why it was necessary to make an official copy and distribute it as well as destroy what existed if what existed was unchanged and never had changed.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his Companions had a great concern for the preservation of the Qur'an and they did this both orally and textually. It should be noted that the Arabs had a very strong oral tradition; as knowledge of reading and writing was minimal, most of their history and poetry was passed on orally and because of this, they became well known for their strong memories. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the primary method of transmission of the Qur'an has always been and always will be oral. So regardless of when the Qur'an first began to be written down and that none of the original loose fragments exist today, this is completely inconsequential considering how diligently its knowledge has been preserved.

Let us look at some examples of the way that the Qur'an was preserved and checked to ensure absolute authenticity. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to be fearful of forgetting the verses that Gabriel recited to him, so he would repeat the verses even before Gabriel had finished. Allaah (swt) then revealed, to reassure him,

Move not your tongue concerning (the Qur'an, O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) to make haste therewith. It is for Us to collect it and to give you the ability to recite it. [Al-Qiyaamah: 16-17]

He would also spend large portions of the night reciting the Qur'an and the Companions were constantly hearing it from him in prayers. There was a great concern in teaching the Qur'an amongst the Muslims and the Companions would recite and memorise as much of the Qur'an as possible - some of them completing the entire Qur'an in a week! Moreover, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) made sure that the Qur'an was written down and he would check that it was written correctly by commanding it to be read back to him. Furthermore, The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would recite the whole Qur'an to the angel Gabriel every year and the angel would also recite it back to him. During the year that he died, he recited it to Gabriel twice and heard it twice. By the time the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) passed away, the entire Qur'an had been memorised by many of the Companions and existed in written form, but it had not been compiled between two covers.

Regarding the compilation of the Qur'an in the time of Uthman and destroying of unofficial copies, that was done in response to the inauthentic recitations that newcomers to Islam, who were ignorant of the Arabic of the Qur'an, were reciting. He wished to unite the Muslims on the proper recitation of the Qur'an and therefore ordered the eradication of all other 'mushafs' (copies of the Qur'an) so that the people would have only one mushaf in their hands.

...Uthman ordered the writing of several other copies of the text and sent them to the major cities, each accompanied with a knowledgeable recitor from amongst the companions to teach the people. When Uthman ordered that all other copies/parchments be either burned or erased it was because such copies were neither verified nor authorized under the consensus of the companions and consequently they could be written according to a specific dialect which would lead to confusion and bickering or they could even contain the odd scribal error which could also lead to confusion. When Uthman destroyed the unauthorized parchments it was a preventative measure to ensure that alterations of God's revelation would never take place.

3. If what you say is true then there must be somewhere lets call it an official copy that is used to put it simply by the printers. Or to use Dr Al Azami again, what did the people who prepared this 'most accurate Quranic text' use to get it - surely you are not suggested they did it from memory?

4. As far as I can see all you have is a tradition that say the verses were recorded but no documentary evidence at all from the prophets time. The companions might have had the 'parchment' as you say but we don't have any of that now do we and as far as I know none of Uthman's metropolitan copies still exists?

As I mentioned above, the primary method of transmission is orally. Each generation of Muslims learns the Qur'an from the previous generation, and this chain continues back until the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). And in each generation, so many people narrated it that there is no question of its authenticity. One only has to consider the countless thousands of Muslims across the world today who have memorised the entire Qur'an, not differing by a single letter in their recitation. This is a clear evidence that the Qur'an has been preserved throughout the centuries.

Furthermore, there exist at least two mushafs that are reputed to be official Uthmanic mushafs. Even if they are not originals (and this is very difficult to disprove), they are at worst copies of the original, since the style of the writing conforms to the first few decades after the hijrah.

Recension is the practice of editing or revising a text based on critical analysis so here Palmer, Arnold and Muir are only saying what they might have said about the Bible or any other ancient text so they are not saying its unchanged they are saying it was changed. The best you can say is that you have Uthamns edited copy nothing more but as I said earlier - where is one such copy.

