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

On the issue of preservation:

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

I think you miss the point, 'original' to who, there is no available original is there so it is not a complete chain of authority. Dr Al_Azami in his book, 'the History of the Qu'ranic text' on page xxi in the preface says '...[thanks to] the people behind the Madina Mushaf for printing the most accurate Qu'ranic text in the world'. So if words mean anything there must be millions of texts out, going back 1,400 years there that are not accurate.

It appears you are not very familiar with the preservation of the Qur'an. If one researches this aspect of the Qur'an, there will be no doubt in his mind that the Qur'an that is present today is the same Qur'an that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught to his Companions. What you quoted from Dr Al Azami's book might be referring to something else - perhaps you need to consider the context in which it is found. But to think there are "millions" of inaccurate texts of the Qur'an is absurd. The following sheds more light on the issue:

Originally posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

One fallacy that many people commit in discussing the preservation of the Qur'an is ignoring its oral and educational tradition, focusing merely on the textual. The Qur'an is a living text, in that its recitation forms an integral part of the daily religious practice of each and every muslim in the world. The Imam recites from the Qur'an in the congregational prayers, and during Ramadan every year the entire Qur'an is recited from cover to cover in each mosque by the Imam from memory. Now let's take the example of the Holy Mosque in Makkah where literally millions of worshippers congregate during the prayers in Ramadan. Standing in that congregation there are countless thousands who have memorized the Qur'an and have come from every corner of the world and many more thousands who follow along with a pocket Qur'an. Even the slightest mispronunciation of a vowelization mark is instantly corrected.

Muslims everywhere memorize the Qur'an, many millions memorizing the entire Qur'an from cover to cover, such that Huffaadh (singl. Hafidh - one who has memorized the entire Qur'an by heart) are ubiquitous within the muslim community. It is not uncommon nor surprising to find children even as young as six or seven or younger who have completed their memorization of the entire Qur'an. If all the books in the entire world were to be lost or destroyed, only the Qur'an would be recovered letter for letter as it is preserved in the hearts of so many millions.

As far as the textual history goes, I'd like to mention a few points. The criteria used in the compilation of the Qur'an was that for each verse there had to be at least two witnesses, each of whom having not only memorized the verse (since practically all the companions had memorized the Qur'an) but had with them the parchment on which they recorded the verse in the presence of the Prophet himself. Uthman ordered the writing of several other copies of the text and sent them to the major cities, each accompanied with a knowledgeable recitor from amongst the companions to teach the people...

Moreover:

In fact, the vast majority of non-muslim orientalists, many of whom were quite hostile and quite vehement in their attacks on Islam, have yet agreed that the Qur'anic text is unaltered (note: obviously since they are non-muslim they will refer to the Qur'an as the words of Muhammad saws).

'This Text of the Qur'an is the purest of all works of alike antiquity' (Wherry, Commentary on the Koran, I. p. 349).

'Othman's recension has remained the authorised text from the time it was made until the present day' (Palmer, The Qur'an, p. lix).

'The text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself' (Arnold, Islamic Faith, p. 9).

'All sects and parties have the same text of the Qur'an' (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 18).

'It is an immense merit in the Kuran that there is no doubt as to its genuineness That very word we can now read with full confidence that it has remained unchanged through nearly thirteen hundred years' (LSK., p.3)

'The recension of 'Othman has been handed down unaltered. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text' (Muir, Life of Mohammed, pp. XXII-XXIII).

'In the Kuran we have, beyond all reasonable doubt, the exact words of Mohammed without subtraction and without addition' (Bosworth Smith, Mohammamed and Mohammedanism, p. 22)

'The Koran was his own creation; and it lies before us practically unchanged from the form which he himself gave it' (Torrey, Jewish Foundations of Islam, p.2).

'Modern critics agree that that the copies current today are almost exact replicas of the original mother-text as compiled by Zayd, and that, on the whole, the text of the Koran today is as Muhammad prodcued it. As some Semitic scholar remarked, there are probably more variations in the reading of one chapter of Genesis in Hebrew than there are in the entire Koran' (Hitti, History of the Arabs, p. 123).

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

The point is that the smaller your vocabulary the less you can say simply because there will be no words to use - why do you think the Qu'ran borrows so freely from Persian and Syriac? It also calls into question these so called 'masters of language' if their mastery could only cover the number of words a child might know.

Except less wasn't said, and I quote the Quran itself:

18:54
THUS, INDEED, have We given in this Qur'an many facets to every kind of lesson [designed] for [the benefit of] mankind. However, man is, above all else, always given to contention:
The Quran itself has a comparable number of verses to the bible (if we are to go by volume and not quality) The Quran has 6236 verses whereas the bible has 7958
http://www.deafmissions.com/tally/bkchptrvrs.html


and look at the mass confusion those 7000+ verses have caused?

If you allege that the Quran borrows from syriac and persian I am going to ask ask that you prove it. We don't take declamatory statements at face value here!

