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

The Qur'an, Bible or indeed Vedas do not have a monopoly on who or what God is. I see God every day in the beauty of the universe and in human compassion, I do not need a scripture, particularly one of the above, to tell me what God is.

I woulndn't waste my time reading your arguments about the Qur'aan.
1. The Qur'aan has the chain of authority that proves it original and that proves it being 1400 years old. There, your argument is chrashed especially knowng that the big bang is in the Qur'aan.

A book compiled over 23 years 1400 years ago being unchanged is a miracle. It's a silly argument to claim that it is not. Because this silly denial is in the argument against the Koran being miraculous, it makes me assume that the rest of your arguments are silly as well. You would be doing your brain a service to stop using this argument.

The Qur'aan is by God, a literall word of God. God had said enough about Himself but he hasn't described HOW he looks like. If God had willed, He woulds have revealed himself, but 99 beautiful names are sufficient. It makes me laugh when you say that there is nothing about God on who or what God is. Um, please visit Islamic qa and type in Who is Allah?

Moses is mentioned over 130 times in the Qur'an whilst Jesus a squat 25

This makes me laugh so hard. A single verse destroys your argument.
Say: "We believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham,
Isma`il, Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and in (Books) given to Moses, Jesus and the Prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between one and another among them and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)."
[Al-Qur'an 3:84]



Have you read the Qur'aan?

The Qur'aan is not a competition of Prophets(pbut). The verse that says that(Prophets(pbut) they are all equal to Allah. The Qur'aan refutes the stuff people made up in the holy books about some Prophets(pbut). They all had the same mission and there is a good link I can give you about their methology of calling to worship Allah only.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eliphaz

I am not an atheist. If my arguments are so poor and it is such an insult to yourself, then why do you waste your own time typing out long responses to them?

If you'll browse through my old posts you'll see that I have repeatedly asserted, I never reply back with a non-Muslim in mind. Doing work with high fidelity even if one were a mere shoe shine is a sign of a good Muslim!

You criticise me for responding to your copy-pasted essay when you decided to answer a post I had made earlier which was similarly not aimed at you!

I have answered you in both styles, neither which you've liked. Usually to assert a point folks reference to some other literature, that is what differentiates opinion from facts!

Your assertion that the 'Argument for Existence of Holy God' thread is an exclusively atheist thread just goes to show how you view the world in stark black and white: those who believe in God according to revealed scripture vs. those who are atheists. Well I believe in God but do not believe that He would be so short-sighted as to reveal scripture written in only one language to a world where people speak so many languages, and thus the margin for mistranslation (and thus misdirection) is so great. That is just for starters, as I hope you have gathered, for there are many, many other reasons why I do not agree with the Bible, Qur'an, Vedas, and what-ever-else have you.

You are free to your beliefs, it doesn't mean they have any basis in reality!
This particular grievance of yours was answered with great details, if you still hold on to the position of ignorance then the fault indeed lies with you not the efforts of folks here!

The Qur'an, Bible or indeed Vedas do not have a monopoly on who or what God is. I see God every day in the beauty of the universe and in human compassion, I do not need a scripture, particularly one of the above, to tell me what God is.

Whatever you tell yourself to get through this is fine with me. Test questions usually have more than one correct answer, but only one will score you a point!
Everything indeed has little truths in it!

I think Muslims on board clarified the Islamic position so that it is crystal. Anything beyond this is your own personal opinion and beliefs to which you are entitled!

all the best!

format_quote Originally Posted by Eliphaz

Sorry I think you misunderstood me. I am not saying the Qur'an was changed or tampered with in any way like the Bible. I have no problem agreeing that the chain or narration is accurate on the Qur'an as I have already said that Arabs were renowned for their ability to recollect information.

For a book to remained unchanged does not prove it is a miracle, if you would only allow yourself to realise this. If in 1400 years times a first-edition Harry Potter exists word-for-word somewhere in the world it would not make J.K. Rowling a Prophet. The Qur'an has survived because Arabic has survived and is still a spoken language, and as I said before, Islam owes more to Arabic than Arabic owes to Islam.

I know the Qur'an describes what Allah is like, particularly Surah Ikhlas, which I still find a beautiful surah because it appeals to any believer in God. It's just that once you get beyond that Allah and God become two irreconcilable beings to me.

For a book to remained unchanged does not prove it is a miracle, if you would only allow yourself to realise this.

