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

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!

Let's get back on topic please.

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’?

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

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:
Shariah Law

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="2"][COLOR="Black"]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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye

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!

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Eliphaz

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.

Prove that the Qur'an IS the word of God

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

format_quote Originally Posted by 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:

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

format_quote Originally Posted by 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 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.

Greetings Eliphaz,

format_quote Originally Posted by 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 () 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

Greetings Hugo,

Thanks for your reply.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

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
Embryology in the Qur'an
http://www.quranicstudies.com/articl...mbryology.html

Ocean Phenomena:
Qur'anic desciption of the Ocean

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.

Greetings Eliphaz,

You will have to excuse yet another long post (see the note at the end).

format_quote Originally Posted by 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’?

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/Quran/Sources/BBparallel.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/comparative-religion/7938-problem-evil-temp-split-teog-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:
Borrowing theories

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
Embryology in the Qur'an
http://www.quranicstudies.com/articl...mbryology.html

Ocean Phenomena:
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:

Islam and Apostasy
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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Uthmān

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.

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.

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.

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.'

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

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.