You misunderstand - Uthman was not editing verses in or out of the Qur'an, rather he was preserving the original text of the Qur'an. These quotes from non-Muslims might not use the best words, considering they they refer to the Qur'an as the words of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but nevertheless they acknowledge the Qur'an's authenticity. If you read Arnold's quote again, you will see that his idea of recension is quite different to yours, because if he thought the Qur'an had been "edited", it wouldn't correspond to the "utterances of Muhammad himself":

'The text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself' (Arnold, Islamic Faith, p. 9).

Nobody can claim this for the Bible as we very well know how passages are removed and edited quite freely, let alone the fact that the New Testament was authored over a century after Jesus's (alleged) death and that the authors of the Old Testament are shrouded in mystery, though of course that's a whole different topic altogether.

Peace.

[Hugo]

Perhaps it would help if you quoted the whole sentence to begin with.

The full quote is as follows from Dr Al-Azami's book (ISBN 9781872-531656) page xxi

"And there are still others who deserve special recognition: The King Faisal Foundation for nominating me as their visiting professor to Princeton University, the Princeton Seminary for proving a kaleiderscipope of rich materials for this book, and the people behind the Madina Mashaf for printing the most accurate Qu'ranic text in the world."

I leave you to ponder what this means but the words are plain enough and frankly nothing else is reasonable for any ancient text. There was a thread some time ago that discussed this book and it may be worth re-opening it as it is pertinent to what we are saying here.

What you are saying is a gross misunderstanding of the facts. There is no such thing as different versions of the Qur'an as anyone who has looked into the matter knows. The very first stage in the revelation of the Qur'an is that it was written in what is known as the Preserved Tablet, which is with Allaah (swt). This is the Tablet upon which is written all of the things that will happen from the creation of the heavens and the earth until the end of time. Therefore, included in the Preserved Tablet is the text of the Qur'an. During the final stage of the revelation process, the angel Gabriel would then bring those portions of the Qur'an which Allaah (swt) commanded him to bring, in a gradual revelation occurring over a period of 23 years. So any notion of an "original" Qur'an being inaccessible is completely baseless.

The only ref I know to the tablet (Arberry Translation) is in 85:20 and I am not aware of it being used in this context in the hadith but I am no expert there. As far as I can tell the same word is use for the way Moses was given the 10 Commandments so one presumes that is how we are to take the guarded tablet. But my point was and I state it again:

1. The tablet is NOT accessible now is it so it cannot be checked so how can my claim be baseless plus the fact that you have no textual copies from the time of the prophet. I don't know how you understand this term as meaning an actual book of sorts in heaven or it is just a kind of analogy for what God knows?
2. We have one man's word that these portions are from God and of course it amounts to a circular argument to say the Qu'ran confirms itself.
3. If we take Uthman's recension then that was at least 6 years after the prophet's death and again if the text was absolutely preserved why was it necessary to have an official copy?
4. One final point, is that if this is some kind of eternal book then why does it need to have temporal features and so many abrogations?

Furthermore, the possibility that the revelation of the Qur'an might have been tampered with during the revelation process is ruled out by Allaah (swt) so that no doubt can remain regarding its authenticity. For example, the trustworthiness of Gabriel has been guaranteed by Allaah (swt) in the Qur'an, and it also mentions a severe punishment for forging any revelation. One can also consider the character and integrity of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who was chosen by Allaah (swt) to be the recipient of the Qur'an. If he would never lie about any small issue .....

This is what you believe but it cannot be shown in any strict logical sense to be true or false, it is outside rationality. If you accept the premise that God exists and that he spoke to the Prophet of Islam etc etc then for you it is true but it is a matter of personal faith and what I suppose we should call circumstantial evidence, nothing more

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his Companions had a great concern for the preservation of the Qur'an and they did this both orally and textually. It should be noted that the Arabs had a very strong oral tradition; as knowledge of reading and writing was minimal, most of their history and poetry was passed on orally and because of this, they became well known for their strong memories.