If in 1400 years times a first-edition Harry Potter exists word-for-word somewhere in the world it would not make J.K. Rowling a Prophet. in 1400 years times a first-edition Harry Potter exists word-for-word somewhere in the world it would not make J.K. Rowling a Prophet.

Please do not compare
1. That was an if.

2.I've just realized that you're completely missing the point. The Qur'an claims to be the Word of God, i.e. He literally revealed those words as His. For this to be true, they cannot change once they've been revealed, otherwise they would no longer be the Words of God. The other scriptures you've mentioned don't necessarily claim to be the literal words of God (certainly not Buddhist sciptures) so being unchanged is of less importance. There is nothing miraculous about any particular text remaining unchanged for thousands of years. Presumably, if I wrote a fiction book today it would remain unchanged til the end of time. That's not miraculous. I don't need to provide evidence that the scriptures you mentioned have changed as they have no original manuscripts to verify. If you claim they are unchanged you certainly wouldn't be able to prove it. The Qur'an is the only scripture that has such a strong oral tradition from it's revelation and can prove that it is unchanged.

3. Stories and holy scriptures are completly different. Have the stories been memorized word for word?

4. The Qur'aan is not a book, remember. Yes

know the Qur'an describes what Allah is like, particularly Surah Ikhlas, which I still find a beautiful surah because it appeals to any believer in God. It's just that once you get beyond that Allah and God become two irreconcilable beings to me.

Beyond surah ikhlaas you don't need to know.

That would destroy the purpose of life. You want God to prove Himself through a scripture, reveal Himself through a scripture... That isn't how the most Knowledgeable does things. The Qur'aan says that God cannot be heard or seen by a human except through: Insirationin ( what I am experiencing. Hasn't the Qur'aan ever replied to something you very actually were thinking at the moment?), from behind a barrier(In the manner He spoke to Moses(pbuh), or by His sending a message through a Messanger revealing what He wills.

If you are so connected to the creation and the nature of Allah, than you should know this. The way the Qur'aan is composed is very, very different from the Bible or any other "book" out there. The Qur'aan is not a book. The Qur'aan is a form of poetry, pose, rhyme. Every verse in the Qur'aan rhymes with itself and the verses ouround it. The Qur'aan has two broad categories of verse: ones with clear concrete meanings, and ones with less- clear more anological and allegorical meanings. The important commands of Islam regarding its belief system, stories of the prophets(pbut) laws and commands are in clear verses. The allegorical verses speak about the creation of Allah. They are aregorical for many reasons.
1. To not prove Allah.

2. To study them. What does the Qur'aan mean? A recitation, or something studied. This is done by me. I read the Qur'aan, then observe the creation. Allah says I created the sky without any pillars holding it(my wording) then I look at the sky and witness that. Allah doesn't just say something, He also shows it. He doesn't say in the Qur'aan how He looks like, I can't see it.

I pondered over the universe with the help of the Qur'aan, and that is how I became a practicing Muslim. To me, it was all a joke about hell and paradise untill I read the Qur'aan. It is a beutiful experience I'll never ever forget.

I just realised that I can stand you better than the Christians.

format_quote Originally Posted by Rasema2

Please do not compare
1. That was an if.

2.I've just realized that you're completely missing the point. The Qur'an claims to be the Word of God, i.e. He literally revealed those words as His. For this to be true, they cannot change once they've been revealed, otherwise they would no longer be the Words of God. The other scriptures you've mentioned don't necessarily claim to be the literal words of God (certainly not Buddhist sciptures) so being unchanged is of less importance. There is nothing miraculous about any particular text remaining unchanged for thousands of years. Presumably, if I wrote a fiction book today it would remain unchanged til the end of time. That's not miraculous. I don't need to provide evidence that the scriptures you mentioned have changed as they have no original manuscripts to verify. If you claim they are unchanged you certainly wouldn't be able to prove it. The Qur'an is the only scripture that has such a strong oral tradition from it's revelation and can prove that it is unchanged.

3. Stories and holy scriptures are completly different. Have the stories been memorized word for word?

4. The Qur'aan is not a book, remember. Yes

Beyond surah ikhlaas you don't need to know.

That would destroy the purpose of life. You want God to prove Himself through a scripture, reveal Himself through a scripture... That isn't how the most Knowledgeable does things. The Qur'aan says that God cannot be heard or seen by a human except through: Insirationin ( what I am experiencing. Hasn't the Qur'aan ever replied to something you very actually were thinking at the moment?), from behind a barrier(In the manner He spoke to Moses(pbuh), or by His sending a message through a Messanger revealing what He wills.