This is obviously a silly argument, this if its anything is a deficiency of the translator not English.

It is really not, no one foreign or domestic has been able to capture the essence of the Quran in a comparable fashion to the Quran itself. If we are going by sheer linguistics alone and nothing else making it very impressive!

No you miss the point, if ones vocabulary is small then there are some things you cannot say because you have no words or even collections of words to say them.

See my above comment!

But other empires were created on other books/idea so this is no argument for anything special about the Qu'ran or indeed any other book. If it is as comprehensive as you say it is why do you need Sharia and the rest of it?

No other empire based on a religious book has been as successful as the successive Islamic empires until the last two hundred years or so of the Ottomans. History attests to this not me..
Sharia'a is based on the Quran!

Of course its subjective, any judgement has to be and the fact that people have been converted by listening to it means nothing because the same can be said about the Bible or the communist manifesto. I have read the Qu'ran many time but it does not satisfy me emotional. spiritually or intellectuality so it is not superior in my view and at the same time one can find millions of Christians or Buddhist who will use the very same totally subjective argument you are using.

As stated, that is your view.. for every subjective view you present I can find 10,000 to oppose it.. Of course you must understand that I've to take the 'intellectually' part with nothing more than a grain of salt for I can't possibly measure the intellect of someone who professes that a god can be born, suckle and die, choose ineffectual apostles and abrogate his commandments through his nemesis in high intellectual honors.
I'd perhaps hold your argument in better light it if were courtesy of an atheist but not a christian!

This sounds like a muddle to me because it must be dependent to some degree on the word itself. Can you be a bit more precise as to which bit of combinatorics you are talking about?

I think the law is self-explanatory. I can't substitute expressions used for lesser ones, for you to be able to take it down to a lower common denominator!

But my point was this applies to almost all top quality writing not just to the Qu'ran

Which top quality writing has influenced people more than the Quran?
if you look at Shakespeare or a book on histology it ends with the area of interest it addresses. The Quran addresses everything governing man's spiritual and material life and for centuries and globally!

You like many others get muddled over logic because you fail to understand how the emotions work and how without them you cannot make judgements. You see your problem is that you think that if you list criteria then after that its a matter of logic but that is far from the truth and until you understand that you will never appreciate that always with faith there are issues.

Truth is a fact that can be verified, it has logic, as doyle stated...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. We have the Quran as a self-evident truth ready for your testing, where it came from, its style, its content when subjected to history the region and in terms of reproducibility-- and you so far haven't been able to establish how we are far from the truth? especially given your brand of truth is so monolithic and can't be verifiable by logic, by recorded history or even by comparison to other Abrahamic religions. Forgive me I say this with utmost respect but how can I possibly regard anything you say as plausible when your own personal beliefs or what you propose as an alternative is so utterly absurd?
Can man arrive to the existence of God by logic alone, absolutely, the same path that leads to non-belief is the same one that leads to strong belief, but I guarantee that no belief in pure form will lead to something like a three headed god, it is pure concoction of idle men!

That is what YOU are saying because that is what you are programmed to say, in this thread many so called scientific elements has been shown to be weak or non existent. Look at the huge post you gave from Gary Miller's site where he gives hardly any references and treats the Prophet as if he heard nothing, saw nothing and experienced nothing. Take his first example about 'merchant marine' (no other information) and argues that the bits about the sea in the Qu'ran could only come from God but never considers any other possibilities such as people on the trade routes passing on sea stories or knowing about the Greek sea myths that were in wide circulation. NO, you trust in Miller not me or even your own natural scepticism - can you see my point, you have no criticality and often if it feels like you have to accept all these things else you let Islam down.

possibilities have to have some semblance of reality in them not concocted nonsense.. in order for anything you say to have some merit, it has to be verifiable and not some mere conjectures thrown in the air as plausible, plus you have to account for them for every such event in the Quran, you have to establish a purpose for the existence of said verses why labor on allegedly borrowed text especially when it is greatly at odds and sure to lead to turmoil? you have to propose a method of integration of previous text if at all in the poetic style of the Quran in the span of years apart without computers of filing and a reason for the prophet to have done this plus have on the side a completely different text being the hadith, along with all other events that have occurred at the time as in why be in the desert and write a verse of the sea he'd never witnessed, and explain why with all of this he still died poor with his armor pawned to a Jew?
It isn't because I trust miller, it is because I am read and can reason and add more than one truthful variable to the formula before I concede to the obvious!

But so are the so called miracles - there is NO way to know that God planted those words to take on a Gary Miller explanation

What other logical verifiable explanation is there?

What kind of argument is this as there are hundreds of things that cannot be compared to the Qu'ran; this sounds like clutching at straws. All we have here is your statement - have you even considered Abraham - he had nothing but God's call, no book of any kind.