One hears this argument often but to me it is not convincing and one wonders about other claims you made about the Quraish being 'masters of the language' if their knowledge was as you say 'minimal'

It should be no surprise, therefore, that the primary method of transmission of the Qur'an has always been and always will be oral. So regardless of when the Qur'an first began to be written down and that none of the original loose fragments exist today, this is completely inconsequential considering how diligently its knowledge has been preserved.

If you dismiss negative arguments as inconsequential then that is matter for you but of course the same route is now open to me to refute any argument you use.

Regarding the compilation of the Qur'an in the time of Uthman and destroying of unofficial copies, that was done in response to the inauthentic recitations that newcomers to Islam, who were ignorant of the Arabic of the Qur'an, were reciting. He wished to unite the Muslims on the proper recitation of the Qur'an and therefore ordered the eradication of all other 'mushafs' (copies of the Qur'an) so that the people would have only one mushaf in their hands.

But this must be a contradiction because now you seem to be saying that the oral tradition failed so it had to be written down as an official copy and then people trained to recite it so to me this sounds like there was a muddle at the beginning not the orderly recitation and recording you often speak of

...Uthman ordered the writing of several other copies of the text and sent them to the major cities, each accompanied with a knowledgeable recitor from amongst the companions to teach the people. When Uthman ordered that all other copies/parchments be either burned or erased it was because such copies were neither verified nor authorized under the consensus of the ...

You seem to be agreeing with me here, what did Uthman COPY from as you imply there were all sorts of copies in circulation and so using your words he, one supposes, had to decide which one to use - consensus was needed. What you have now may be what Uthman constructed but you cannot it seems to be go backwards from that because then you have to explain why all these different copies were floating about.

Furthermore, there exist at least two mushafs that are reputed to be official Uthmanic mushafs. Even if they are not originals (and this is very difficult to disprove), they are at worst copies of the original, since the style of the writing conforms to the first few decades after the hijrah.

Yes, but where are they? For example one often hears about the Medellson Article on the Tshkent Koran but if you read the article all they actually had was what we would call to day a photocopy and it was not a complete Qu'ran even then etc

You misunderstand - Uthman was not editing verses in or out of the Qur'an, rather he was preserving the original text of the Qur'an. These quotes from non-Muslims might not use the best words, considering they they refer to the Qur'an as the words of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but nevertheless they acknowledge the Qur'an's authenticity. If you read Arnold's quote again, you will see that his idea of recension is quite different to yours, because if he thought the Qur'an had been "edited", it wouldn't correspond to the "utterances of Muhammad himself":

It is not MY idea, the term 'recension' is a well used an understood term and I stated what it means accurately. A scholar can easily speak about a 'recension' and say these are the words of Mohammed much the same way that Biblical Scholars will speak about recension's of the Gospels and at the same time refer to passages being the words of Jesus. This is, because something is regarded as a recension does not mean it is totally at odds with some inaccessible original. If you look with care you will see what I mean in your own quote: 'The text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself'[/B] (Arnold, Islamic Faith, p. 9).

Nobody can claim this for the Bible as we very well know how passages are removed and edited quite freely, let alone the fact that the New Testament was authored over a century after Jesus's (alleged) death and that the authors of the Old Testament are shrouded in mystery, though of course that's a whole different topic altogether.

Of course they can claim that the Bible 'substantially corresponds' to what Jesus said, and most Biblical Scholars will say that. However, what you think about the Bible has no relevance to the authenticity of the Qu'ran - does it?