If you are so connected to the creation and the nature of Allah, than you should know this. The way the Qur'aan is composed is very, very different from the Bible or any other "book" out there. The Qur'aan is not a book. The Qur'aan is a form of poetry, pose, rhyme. Every verse in the Qur'aan rhymes with itself and the verses ouround it. The Qur'aan has two broad categories of verse: ones with clear concrete meanings, and ones with less- clear more anological and allegorical meanings. The important commands of Islam regarding its belief system, stories of the prophets(pbut) laws and commands are in clear verses. The allegorical verses speak about the creation of Allah. They are aregorical for many reasons.
1. To not prove Allah.

2. To study them. What does the Qur'aan mean? A recitation, or something studied. This is done by me. I read the Qur'aan, then observe the creation. Allah says I created the sky without any pillars holding it(my wording) then I look at the sky and witness that. Allah doesn't just say something, He also shows it. He doesn't say in the Qur'aan how He looks like, I can't see it.

I pondered over the universe with the help of the Qur'aan, and that is how I became a practicing Muslim. To me, it was all a joke about hell and paradise untill I read the Qur'aan. It is a beutiful experience I'll never ever forget.

I just realised that I can stand you better than the Christians.

Thank you. I am glad someone is not lumping me into the usual 'munafiq' or 'mushriq' categories for I am neither a hypocrite or a polytheist, nor am I one of the 'ahl al kitab'.

Yes, I agree, beyond Surah Ikhlas we do not need to know any more! Why can't we leave the other 113 Surahs out!* To me the pure monotheism, the five pillars of Islam are what makes it such an attractive faith to remain in (or convert to for Christians/Jews). But if I think of those five pillars as the ground floor and everything else as ancillary floors, it is these extra floors which are actually reducing the structural integrity of Islam in my opinion. If it had just been five pillars, pure and simple, then Islam would have had a much stronger position.

I believe that everyone has a predisposition towards either belief or disbelief, and that nothing can ultimately change that. It is, I feel a combination of parent religion, life experience and stubborness one way or the other!

I am, I suppose, like Abu Sufyan, who at first, when the Muslims were marching upon Makkah to take it over, arrived and was only able to say 'La illaha illallah', but could not finish it. If that makes me one of the people who will be punished forever then at least I know I was honest to myself. As Thomas Paine said:

'Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe.'

*Yes I am aware this can and will never happen.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eliphaz

Thank you. I am glad someone is not lumping me into the usual 'munafiq' or 'mushriq' categories for I am neither a hypocrite or a polytheist, nor am I one of the 'ahl al kitab'.

Yes, I agree, beyond Surah Ikhlas we do not need to know any more! Why can't we leave the other 113 Surahs out!* To me the pure monotheism, the five pillars of Islam are what makes it such an attractive faith to remain in (or convert to for Christians/Jews). But if I think of those five pillars as the ground floor and everything else as ancillary floors, it is these extra floors which are actually reducing the structural integrity of Islam in my opinion. If it had just been five pillars, pure and simple, then Islam would have had a much stronger position.

I believe that everyone has a predisposition towards either belief or disbelief, and that nothing can ultimately change that. It is, I feel a combination of parent religion, life experience and stubborness one way or the other!

I am, I suppose, like Abu Sufyan, who at first, when the Muslims were marching upon Makkah to take it over, arrived and was only able to say 'La illaha illallah', but could not finish it. If that makes me one of the people who will be punished forever then at least I know I was honest to myself. As Thomas Paine said:

'Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe.'

*Yes I am aware this can and will never happen.

I'll admit that I didn't understand you. English isn't my first language. But I would like to thank you for asking us about Islam in such a polite way. It is important to always hear the other side too. You must realise that, I remember that verse which says "What if this Qur'aan is true...?" Ask yourself that. You wouldn't harm yourself accepting it but you would rejecting it.


Allah did not create a second of this life in vain. He gave you hearing and sight to seek the truth and to accept the truth superior to all other theories and speculations. We sin all throughout the day and our creator still provides us life. He didn't throw us on Jupiter, Mars or any other planet, but planet Earth. All you have to do is live in His name, fear, love and Hhope in Him. Balance these three things.