None of the messengers had books until books were revealed unto them..
Abraham had what we call Suhuf (according to the Quran)


إِنَّ هَذَا لَفِي الصُّحُفِ الْأُولَى {18}
[Pickthal 87:18] Lo! This is in the former scrolls.
صُحُفِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُوسَى {19}
[Pickthal 87:19] The Books of Abraham and Moses.

*****

BTW, you had once sent me a PM writing to consider when Abraham wandered in the land of Israel, I didn't comment on it at the time, but Israel is Jacob (p) who clearly came after Abraham, so how can he have wondered in a place that didn't exist Isra (el) to walk toward God, is a name given to a man not a place that had not yet come in existence? You see, I don't find your history itself to be accurate to find merit in the doubts you propose!

all the best!

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

It appears you are not very familiar with the preservation of the Qur'an. If one researches this aspect of the Qur'an, there will be no doubt in his mind that the Qur'an that is present today is the same Qur'an that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught to his Companions. What you quoted from Dr Al Azami's book might be referring to something else - perhaps you need to consider the context in which it is found. But to think there are "millions" of inaccurate texts of the Qur'an is absurd. The following sheds more light on the issue:

I am familiar with preservation but based on what you have written I am not sure you understand the difficulties or the meaning of some of the words used in your quotations. To begin with, Dr Al Azami may have been talking about something else but what was it if words are to have any meaning?

One fallacy that many people commit in discussing the preservation of the Qur'an is ignoring its oral and educational tradition, focusing merely on the textual....

I think you are missing the points.

1. The original Qu'ran according to Islamic doctrine is in heaven so it is not accessible so you whole faith rests on one man and what he said happened. I mean no disrespect here I am simply stating the facts.

2. You keep saying that verses were written down immediately but this did not happen right from the start did it and NONE of those written verses have been preserved. Also you have to explain why it was necessary to make an official copy and distribute it as well as destroy what existed if what existed was unchanged and never had changed.

3. If what you say is true then there must be somewhere lets call it an official copy that is used to put it simply by the printers. Or to use Dr Al Azami again, what did the people who prepared this 'most accurate Quranic text' use to get it - surely you are not suggested they did it from memory?

4. As far as I can see all you have is a tradition that say the verses were recorded but no documentary evidence at all from the prophets time. The companions might have had the 'parchment' as you say but we don't have any of that now do we and as far as I know none of Uthman's metropolitan copies still exists?

'Othman's recension has remained the authorised text from the time it was made until the present day' [/B](Palmer, The Qur'an, p. lix).

'The text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself'[/B] (Arnold, Islamic Faith, p. 9).

'The recension of 'Othman has been handed down unaltered. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text'[/B] (Muir, Life of Mohammed, pp. XXII-XXIII).

Recension is the practice of editing or revising a text based on critical analysis so here Palmer, Arnold and Muir are only saying what they might have said about the Bible or any other ancient text so they are not saying its unchanged they are saying it was changed. The best you can say is that you have Uthamns edited copy nothing more but as I said earlier - where is one such copy.

Greetings Hugo,

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 wasn't implying you accept it as being from God... anyhow, I think I now understand what you meant.

I just need some clarification from you to be sure we are on the same wavelength. When you speak of the Qu'ran standing out from other books do you just mean that in terms of its own time an context or do you mean any book in existence or any book yet to be written?

The Qur'an stands out from any book written or yet to be written. It will remain an evidence of the truth to guide people until the end of time. And this is because the message of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was not for a specific people at his time as with previous prophets, rather it was a message for the whole of mankind and hence the Qur'an is a permanent miracle free from the constraints of time and place.

I am not sure your first sentence is correct - I have listened to Qu'ranic recitation and I say this without meaning any disrespect, but it invariably it sounds mournful and colourless to me but that maybe because my homeland is steeped in words and music and its language is soft and melodious by nature.

We weren't simply talking about the sound of the Qur'anic recitation here, though it may be related. My main point was the impact that the Qur'an had on its first listeners and what we can learn from this as regards its unique nature.

As for the sound of the Qur'anic recitation, it has a unique euphonious quality to it. There is a whole science dedicated to the Qur'an's correct recitation such that every letter has rights and dues of characteristics. As someone on a blog put it,"the pronunciation of letters, the degrees in tones, nasalization and the different qualities are so well documented in Arabic that the script comes together as a well-defined, well-oiled machine." In this way, anyone who has studied the Qur'an will quickly see how profound and unique it is.

Furthermore, the beautification of the Qur'an with one's voice (whilst observing the rules of its recitation) will vary from reciter to reciter, depending on the differing characteristics that will naturally occur in their voices and the way they use them. This means that if there was one voice you didn't like, there are probably thousands of others that you can listen to. So for example, although two different people will be following the same set of rules in reciting the Qur'an, their recitations might sound very different in terms of the way they use their natural voices to beautify it (which btw is not meant to be overdone so as to turn it into a musical melody).