[Hugo]

Except less wasn't said, and I quote the Quran itself: 18:54 - 'THUS, INDEED, have We given in this Qur'an many facets to every kind of lesson [designed] for [the benefit of] mankind. However, man is, above all else, always given to contention'. The Quran itself has a comparable number of verses to the bible (if we are to go by volume and not quality) The Quran has 6236 verses whereas the bible has 7958

This is totally wrong, the Bible has about 30,000 verses, with a vocabulary of about 18,000 words so you appear to not know that the Bible contains old and new testaments.

If you allege that the Quran borrows from syriac and persian I am going to ask ask that you prove it. We don't take declamatory statements at face value here!

I said it borrows persian and syriac words and you surely must know that and cannot possibly believe that the Qu'ran is entirely made up of of pure Arabic words as if the language is an isolate?

It is really not, no one foreign or domestic has been able to capture the essence of the Quran in a comparable fashion to the Quran itself. If we are going by sheer linguistics alone and nothing else making it very impressive!

So no translation of the Qu'ran can capture its essence so the message is effectuvely hidden from the vast majority of people because God can only speak in 7th Centuary Arabic. English has available over a million different words so its is linguistically possible to capture its message and that cannot be denied. In my view the Arberry translation does this best as it tries to capture more than just the meanin g of verses though sometime his choice of English words makes the text a little obscure.

No other empire based on a religious book has been as successful as the successive Islamic empires until the last two hundred years or so of the Ottomans. History attests to this not me..Sharia'a is based on the Quran!

What do you mean by successful - empires sustained by conquest, oppression and slavery because that is what happened is it not?

As stated, that is your view.. for every subjective view you present I can find 10,000 to oppose it.. Of course you must understand that I've to take the 'intellectually' part with nothing more than a grain of salt for I can't possibly measure the intellect of someone who professes that a god can be born, suckle and die, choose ineffectual apostles and abrogate his commandments through his nemesis in high intellectual honors.
I'd perhaps hold your argument in better light it if were courtesy of an atheist but not a Christian!

Of course you can that is in the nature of subjectivity. If we measure intellect by what one believes then shall I now list what I consider total absurdities in Islamic doctrine and hence prove that you are intelectually inferior to me? The only Muslim Nobel Prize winner in physics is a Bah'i so is he intellectually deffective as well? What you say here is a consequence of your total subjectively with regard to Islam is it not? You keep referring to Christian doctrine and yet to me it is a perfectly logical description as to how God redeems us from sin - Islam has no such doctrine that will give any kind of assurance of heaven - but if you wish to discuss that then we need another thread.

Which top quality writing has influenced people more than the Quran? if you look at Shakespeare or a book on histology it ends with the area of interest it addresses. The Quran addresses everything governing man's spiritual and material life and for centuries and globally!

The Bible does that for a start and it outsells the Qu'ran by miles but no book can address everything can it.

Truth is a fact that can be verified, it has logic, ... the Quran as a self-evident truth ready for your testing, where it came from, its style, its content when subjected to history the region and in terms of reproducibility- and you so far haven't been able to establish how we are far from the truth especially given your brand of truth is so monolithic and can't be verifiable by logic.

I think your view of logic is simple, if it leads to your Islamic truth it is fine and everywhere else it is flawed. Let us take one example for the Qu'ran; 'where it came from', well let me see the logical steps you use to show that it came from God out of a guarded tablet in heaven via the angel Gabriel?

Forgive me I say this with utmost respect but how can I possibly regard anything you say as plausible when your own personal beliefs or what you propose as an alternative is so utterly absurd? Can man arrive to the existence of God by logic alone, absolutely, the same path that leads to non-belief is the same one that leads to strong belief, but I guarantee that no belief in pure form will lead to something like a three headed god, it is pure concoction of idle men!

I forgive you! Forgive me, I say this with utmost respect but how can I possibly regard anything you say as plausible when your own personal beliefs or what you propose as an alternative is so utterly absurd? Can you see the point now, I can logically account for what I believe but like you it will always rest on some unprovable premises about God. There is NO system that can have all its foundations as logically provable, even in mathematics as Godel showed and people like Turing made it even worse by showing that there is no way to know which conjectures can or cannot be proved. I am rather glad that God made things like that to keep us on the edge of certainty so we are always ready then to hear what he says.