Why can't we leave the other 113 Surahs out!*

We don't believe that Islam is merly a religion. We believe that Islam is the way in which our creator wants us to live our lives. Islam doesn't belong to us, it belongs to Allah. We simply try to live our lives in the way that we think would please God while avoiding anything that displeases Him.

the Qur'aan is not an easy thing to read but it is to memorize and recite. God sent Muhammad,sallallahu alahi wa salam) to make Islam clear to us. If the Qur'aan was clear than there would be other books like it. And if Allah explianed everything that is permitted and forbidden the Qur'aan would be 10 times its size. So Muhammad(saws) is the Qur'an. The prophet Muhammad was a living example of the Qur'an's teachings and he was sent by Allah to convey, and to explain in detail, the words of Allah. Instead, He revealed things in the Qur'an based on His wisdom, and He sent prophet Muhammad to explain the rest.



Paradise is a consequence of earning the pleasure of Allah. Hell fire is the consequence of earning His displeasure.

Any of us Muslims are capable of going either way. We are not"saved" just because we are Muslim. I fast m
Mondays and Thursdays, pray extras, and I still don't know my final destination. I am not suposed to tell people this due to the fact that we are supposed to conceal the good about ourselves as we do the bad.

It is not Allah who excudes you out of Islam. It is you who either chooses the way, then it is up to Allah to nake your result in Hell fire. We Muslims don't exclude you nor make you enter fire.
Those who never heard of Islam will be tested on the judgement day werhet to enter paradise or not.

Islam is has a belief system (6) and an action system (5). This is the major stuff for those who are either poor or wealthy. But for those with wealth they are obligated to seek knowledge of Islam, men and women, from catle to grave.

I believe that everyone has a predisposition towards either belief or disbelief, and that nothing can ultimately change that. It is, I feel a combination of parent religion, life experience and stubborness one way or the other!

You mean that you believe that one attains their religion either through heredity or environment, or both?

If so, there is a verse which says that Allah knows what each womb carries. We do not believe that it is luck that one is born as a Muslim. We don't believe in luck, we believe Allah's will. So even if it is genetic, it is Allah's will. Allah could have made us a single race and religion, but He wants to test us. I know you heard that many times...
He gave us freewill to choose submittion only to Him, not His creation. Who do you love more?

format_quote Originally Posted by Rasema2

I don't need to provide evidence that the scriptures you mentioned have changed as they have no original manuscripts to verify. If you claim they are unchanged you certainly wouldn't be able to prove it. The Qur'an is the only scripture that has such a strong oral tradition from it's revelation and can prove that it is unchanged.

This seems to be a proof that the Qu'ran is not authentic since there is no original copy in existence. In any case, if we wanted to strictly prove authenticity we would have to go back to the authors original and again for the Qu'ran that is not accessible is it?

I just realised that I can stand you better than the Christians.

Not sure what this last line means - you hate Christians?

Greetings Eliphaz,

format_quote Originally Posted by Eliphaz

Apologies for the delay in getting back.

No problem... it can be difficult keeping up with large discussions like this.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to spit up the discussion into its respective topics. I think we really have four ‘proof’ areas: stories of the prophets, historic predictions, scientific agreement and irreproducibility of the Qur’an. If it is okay with you I think we can drop the issue of the Qur’an’s beautiful-sounding recitation, which is clearly a subjective argument and is neither here nor there as far as divine origin is concerned.

It is incorrect to say we have only "four proof areas" because earlier I gave a list of 13 miraculous facets of the Qur'an, none of which have been rebutted. If we are focusing on just a few for the sake of ease, that's different.

As for the euphonious quality of the Qur'an, it is also unacceptable to brush it aside as being merely subjective, because it is something very easy to appreciate even for non-Arabs and non-Muslims, as their accounts clearly illustrate. There are also the accounts of the tremendous effect on the community in which the Qur'an was revealed. Moreover, both you and Hugo are repeatedly making the mistake of singling one facet out as proof for divine origin, when in reality the miraculous nature of the Qur'an is not by any one of its unique facets only but rather all of them in combination, as I said at the outset.

As the last one is the only one the Qur’an itself proclaims as its own self-evidence, (which of course is a circular logic) but I just want to say something about that one first.

It isn't a matter of self-evidence, rather it is a challenge that has been unmet and therefore serves as a real evidence.

It seems that in relying on accounts from the 7th century we are forced to deal with such weak villains as Musalymah. But you have argued the he is not a straw-man before pretty much defining him as such, by saying that his ‘unsophisticated’ attempt is ‘example of how anyone trying to imitate the Qur'an is guaranteed to be met with a wretched failure.’