You can browse the following thread to get a better idea of what I mean: http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-multimedia/1533-exceptional-recitations-45.html

In terms of the eloquence we know the Qu'ran has a very small vocabulary with 80% of its covered by just 600 different words. One wonders what 'master' of language would say about a book with such a limited vocabulary?

This is completely irrelevant and does not detract in any way from the status of the Qur'an. Who is to say what number of different words is sufficient? I am sure you will appreciate that the literary excellence of a work goes far beyond the number of different words used. Moreover, you forget that many linguists and orientalists have highlighted how the Qur'an exemplifies the peak of literary beauty. If your point had any weight whatsoever, I am sure the scholars of language would have pounced on it long ago. Furthermore:

The failure of those at the peak of their trade - mastery of the Arabic language - to rival the Qur’an which challenged them should make one think. So too should the differing reactions the Qur’an received from those best placed to challenge its origin. Gibb states,

"Well then, if the Qur’an were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not) then let them accept the Qur’an as an outstanding evidential miracle."

Schact describes the nature of the Qur’anic style,

"The Koran was also a linguistic document of incomparable importance. It was viewed as a source of grammatical and lexicographical information. Its stylistic inimitability not-withstanding, it even came to be treated as a standard for theories of literary criticism."

As H. Abdul-Raof said,

"Scholars, linguists and Arabists need a sound linguistic competence in Classical Arabic but also an advanced
knowledge in Arabic syntax and rhetoric in order to appreciate the complex linguistic and rhetorical patterns of
Qur’anic structures. Most importantly he or she must refer to the major exegeses in order to derive and provide
the accurate underlying meaning of a Qur’anic expression, preposition or particle."

It perhaps is not surprising that they could not reproduce it because that really seems to be the norm not the rule in literature. One can make a huge list of authors who even though we have all their works and endless books on their works no one can create anew what they created.

The reason for your statement is due to a very superficial understanding of how the Qur'an is unique. However, further research and study into the Qur'an will allow one to quickly appreciate how the Qur'an is incomparable to any other work. For instance, the Qur’an does not fall into any of the known forms of Arabic but is instead a totally unique expression. The form of its language cannot be described as prose or poetry. It is like a category of its own in Arabic composition. Furthermore, there are many literary and linguistic devices that render it stylistically distinct.

H A R Gibb. states:

“As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, having
neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming the
inimitability not only of its contents but also of its style….. and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the
expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose1 in which
all the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.”

For more information about this, please see:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ijaz.html

http://www.theinimitablequran.com/fivemajorarguments.html

You have a point but this is all circumstantial evidence and you are discounting anything that might negate what you say.

Circumstantial how? If there is something to negate the proof of the Qur'an, you are welcome to bring it forth.

What I find most odd in all this is that for a Christian all these so called 'proofs' is so alien an idea because they are taken up wholly by what the Bible means, what is God saying?

And I have already mentioned that the guidance contained in the Qur'an is its true purpose. Even in the message itself there is a uniqueness in terms of its comprehensiveness, consistency, universality etc. (as mentioned earlier). The Qur'an is unique from every facet one approaches it, and it is only a matter of which facet you want to discuss. So if we are focusing on the literary aspect of the Qur'an, that doesn't mean we are disregarding any of its others, including its message.

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

We're not talking about every single site out there as obviously there are sites for both Christians and Muslims that are not representative of authentic teachings. I'm talking about established scientific facts where no distortion is necessary, and it is these that cannot be denied.

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

Actually, it is easily denied for the Bible. The Qur'an is by far the most widely followed and acted-upon book in the world. As for the Bible, most Christians follow the Church over the Bible, and each denomination has its own bible anyway. The fact that there is no other book in the world that forms the constitution of the lives of billions of followers is itself a sign.

Moreover, the laws of Islam were perfected during the lifetime of the Messnger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The sources of Islamic legislation are both the Qur'an and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him. Thus, for one to determine the ruling on any particular issue it entails sound knowledge of both these sources.

Peace.

P.S. As for your statement:

why do you think the Qu'ran borrows so freely from Persian and Syriac?

This has been answered here:

http://www.theinimitablequran.com/foreignwords.pdf

To conclude, claims made by some critics are debased by understanding the nature of languages and
how they naturalise foreign words into their vocabulary. This phenomenon happens as a result of
different cultures and races integrating and coming together. Furthermore the Qur’an can be described as
'plain Arabic' because the foreign words in the Qur’an had already been naturalised and were already
part of the Arabic language before revelation.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

To begin with, Dr Al Azami may have been talking about something else but what was it if words are to have any meaning?

Perhaps it would help if you quoted the whole sentence to begin with.

1. The original Qu'ran according to Islamic doctrine is in heaven so it is not accessible so you whole faith rests on one man and what he said happened. I mean no disrespect here I am simply stating the facts.