.. in order for anything you say to have some merit, it has to be verifiable and not some mere conjectures thrown in the air as plausible, plus you have to account for them for every such event in the Quran, you have to establish a purpose for the existence of said verses why labor on allegedly borrowed text especially when it is greatly at odds and sure to lead to turmoil? you have to propose a method of integration of previous text if at all in the poetic style of the Quran in the span of years apart without computers of filing and a reason for the prophet to have done this plus have on the side a completely different text being the hadith, along with all other events that have occurred at the time as in why be in the desert and write a verse of the sea he'd never witnessed, and explain why with all of this he still died poor with his armor pawned to a Jew?

I don't have to account for anything in the Qu'ran I simply take it as a book. To me its obvious it inserts and changes Bible stories - why I cannot tell, can I prove Mohammed did it, no, can you prove he did not, no - its all about personal faith. Let us take you example about the sea - it is plausible he never witnessed it but it is equally plausible he heard plenty of sea stories. As I said, you are disposed to accept the supernatural and not simply accept that the Qu'ran records something about the sea and try to find out what God is saying in that section.

It isn't because I trust miller, it is because I am read and can reason and add more than one truthful variable to the formula before I concede to the obvious!

I am sure you can in general and that is what often makes me wonder why as soon as you see something about the miraculous nature nature of the Qu'ran you automatically accept it as if not to do so would be letting the side down. Miller almost never gives any references, even to the Qu'ran and when he does quote it he often inserts comments in brackets so to me he is unreliable. You would not accept it if Miller was peddling a cure for Arthritis and you saw no clear refs or evidence would you? A few years ago there were books about the so called Bible code and it was based on very sound mathematics and by using it you could extract all kinds of predictions but to me it was rubbish because you could do the same with Moby Dick or any book - do you see the point, anyone can go through any book and with an agenda find all sorts of proofs of all sorts of things and claim it is therefore supernatural.

What other logical verifiable explanation is there?

In the case of the Merchant Marine example from Miller's site I gave I think two other possible explanations. I also in an earlier post showed some of his other ideas so have other plausible explanations. Just because you or I can find no other plausible explanation does not mean there is no other.

.. you had once sent me a PM writing to consider when Abraham wandered in the land of Israel, I didn't comment on it at the time, but Israel is Jacob (p) who clearly came after Abraham, so how can he have wondered in a place that didn't exist Isra (el) to walk toward God, is a name given to a man not a place that had not yet come in existence? You see, I don't find your history itself to be accurate to find merit in the doubts you propose!

I am not sure I follow this but the history of the Jewish faith begins with Abraham and he according to the Bible wandered in Canaan or what also call the land of Israel. Jacob (meaning heel or leg-puller) was the son of Isaac so the grandson of Abraham and brother to Esau. Jacob was later named Israel (perservere with God) by God. So what on earth are you talking about as it is not beyond your understanding that a place, any place can be known by more than one name?

[Hugo]

I posted this in the Research Methods thread but oh reflection is seems useful here. I came across a very nice way of thinking about proof and falsification when reading Bill Bryson's book called 'Mother Tongue'. The root of the word proof comes from the word we use for 'test' and the idea of 'rules'. Now, in English we have a very common expression which says:

'The exception proves the rule'

But how can an exception prove a rule, surely, if there is an exception to the rule the rule does not work does it? The answer lies in the earlier meaning of 'prove' which was to test. Now things are clear, if we find an exception or what sounds like an exception then we can use it to test the rule and if it works for the exception then we can have a stronger sense of faith in the rule, our confidence is increased that the rule or theory is correct.

This is very like the idea of falsifiability, that is can we find a test (an exception) that would conclusively show the rule or theory to be false; because if there are no exceptions then we can with some degree of confidence accept the proposition, theory to be true.