From Wikipedia:

I think it is pretty much conclusive that Musalymah is a straw man. His lyrics about elephants and wabrs are perfectly ridiculous enough to be knocked down by even the most simple-minded of people, and one can’t help but feel that was the reason they were recorded. If there is any definition of a straw-man then Musalymah fits it, as do many other Makkans fit typical two-dimensional roles in the story of the Prophet where they either miraculously convert or spectacularly shoot an intellectual own goal.

I'm afraid I still do not see how the example of Musaylimah is a strawman. If I understand correctly, for him to be a strawman, one would have to establish that he didn't exist. Or, from the definition you quoted from Wikipedia, I would have to misrepresent your argument or the original position, which I don't recall having done. But simply because Musaylimah's attempt looks ridiculous does not mean his example is an invalid one.

Furthermore, Musaylimah lived amongst the people who were the most proficient in language, therefore the time period should produce the strongest opponents. Although his lyrics might seem silly, looking at the Arabic might help to demonstrate what he was doing. His attempt was clearly modelled after the opening verses of Sûrah al-Qâri`ah or Sûrah al-Hâqqah. Yet, his superficial imitation was not even convincing to the idol worshipper of that time.

The fact of the matter is that if anyone succeeded in meeting the Qur'an's challenge, surely their attempt would have been publicised instantly, no? The Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) contemporaries were severe enemies who spared no effort in trying to stop him from completing his mission. Bearing this in mind, the argument that there was some kind of historical bias does not hold.

Lastly, let us not forget that Musaylimah is only an example being used here. Whether you accept him or not has little bearing on this issue. The fact that the Qur'an is inimitable is very evident for all to see.

The famous Arabist from University of Oxford, Hamilton Gibb was open upon about the style of the Qur'an. In his words:

...the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle, and with remarkable boldness and self confidence Mohammad appealed as a supreme confirmation of his mission to the Koran itself. Like all Arabs they were the connoisseurs of language and rhetoric. Well, then if the Koran were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not), then let them accept the Koran as an outstanding evident miracle.[8]

And in some other place, talking about the Prophet(P) and the Qur'an, he states:

Though, to be sure, the question of the literary merit is one not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of Arabic language; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep-toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammad did.[9]

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...acle/ijaz.html

Secondly, on to the more serious discussion of Prophetic stories and how they got there, I agree that the theories cannot all be true for a given case. But that does mean that none of them are true. It is simply a case of probability, as we have no records other than what the very limited information on the Prophet’s early life tells us. Point 2 was only intended for the ‘new’ stories of ‘Ad, Thamud and ‘Iram. I agree that it was more difficult for the stories of say, Moses to be made up.

But the problem with your argument is that the probability becomes more and more insignificant the more we examine the facts. Regarding the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) early life, the following sums it up quite well (from my previous post):

3. Muhammad(P) was raised among his people and every aspect of his life was exposed to them, especially by the openness that characterises tribal life in the desert. How could the multitudes of his contemporaries, including many of his close relatives who knew him so well, how could they believe in his truthfulness if they had any doubt that he was claiming credit for ideas taught to him by some other teachers without bothering to give them credit ?

So once we consider all the aspects, such as the truthfulness and integrity of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) well known to the very people who later opposed him, together with the unfeasibility of the borrowing theory as expanded earlier, it becomes impossible to come to any other conclusion than the Qur'an was divine in origin.

Regarding the remarkableness of the ‘Ad and Thamud stories, I guess this is more a matter of personal conviction, as I am sure many would find these stories, far from being inspirational or remarkable, to be harrowing examples of mass-murder.

It is far beyond personal conviction. The problem seems to be the manner in which you are approaching the Qur'an. The historical information stated in the Qur'an is not meant to teach history but is meant for much more than that. The stories found in the Qur'an contain very important lessons and admonitions. The essential aspect is not searching for the missing facts that are not mentioned in the Qur'an - what the Qur'an contains is sufficient. The essential aspect is to study what the Qur'an states and to understand what the lessons and messages of those stories are.

When Allaah (swt) punishes people, that is through His justice and wisdom. And in the punishment of the evil people that preceded us is a great example, proof and reminder for the rest of mankind.

And indeed We have destroyed towns (populations) round about you, and We have (repeatedly) shown (them) the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in various ways that they might return (to the truth and believe in the Oneness of Allah ـ Islamic Monotheism). [46:27]



Regarding the video by Abdul Raheem Green, I haven't watched it myself and I'm not really in a position to comment on it. But there was one area that overlapped with something I mentioned in my previous post, which was details that could not have been known by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)/not mentioned in the Bible. None of that has been commented on.