What you are saying is a gross misunderstanding of the facts. There is no such thing as different versions of the Qur'an as anyone who has looked into the matter knows.

The very first stage in the revelation of the Qur'an is that it was written in what is known as the Preserved Tablet, which is with Allaah (swt). This is the Tablet upon which is written all of the things that will happen from the creation of the heavens and the earth until the end of time. Therefore, included in the Preserved Tablet is the text of the Qur'an. During the final stage of the revelation process, the angel Gabriel would then bring those portions of the Qur'an which Allaah (swt) commanded him to bring, in a gradual revelation occurring over a period of 23 years. So any notion of an "original" Qur'an being inaccessible is completely baseless.

Furthermore, the possibility that the revelation of the Qur'an might have been tampered with during the revelation process is ruled out by Allaah (swt) so that no doubt can remain regarding its authenticity. For example, the trustworthiness of Gabriel has been guaranteed by Allaah (swt) in the Qur'an, and it also mentions a severe punishment for forging any revelation. One can also consider the character and integrity of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who was chosen by Allaah (swt) to be the recipient of the Qur'an. If he would never lie about any small issue even before prophethood, then with greater reason he would never lie against Allaah (swt). There are many other reasons why the notion that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah) lied in any aspect is an irrational one. We would have to hold a separate discussion to go into detail.

2. You keep saying that verses were written down immediately but this did not happen right from the start did it and NONE of those written verses have been preserved. Also you have to explain why it was necessary to make an official copy and distribute it as well as destroy what existed if what existed was unchanged and never had changed.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his Companions had a great concern for the preservation of the Qur'an and they did this both orally and textually. It should be noted that the Arabs had a very strong oral tradition; as knowledge of reading and writing was minimal, most of their history and poetry was passed on orally and because of this, they became well known for their strong memories. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the primary method of transmission of the Qur'an has always been and always will be oral. So regardless of when the Qur'an first began to be written down and that none of the original loose fragments exist today, this is completely inconsequential considering how diligently its knowledge has been preserved.

Let us look at some examples of the way that the Qur'an was preserved and checked to ensure absolute authenticity. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to be fearful of forgetting the verses that Gabriel recited to him, so he would repeat the verses even before Gabriel had finished. Allaah (swt) then revealed, to reassure him,

Move not your tongue concerning (the Qur'an, O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) to make haste therewith. It is for Us to collect it and to give you the ability to recite it. [Al-Qiyaamah: 16-17]

He would also spend large portions of the night reciting the Qur'an and the Companions were constantly hearing it from him in prayers. There was a great concern in teaching the Qur'an amongst the Muslims and the Companions would recite and memorise as much of the Qur'an as possible - some of them completing the entire Qur'an in a week! Moreover, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) made sure that the Qur'an was written down and he would check that it was written correctly by commanding it to be read back to him. Furthermore, The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would recite the whole Qur'an to the angel Gabriel every year and the angel would also recite it back to him. During the year that he died, he recited it to Gabriel twice and heard it twice. By the time the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) passed away, the entire Qur'an had been memorised by many of the Companions and existed in written form, but it had not been compiled between two covers.

Regarding the compilation of the Qur'an in the time of Uthman and destroying of unofficial copies, that was done in response to the inauthentic recitations that newcomers to Islam, who were ignorant of the Arabic of the Qur'an, were reciting. He wished to unite the Muslims on the proper recitation of the Qur'an and therefore ordered the eradication of all other 'mushafs' (copies of the Qur'an) so that the people would have only one mushaf in their hands.

...Uthman ordered the writing of several other copies of the text and sent them to the major cities, each accompanied with a knowledgeable recitor from amongst the companions to teach the people. When Uthman ordered that all other copies/parchments be either burned or erased it was because such copies were neither verified nor authorized under the consensus of the companions and consequently they could be written according to a specific dialect which would lead to confusion and bickering or they could even contain the odd scribal error which could also lead to confusion. When Uthman destroyed the unauthorized parchments it was a preventative measure to ensure that alterations of God's revelation would never take place.

3. If what you say is true then there must be somewhere lets call it an official copy that is used to put it simply by the printers. Or to use Dr Al Azami again, what did the people who prepared this 'most accurate Quranic text' use to get it - surely you are not suggested they did it from memory?

4. As far as I can see all you have is a tradition that say the verses were recorded but no documentary evidence at all from the prophets time. The companions might have had the 'parchment' as you say but we don't have any of that now do we and as far as I know none of Uthman's metropolitan copies still exists?

As I mentioned above, the primary method of transmission is orally. Each generation of Muslims learns the Qur'an from the previous generation, and this chain continues back until the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). And in each generation, so many people narrated it that there is no question of its authenticity. One only has to consider the countless thousands of Muslims across the world today who have memorised the entire Qur'an, not differing by a single letter in their recitation. This is a clear evidence that the Qur'an has been preserved throughout the centuries.