For example, we have a conjecture that the Qu'ran is a literary master piece but I might find the following exceptions and if they cannot be accounted for then the conjecture fails.

1. I may suggest, the Qu'ran is said to be untranslatable and therefore it cannot be much of a masterpiece because its ideas cannot be shared unless one is fluent in 7th century Arabic.

2. I might say the vocabulary is tiny for a book of that size so it cannot be a masterpiece because the ideas it can convey must necessarily be limited.

3. I might argue that any decision on whether something is a masterpiece will rest on a set of criteria and therefore must be subjective so it is in effect impossible to decide.

[جوري]

This is totally wrong, the Bible has about 30,000 verses, with a vocabulary of about 18,000 words so you appear to not know that the Bible contains old and new testaments.

Not particularly fair to pad your resume a little when your god allegedly abrogated the OT statements, you can't be the wrathful vengeful god of the Israelites in the OT asking for the murder of women and children sparing the virgins and then by the same token by the self-sacrificial humble lamb of a God in the NT and have it be one book, especially that jews want to extricate themselves from your beliefs.. To them there is the Torah, mishna, talmud and whatever else their hands have offered but it surely doesn't include a self-immolating god, thus I fail to see why you insist in including all that in? The site is accurate for what your bible contains and it doesn't at all change the matter at all whatsoever.. more wordiness has done nothing for your religion except send it into a thousand sect all deeming the other heretical!

Furthermore, I have asked you to desist making an object of comparison between the Quran and the bible.. again, if anything it can be akin to, it would be the hadith and as I have stated before, even those have a chain of narration to support their validity that doesn't exist for the bible!

I said it borrows persian and syriac words and you surely must know that and cannot possibly believe that the Qu'ran is entirely made up of of pure Arabic words as if the language is an isolate?

Whatever words in existence were already in integration and used by the Arabs prior to the revelation of the Quran.. your choice of expression is shady!

So no translation of the Qu'ran can capture its essence so the message is effectuvely hidden from the vast majority of people because God can only speak in 7th Centuary Arabic. English has available over a million different words so its is linguistically possible to capture its message and that cannot be denied. In my view the Arberry translation does this best as it tries to capture more than just the meanin g of verses though sometime his choice of English words makes the text a little obscure.What do you mean by successful

God Chose the language that best preserves his word and obviously his judicial choice is noteworthy given that, the Quran is the only scriptural book in existence that remains as is since its revelation. You are yet to bring us scholars that agree on the actual spoken language of Jesus, let alone that what you allegedly have written down of him is what he actually said or did!
Also, who you view as the best translator is easily dismissed, since you actually have to speak Arabic to judge that point with any dexterity!

- empires sustained by conquest, oppression and slavery because that is what happened is it not?Of course you can that is in the nature of subjectivity. If we measure intellect by what one believes then shall I now list what I consider total absurdities in Islamic doctrine and hence prove that you are intelectually inferior to me? The only Muslim Nobel Prize winner in physics is a Bah'i so is he intellectually deffective as well? What you say here is a consequence of your total subjectively with regard to Islam is it not? You keep referring to Christian doctrine and yet to me it is a perfectly logical description as to how God redeems us from sin - Islam has no such doctrine that will give any kind of assurance of heaven - but if you wish to discuss that then we need another thread.

No, it isn't what happened, actually you describe christian conquests (crusades) and the middle ages more perfectly. The topic has been discussed here before, if you want to know how Islam spread then you may use the search feature, or read this amongst others:

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...amic%20history

It is logical for you that god would pray to himself, forsake himself to self-immolate so that you can have a cart Blanche to sin? That is very counter-intuitive to what life is like, let alone what one would expect from the one who created the most complex of tiny cells to the most massive orbiting stars!