What it comes down to is this: Muhammad probably couldn’t read or write, but he didn’t have to. He probably didn’t study the Bible or Torah directly, but he didn’t have to. Coming from a story-telling tradition and mingling with Christian and Jewish traders during more than thirty years of trade in the Hijaz and further (if you deny he encountered these peoples before the Qur’an came you are ignoring historical facts), Muhammad just had to edit out the parts which didn’t make sense to him. As Green himself says (paraphrasing) 'all the accounts we have do not give us any information (as to how Muhammad found this information)'. All I can repeat is that old saying by Churchill: 'History is written by the victors.'

By repeating this, you have ignored all the arguments against this in my previous post. Moreover, it is contradictory. How could Muhammad (peace and blessings of Alaah be upon him) "edit out" anything when he couldn't read and write? To edit something, you first need to read and understand it, and then you need to write the new version. Although the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went on trade journeys, that is nowhere near sufficient evidence of being taught by Jews and Christians. If we say there was a certain period in his life during which he went on trade journeys, that doesn't mean he was on trade journeys the whole time. And as for the actual journeys, it seems he was often doing business for other people, hence he wouldn't be making much profit if all he was doing was mingling with Jews and Christians.

This is only the tip of the icerberg. There are countless other unanswered questions.

From what I've seen in your posts, it appears that you are very quick in jumping from one weak theory to another. There is no solid argument against the ones that have been presented, only conjecture that keeps changing. I would advise that you re-consider your stance on the Qur'an and Islam and study it with the proper approach. The only logical conclusion that can be arrived at in the end is that Islam is the truth and the Qur'an is the Book of Allaah (swt).

Peace.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eliphaz

Let's look at the facts. Moses is mentioned over 130 times in the Qur'an whilst Jesus a squat 25

What we learn about Moses in the Qur'an corroborates the Old Testament account on the main points. What we learn about Jesus is mainly about his birth, ascension, and almost nothing in between but a few miracles. I remember reading the Qur'an actually looking forward to information on Jesus's life not just the beginning and end of it and a rattled-off list of miracles in between. Muhammad's predecessor, the guy who would come back to fight Dajjal and all that? Let's face it, Jesus is severely underrepresented in the Qur'an compared to almost every other Prophet, which raises some questions of how Muhammad really knew about him other than the 'highlights' as compared to Moses's or Yusuf's lives, where we are treated to fairly detailed accounts.

Whenever Jesus is mentioned it is usually just a case of reprimanding Christians for setting up sons of God. It seems there is more interest in telling off the naughty Christians than actually telling us what Jesus was like as a person.

As I said above, "the problem seems to be the manner in which you are approaching the Qur'an. The historical information stated in the Qur'an is not meant to teach history but is meant for much more than that. The stories found in the Qur'an contain very important lessons and admonitions. The essential aspect is not searching for the missing facts that are not mentioned in the Qur'an - what the Qur'an contains is sufficient. The essential aspect is to study what the Qur'an states and to understand what the lessons and messages of those stories are."

I think this pretty much answers your post.

EDIT - Note that there is some further information about Jesus in the Hadeeth. And the fact that the Qur'anic presentation of Jesus is very different to that found in the Bible, it further weakens the borrowing theory.

Hugo,

I fail to understand why you continue to rebut a school girl who is clearly banned?


all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

You've said two different things here and both cannot be correct at the same time: either the Qur'an stands out from all other books in literary merit, or it is merely similar to them. I don't really see how you can form an opinion about this without actually analysing the text of the Qur'an for yourself and comparing it to other books - clearly, in a discussion being held in English, we are very limited in appreciating this aspect of the Qur'an.

I think you will find that I said I accept the view by Arabic experts that the Qu'ran has high literary merit - that does not mean I accept it as from God. I as you know can only read it in English and its high literary quantity does not seem to come through - at least to me. I just need some clarification from you to be sure we are on the same wavelength. When you speak of the Qu'ran standing out from other books do you just mean that in terms of its own time an context or do you mean any book in existence or any book yet to be written?

However, even for a non-Arab, it is still possible to realise that the Qur'an's language and style is one of the strongest aspects of its miraculous nature. By looking at the impact that the eloquence of the Qur'an had on its first listeners, we gain a clear picture of the standard of the Qur'an in comparison to anything that the masters of language ever heard. They couldn't find any fault with it nor explain how an illiterate man could have produced it, nor could they produce anything like it themselves. They were in the best position to disprove the Qur'an's literary merit above all other work, yet they failed miserably.