Furthermore, there exist at least two mushafs that are reputed to be official Uthmanic mushafs. Even if they are not originals (and this is very difficult to disprove), they are at worst copies of the original, since the style of the writing conforms to the first few decades after the hijrah.

Recension is the practice of editing or revising a text based on critical analysis so here Palmer, Arnold and Muir are only saying what they might have said about the Bible or any other ancient text so they are not saying its unchanged they are saying it was changed. The best you can say is that you have Uthamns edited copy nothing more but as I said earlier - where is one such copy.

You misunderstand - Uthman was not editing verses in or out of the Qur'an, rather he was preserving the original text of the Qur'an. These quotes from non-Muslims might not use the best words, considering they they refer to the Qur'an as the words of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but nevertheless they acknowledge the Qur'an's authenticity. If you read Arnold's quote again, you will see that his idea of recension is quite different to yours, because if he thought the Qur'an had been "edited", it wouldn't correspond to the "utterances of Muhammad himself":

'The text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself' (Arnold, Islamic Faith, p. 9).

Nobody can claim this for the Bible as we very well know how passages are removed and edited quite freely, let alone the fact that the New Testament was authored over a century after Jesus's (alleged) death and that the authors of the Old Testament are shrouded in mystery, though of course that's a whole different topic altogether.

Peace.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

Perhaps it would help if you quoted the whole sentence to begin with.

The full quote is as follows from Dr Al-Azami's book (ISBN 9781872-531656) page xxi

"And there are still others who deserve special recognition: The King Faisal Foundation for nominating me as their visiting professor to Princeton University, the Princeton Seminary for proving a kaleiderscipope of rich materials for this book, and the people behind the Madina Mashaf for printing the most accurate Qu'ranic text in the world."

I leave you to ponder what this means but the words are plain enough and frankly nothing else is reasonable for any ancient text. There was a thread some time ago that discussed this book and it may be worth re-opening it as it is pertinent to what we are saying here.

What you are saying is a gross misunderstanding of the facts. There is no such thing as different versions of the Qur'an as anyone who has looked into the matter knows. The very first stage in the revelation of the Qur'an is that it was written in what is known as the Preserved Tablet, which is with Allaah (swt). This is the Tablet upon which is written all of the things that will happen from the creation of the heavens and the earth until the end of time. Therefore, included in the Preserved Tablet is the text of the Qur'an. During the final stage of the revelation process, the angel Gabriel would then bring those portions of the Qur'an which Allaah (swt) commanded him to bring, in a gradual revelation occurring over a period of 23 years. So any notion of an "original" Qur'an being inaccessible is completely baseless.

The only ref I know to the tablet (Arberry Translation) is in 85:20 and I am not aware of it being used in this context in the hadith but I am no expert there. As far as I can tell the same word is use for the way Moses was given the 10 Commandments so one presumes that is how we are to take the guarded tablet. But my point was and I state it again:

1. The tablet is NOT accessible now is it so it cannot be checked so how can my claim be baseless plus the fact that you have no textual copies from the time of the prophet. I don't know how you understand this term as meaning an actual book of sorts in heaven or it is just a kind of analogy for what God knows?
2. We have one man's word that these portions are from God and of course it amounts to a circular argument to say the Qu'ran confirms itself.
3. If we take Uthman's recension then that was at least 6 years after the prophet's death and again if the text was absolutely preserved why was it necessary to have an official copy?
4. One final point, is that if this is some kind of eternal book then why does it need to have temporal features and so many abrogations?

Furthermore, the possibility that the revelation of the Qur'an might have been tampered with during the revelation process is ruled out by Allaah (swt) so that no doubt can remain regarding its authenticity. For example, the trustworthiness of Gabriel has been guaranteed by Allaah (swt) in the Qur'an, and it also mentions a severe punishment for forging any revelation. One can also consider the character and integrity of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who was chosen by Allaah (swt) to be the recipient of the Qur'an. If he would never lie about any small issue .....

This is what you believe but it cannot be shown in any strict logical sense to be true or false, it is outside rationality. If you accept the premise that God exists and that he spoke to the Prophet of Islam etc etc then for you it is true but it is a matter of personal faith and what I suppose we should call circumstantial evidence, nothing more

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his Companions had a great concern for the preservation of the Qur'an and they did this both orally and textually. It should be noted that the Arabs had a very strong oral tradition; as knowledge of reading and writing was minimal, most of their history and poetry was passed on orally and because of this, they became well known for their strong memories.

One hears this argument often but to me it is not convincing and one wonders about other claims you made about the Quraish being 'masters of the language' if their knowledge was as you say 'minimal'

It should be no surprise, therefore, that the primary method of transmission of the Qur'an has always been and always will be oral. So regardless of when the Qur'an first began to be written down and that none of the original loose fragments exist today, this is completely inconsequential considering how diligently its knowledge has been preserved.

If you dismiss negative arguments as inconsequential then that is matter for you but of course the same route is now open to me to refute any argument you use.