Also, I'd refrain from the whole 'Nobel prize' thing if you have no desire to embarrass yourself publicly, firstly as you are grossly wrong, since there are several Egyptian sunni Muslims who won it, and secondly because the prize itself means nothing. The Muslims have as many 'prizes' as the chinese, go figure!
The sad thing that those who circulate the 'Nobel prize' fiasco are none but Jews since they are the most winners-- Jews have won in over 68% of all award years.. how does this reflect on Christians if we are to go by your enfeebled mentality? God obviously must favor the Jews over Christians? Jews makeup as much of the world population as sikhs yet they comprise 68% of Nobel winners... Amazing isn't it? You want to go down that route?

The Bible does that for a start and it outsells the Qu'ran by miles but no book can address everything can it.

I am not sure in which way it outsells? in the flatness of the earth or the death of god, or the ineffectualness of the apostles or the redemption of god's nemesis after the death of god to send the masses into confusion. In the abrogation of OT rules, in sinning because god paid for your sins?
I don't even have to be Muslim to see how it completely fails short to be anything but a concocted incongruous tales of idle men!

I think your view of logic is simple, if it leads to your Islamic truth it is fine and everywhere else it is flawed. Let us take one example for the Qu'ran; 'where it came from', well let me see the logical steps you use to show that it came from God out of a guarded tablet in heaven via the angel Gabriel?

Yes so? The fact that we have the inimitable Quran is a testament to that event, just as we don't need to see the bee to know where the honey came from from its consistency and taste!

Can you see the point now, I can logically account for what I believe but like you it will always rest on some unprovable premises about God. There is NO system that can have all its foundations as logically provable, even in mathematics as Godel showed and people like Turing made it even worse by showing that there is no way to know which conjectures can or cannot be proved. I am rather glad that God made things like that to keep us on the edge of certainty so we are always ready then to hear what he says.

I really can't see your point. Something at least circumstantial has to substantiate the claims. Even if mere history, you have two very poor accounts that Jesus even existed, let alone the account you ascribe to him. I don't even know where you begin to make a comparison?
witnesses to the Quran and its revelation are recorded and we have long chains of narrations, the most preserved history as early scholars recognized that importance, and the challenge of the Quran was posed to all and all have failed and will continue to! I am sick of going over that point, because you want me to see something that I know isn't true. Firstly as an Arabic speaker and secondly as having at least a minimum foundation in history!

I don't have to account for anything in the Qu'ran I simply take it as a book. To me its obvious it inserts and changes Bible stories - why I cannot tell, can I prove Mohammed did it, no, can you prove he did not, no - its all about personal faith. Let us take you example about the sea - it is plausible he never witnessed it but it is equally plausible he heard plenty of sea stories. As I said, you are disposed to accept the supernatural and not simply accept that the Qu'ran records something about the sea and try to find out what God is saying in that section.

You can take it any which way you want. I think a rather detailed history of its compilation and revelation has been elucidated. If you'd dismiss everything of it for what makes you feel better, then you are certainly so entitled. It has no bearing on the actuality or the nature of the Quran!

I am sure you can in general and that is what often makes me wonder why as soon as you see something about the miraculous nature nature of the Qu'ran you automatically accept it as if not to do so would be letting the side down. Miller almost never gives any references, even to the Qu'ran and when he does quote it he often inserts comments in brackets so to me he is unreliable. You would not accept it if Miller was peddling a cure for Arthritis and you saw no clear refs or evidence would you? A few years ago there were books about the so called Bible code and it was based on very sound mathematics and by using it you could extract all kinds of predictions but to me it was rubbish because you could do the same with Moby Dick or any book - do you see the point, anyone can go through any book and with an agenda find all sorts of proofs of all sorts of things and claim it is therefore supernatural.