I am not sure your first sentence is correct - I have listened to Qu'ranic recitation and I say this without meaning any disrespect, but it invariably it sounds mournful and colourless to me but that maybe because my homeland is steeped in words and music and its language is soft and melodious by nature. In terms of the eloquence we know the Qu'ran has a very small vocabulary with 80% of its covered by just 600 different words. One wonders what 'master' of language would say about a book with such a limited vocabulary? It perhaps is not surprising that they could not reproduce it because that really seems to be the norm not the rule in literature. One can make a huge list of authors who even though we have all their works and endless books on their works no one can create anew what they created.

This, together with all the other sciences of the Qur'an, clearly shows that the Qur'an is a divine revelation from God. Remember that the miraculous nature of the Qur'an is not by any single aspect (e.g the Qur'an's language and style) only, rather it is due to all its facets simultaneously.

You have a point but this is all circumstantial evidence and you are discounting anything that might negate what you say. What I find most odd in all this is that for a Christian all these so called 'proofs' is so alien an idea because they are taken up wholly by what the Bible means, what is God saying?

It cannot be denied that there are scientific references in the Qur'an and this is a feature of its miraculous nature. When understood in the light of modern science, it gives a deeper appreciation of the meaning. So if something can be understood in further detail and provides further evidence of the truth of the Qur'an, surely we can say that there is a bearing on meaning as opposed to none whatsoever?

Of course it can be denied and there are numerous refutations even in this thread of supposed scientific facts. I am not opposed to the idea that the Qu'ran should agree with science. For example, the Genesis story of creation agrees with current scientific understanding but when one visits some sites every word or nuance in the Qu'ran has a miracle in there somewhere and its just become to me nonsense.

On one hand you have the basic fact that translation cannot capture exactly and perfectly all the subtleties and nuances associated with the beauty of the original verse, while on the other hand you have the fact that the message and teachings expounded in that scripture are universal in that they can be, and are practiced and understood by people from any background, as the Qur'an trancends culture, nationality, ethnicity and every other superficial barrier which divides human beings. No other system of laws has been introduced sucessfuly and implemented by peoples across different continents and cultures.

Yes but I would say the same for the Bible and that cannot be denied. You have a system of laws but as you must know most of them are not in the Qu'ran are they and were added later into the body of law.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

I think you will find that I said I accept the view by Arabic experts that the Qu'ran has high literary merit - that does not mean I accept it as from God. I as you know can only read it in English and its high literary quantity does not seem to come through - at least to me. I just need some clarification from you to be sure we are on the same wavelength. When you speak of the Qu'ran standing out from other books do you just mean that in terms of its own time an context or do you mean any book in existence or any book yet to be written?

1- Ok
2-That is your prerogative
3-خير الكلام ما قل و دل ( it is a little known fact that to be adept you must accomplish great feats with the fewest words possible) why use 50 words to describe something that you can in two?

for instance. in suret An'nazi'at..
two words وَالنَّازِعَاتِ غَرْقًا are translated into Pickthal 79:1] By those who drag forth to destruction,
can only denote, that the deficiency lies in English not in Arabic!
4- What I understand is you'd rather have quantity over quality?
5- In terms of a book that should be of guidance to mankind, establishing the basics in Politics, economics, social structure, spiritual needs, psychological needs and transcendence.. Again, entire empires were founded based on that one book!

I am not sure your first sentence is correct - I have listened to Qu'ranic recitation and I say this without meaning any disrespect, but it invariably it sounds mournful and colourless to me but that maybe because my homeland is steeped in words and music and its language is soft and melodious by nature. In terms of the eloquence we know the Qu'ran has a very small vocabulary with 80% of its covered by just 600 different words. One wonders what 'master' of language would say about a book with such a limited vocabulary? It perhaps is not surprising that they could not reproduce it because that really seems to be the norm not the rule in literature. One can make a huge list of authors who even though we have all their works and endless books on their works no one can create anew what they created.