Regarding the compilation of the Qur'an in the time of Uthman and destroying of unofficial copies, that was done in response to the inauthentic recitations that newcomers to Islam, who were ignorant of the Arabic of the Qur'an, were reciting. He wished to unite the Muslims on the proper recitation of the Qur'an and therefore ordered the eradication of all other 'mushafs' (copies of the Qur'an) so that the people would have only one mushaf in their hands.

But this must be a contradiction because now you seem to be saying that the oral tradition failed so it had to be written down as an official copy and then people trained to recite it so to me this sounds like there was a muddle at the beginning not the orderly recitation and recording you often speak of

...Uthman ordered the writing of several other copies of the text and sent them to the major cities, each accompanied with a knowledgeable recitor from amongst the companions to teach the people. When Uthman ordered that all other copies/parchments be either burned or erased it was because such copies were neither verified nor authorized under the consensus of the ...

You seem to be agreeing with me here, what did Uthman COPY from as you imply there were all sorts of copies in circulation and so using your words he, one supposes, had to decide which one to use - consensus was needed. What you have now may be what Uthman constructed but you cannot it seems to be go backwards from that because then you have to explain why all these different copies were floating about.

Furthermore, there exist at least two mushafs that are reputed to be official Uthmanic mushafs. Even if they are not originals (and this is very difficult to disprove), they are at worst copies of the original, since the style of the writing conforms to the first few decades after the hijrah.

Yes, but where are they? For example one often hears about the Medellson Article on the Tshkent Koran but if you read the article all they actually had was what we would call to day a photocopy and it was not a complete Qu'ran even then etc

You misunderstand - Uthman was not editing verses in or out of the Qur'an, rather he was preserving the original text of the Qur'an. These quotes from non-Muslims might not use the best words, considering they they refer to the Qur'an as the words of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but nevertheless they acknowledge the Qur'an's authenticity. If you read Arnold's quote again, you will see that his idea of recension is quite different to yours, because if he thought the Qur'an had been "edited", it wouldn't correspond to the "utterances of Muhammad himself":

It is not MY idea, the term 'recension' is a well used an understood term and I stated what it means accurately. A scholar can easily speak about a 'recension' and say these are the words of Mohammed much the same way that Biblical Scholars will speak about recension's of the Gospels and at the same time refer to passages being the words of Jesus. This is, because something is regarded as a recension does not mean it is totally at odds with some inaccessible original. If you look with care you will see what I mean in your own quote: 'The text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself'[/B] (Arnold, Islamic Faith, p. 9).

Nobody can claim this for the Bible as we very well know how passages are removed and edited quite freely, let alone the fact that the New Testament was authored over a century after Jesus's (alleged) death and that the authors of the Old Testament are shrouded in mystery, though of course that's a whole different topic altogether.

Of course they can claim that the Bible 'substantially corresponds' to what Jesus said, and most Biblical Scholars will say that. However, what you think about the Bible has no relevance to the authenticity of the Qu'ran - does it?

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye

Except less wasn't said, and I quote the Quran itself: 18:54 - 'THUS, INDEED, have We given in this Qur'an many facets to every kind of lesson [designed] for [the benefit of] mankind. However, man is, above all else, always given to contention'. The Quran itself has a comparable number of verses to the bible (if we are to go by volume and not quality) The Quran has 6236 verses whereas the bible has 7958

This is totally wrong, the Bible has about 30,000 verses, with a vocabulary of about 18,000 words so you appear to not know that the Bible contains old and new testaments.

If you allege that the Quran borrows from syriac and persian I am going to ask ask that you prove it. We don't take declamatory statements at face value here!

I said it borrows persian and syriac words and you surely must know that and cannot possibly believe that the Qu'ran is entirely made up of of pure Arabic words as if the language is an isolate?

It is really not, no one foreign or domestic has been able to capture the essence of the Quran in a comparable fashion to the Quran itself. If we are going by sheer linguistics alone and nothing else making it very impressive!

So no translation of the Qu'ran can capture its essence so the message is effectuvely hidden from the vast majority of people because God can only speak in 7th Centuary Arabic. English has available over a million different words so its is linguistically possible to capture its message and that cannot be denied. In my view the Arberry translation does this best as it tries to capture more than just the meanin g of verses though sometime his choice of English words makes the text a little obscure.

No other empire based on a religious book has been as successful as the successive Islamic empires until the last two hundred years or so of the Ottomans. History attests to this not me..Sharia'a is based on the Quran!

What do you mean by successful - empires sustained by conquest, oppression and slavery because that is what happened is it not?

As stated, that is your view.. for every subjective view you present I can find 10,000 to oppose it.. Of course you must understand that I've to take the 'intellectually' part with nothing more than a grain of salt for I can't possibly measure the intellect of someone who professes that a god can be born, suckle and die, choose ineffectual apostles and abrogate his commandments through his nemesis in high intellectual honors.
I'd perhaps hold your argument in better light it if were courtesy of an atheist but not a Christian!