No, I really don't see your point, I have two papers published and they bear my name and three other people I have worked with I haven't cited other sources in there because it was my work, I have listed what I have done and my results, when folks want to write of this particular subject matter they can cite me if they have opposing or similar views better elucidated or come up with their own pioneering on that particular matter and cite their own. He cites the Quran and explains its miraculous nature.. Rather than take a stab on the man who spent 20 years of his life studying the Quran, why not do exactly what he did and prove why he is wrong?
We are not talking about mathematical predictions here as the Quran explicitly tells us that the dates of the hour or major events belong with God! So again not only a poor comparison but of completely different nature to the subject matter, since Miller's book is a commentary on the verses of the Quran rather than a prediction peddler!

In the case of the Merchant Marine example from Miller's site I gave I think two other possible explanations. I also in an earlier post showed some of his other ideas so have other plausible explanations. Just because you or I can find no other plausible explanation does not mean there is no other.

Your explanations are worth nill. No one could have seen underlying currents in the deep sea with the technology of that date and lived to speak about it let alone integrate it in the Quran in its distinctive style furthermore a man who actually lived in the desert and produced two completely different types of work. Until such a time you can substantiate your claims, I ask you to desist with the heresy. I am not going to spend all day appeasing your ego of what you propose happened, when it has no basis in reality, in history or in the style of text we have whatsoever!
I am yet to see you also address the others, such as high altitude hypoxia etc and then reconcile it with a good reason as to why?
All of this to get people to believe in a monotheistic God and die penniless..
the problem with your conjectures, is that the more you make them, the less sense you make and I wonder if you realize that at all?

I am not sure I follow this but the history of the Jewish faith begins with Abraham and he according to the Bible wandered in Canaan or what also call the land of Israel. Jacob (meaning heel or leg-puller) was the son of Isaac so the grandson of Abraham and brother to Esau. Jacob was later named Israel (perservere with God) by God. So what on earth are you talking about as it is not beyond your understanding that a place, any place can be known by more than one name?

This isn't about Jewish faith or faith at all. It is about recorded history.. Abraham himself purchased a land from the canaanites to bury his wife Sarah, so tells us your bible in fact! so how can it be the 'Land of Israel' because of Abraham? who himself was an Arab middle easterner btw!

A religion that is most compatible with history and common sense is usually the one that is correct. One that doesn't have to change its words so that the inheritors aren't the ones God decreed, or make a glowing presentation of events that never took place at all!
A Quran that states the following either of those to whom it was revealed or the one bringing the message has nothing to hide:


وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُم مِّنَ الأَعْرَابِ مُنَافِقُونَ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مَرَدُواْ عَلَى النِّفَاقِ لاَ تَعْلَمُهُمْ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ سَنُعَذِّبُهُم مَّرَّتَيْنِ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَى عَذَابٍ عَظِيمٍ {101}
[Pickthal 9:101] And among those around you of the wandering Arabs there are hypocrites, and among the townspeople of Al-Madinah (there are some who) persist in hypocrisy whom thou knowest not. We, We know them, and We shall chastise them twice; then they will be relegated to a painful doom.



الأَعْرَابُ أَشَدُّ كُفْرًا وَنِفَاقًا وَأَجْدَرُ أَلاَّ يَعْلَمُواْ حُدُودَ مَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ وَاللّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ {97}
[Pickthal 9:97] The wandering Arabs are more hard in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be ignorant of the limits which Allah hath revealed unto His messenger. And Allah is Knower, Wise.


or a messenger that chastises himself in a book that should be in glowing praise of him?


[IMG]http://www.*************/Quran/bismillah.gif[/IMG] بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّى {1}
[Pickthal 80:1] He frowned and turned away
أَن جَاءهُ الْأَعْمَى {2}
[Pickthal 80:2] Because the blind man came unto him.
وَمَا يُدْرِيكَ لَعَلَّهُ يَزَّكَّى {3}
[Pickthal 80:3] What could inform thee but that he might grow (in grace)
أَوْ يَذَّكَّرُ فَتَنفَعَهُ الذِّكْرَى {4}
[Pickthal 80:4] Or take heed and so the reminder might avail him?



All the best!