1- Again, subjective and with prior bias, many people have been known to convert just out of listening to Quranic recitations, the fact that it on its own can stand (establishing all mentioned in paragraph one) without the need of fillers on the side makes it superior not only in addressing spiritual/emotional needs but establishing itself as a complete way of life!

further, you don't recognize the influence of the Qur’aan being revealed on seven ahruf:
According to the laws behind combinatorics, the probability of a word occuring a specific number of times in the text decreasing as the text grows longer, as the number of possibilites increases rapidly. That means if you took a book that was 20 000 pages, and the word night was mentioned exactly as many times as day, it would be far more astonishing than if you found the same thing in a single page report. Also, if the word repetitions are small, then there is a greater chance that it was intentionally done that way. But if the repetition number is bigger, it is practically impossible.
Prove that the Qur'an IS the word of God

so you are right, it can not be repeated because no human is able to reproduce it and still have it be a coherent piece covering all the afore mentioned!

You have a point but this is all circumstantial evidence and you are discounting anything that might negate what you say. What I find most odd in all this is that for a Christian all these so called 'proofs' is so alien an idea because they are taken up wholly by what the Bible means, what is God saying?

I think it is a mere question of logic.. what a christian accepts is based on emotionality not even as far as the Quran is concerned but as far as the bible being in agreement with itself!

It cannot be denied that there are scientific references in the Qur'an and this is a feature of its miraculous nature. When understood in the light of modern science, it gives a deeper appreciation of the meaning. So if something can be understood in further detail and provides further evidence of the truth of the Qur'an, surely we can say that there is a bearing on meaning as opposed to none whatsoever?

The science mentioned in the Quran isn't meant to establish a discipline in a particular field, rather, these are the signs of the Lord.. in other words, if the God of the Quran takes credit for what he created by telling you plainly what is in concert with science not in opposition of it.

Of course it can be denied and there are numerous refutations even in this thread of supposed scientific facts. I am not opposed to the idea that the Qu'ran should agree with science. For example, the Genesis story of creation agrees with current scientific understanding but when one visits some sites every word or nuance in the Qu'ran has a miracle in there somewhere and its just become to me nonsense.

The refutations aren't solid they are conjectural rather than having adequate evidence and thus can be easily dismissed!

Yes but I would say the same for the Bible and that cannot be denied. You have a system of laws but as you must know most of them are not in the Qu'ran are they and were added later into the body of law.

The bible can't be made to compare with the Quran, if anything at all of Islamic literature it can be compared with, it is the hadith, but even so, the hadith has a chain of narration with which one can sort through what is correct and what can be dismissed, such isn't at all the case with the bible, which fails to stand on its own accord, and doesn't claim to be from God because simply it isn't!

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Uthmān

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 (Post 209) from my earlier post and I would appreciate your comments.

I have commented on this video by Mr Green before and one of its failings is that we get almost no clear references to anything he says; so everywhere we find things like 'a man said, students at Cambridge did.. a book by a German author...' and so on. Anyway, I will comment on his talk about Joseph and Moses and the essence of what he says; essentially his argument is that Prophet Mohammed could not have known certain things so therefore the Qu'ran must in some way be supernatural. I don't find this at all compelling as to me its seem to turn the Prophet of Islam into someone who seems to have seen nothing, heard nothing and experienced nothing and somehow any knowledge he did have was from God - it simply is not a credible presumption. I will try to deal with his points in turn.

1. He talks about hieroglyphs and the Rosetta stone and by a roundabout argument implies that the word for a kind of quarry manager is used in the Qu'ran and was used in Egypt in the time of Moses but it was only recently discovered to be an Egyptian term, Prophet Mohammed could not have know it at the time, so ipso facto it must have come from God. Buts this hold no water for firstly in a recent book by Ehsan Masood (Science and Islam) it is suggested that the Cops might have partially deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphs long before Islam and indeed their work might have given rise to the Arabic scripts itself and was certainly used by later Islamic scientists. So the term might well have been know, well known at the time of the Prophet.

2. Secondly, Joseph rose to be viceroy when Egypt was dominated by the Hyksos - meaning 'foreign chiefs' and was applied to Asiatic invaders by the Pharaohs of the middle kingdom. The Hyksos were of Semitic stock and so were closely akin to the Hebrews and ruled Egypt from about 1690 to 1580BCE and it is plausible historically that Joseph arrived in Egypt about this time. So Pharaohs and Hyksos kings existed at the same time and fought against one other and the fact the Bible says King and the Qu'ran say Pharaoh only conform what we know and what would have been known everywhere so there is nothing special or miraculous here. The Hyksos were eventually expelled from Egypt in the 18th dynasty or around 1550BCE and Egypt became indisputably he greatest power of its day.