Of course you can that is in the nature of subjectivity. If we measure intellect by what one believes then shall I now list what I consider total absurdities in Islamic doctrine and hence prove that you are intelectually inferior to me? The only Muslim Nobel Prize winner in physics is a Bah'i so is he intellectually deffective as well? What you say here is a consequence of your total subjectively with regard to Islam is it not? You keep referring to Christian doctrine and yet to me it is a perfectly logical description as to how God redeems us from sin - Islam has no such doctrine that will give any kind of assurance of heaven - but if you wish to discuss that then we need another thread.

Which top quality writing has influenced people more than the Quran? if you look at Shakespeare or a book on histology it ends with the area of interest it addresses. The Quran addresses everything governing man's spiritual and material life and for centuries and globally!

The Bible does that for a start and it outsells the Qu'ran by miles but no book can address everything can it.

Truth is a fact that can be verified, it has logic, ... the Quran as a self-evident truth ready for your testing, where it came from, its style, its content when subjected to history the region and in terms of reproducibility- and you so far haven't been able to establish how we are far from the truth especially given your brand of truth is so monolithic and can't be verifiable by logic.

I think your view of logic is simple, if it leads to your Islamic truth it is fine and everywhere else it is flawed. Let us take one example for the Qu'ran; 'where it came from', well let me see the logical steps you use to show that it came from God out of a guarded tablet in heaven via the angel Gabriel?

Forgive me I say this with utmost respect but how can I possibly regard anything you say as plausible when your own personal beliefs or what you propose as an alternative is so utterly absurd? Can man arrive to the existence of God by logic alone, absolutely, the same path that leads to non-belief is the same one that leads to strong belief, but I guarantee that no belief in pure form will lead to something like a three headed god, it is pure concoction of idle men!

I forgive you! Forgive me, I say this with utmost respect but how can I possibly regard anything you say as plausible when your own personal beliefs or what you propose as an alternative is so utterly absurd? Can you see the point now, I can logically account for what I believe but like you it will always rest on some unprovable premises about God. There is NO system that can have all its foundations as logically provable, even in mathematics as Godel showed and people like Turing made it even worse by showing that there is no way to know which conjectures can or cannot be proved. I am rather glad that God made things like that to keep us on the edge of certainty so we are always ready then to hear what he says.

.. in order for anything you say to have some merit, it has to be verifiable and not some mere conjectures thrown in the air as plausible, plus you have to account for them for every such event in the Quran, you have to establish a purpose for the existence of said verses why labor on allegedly borrowed text especially when it is greatly at odds and sure to lead to turmoil? you have to propose a method of integration of previous text if at all in the poetic style of the Quran in the span of years apart without computers of filing and a reason for the prophet to have done this plus have on the side a completely different text being the hadith, along with all other events that have occurred at the time as in why be in the desert and write a verse of the sea he'd never witnessed, and explain why with all of this he still died poor with his armor pawned to a Jew?

I don't have to account for anything in the Qu'ran I simply take it as a book. To me its obvious it inserts and changes Bible stories - why I cannot tell, can I prove Mohammed did it, no, can you prove he did not, no - its all about personal faith. Let us take you example about the sea - it is plausible he never witnessed it but it is equally plausible he heard plenty of sea stories. As I said, you are disposed to accept the supernatural and not simply accept that the Qu'ran records something about the sea and try to find out what God is saying in that section.

It isn't because I trust miller, it is because I am read and can reason and add more than one truthful variable to the formula before I concede to the obvious!

I am sure you can in general and that is what often makes me wonder why as soon as you see something about the miraculous nature nature of the Qu'ran you automatically accept it as if not to do so would be letting the side down. Miller almost never gives any references, even to the Qu'ran and when he does quote it he often inserts comments in brackets so to me he is unreliable. You would not accept it if Miller was peddling a cure for Arthritis and you saw no clear refs or evidence would you? A few years ago there were books about the so called Bible code and it was based on very sound mathematics and by using it you could extract all kinds of predictions but to me it was rubbish because you could do the same with Moby Dick or any book - do you see the point, anyone can go through any book and with an agenda find all sorts of proofs of all sorts of things and claim it is therefore supernatural.

What other logical verifiable explanation is there?

In the case of the Merchant Marine example from Miller's site I gave I think two other possible explanations. I also in an earlier post showed some of his other ideas so have other plausible explanations. Just because you or I can find no other plausible explanation does not mean there is no other.

.. you had once sent me a PM writing to consider when Abraham wandered in the land of Israel, I didn't comment on it at the time, but Israel is Jacob (p) who clearly came after Abraham, so how can he have wondered in a place that didn't exist Isra (el) to walk toward God, is a name given to a man not a place that had not yet come in existence? You see, I don't find your history itself to be accurate to find merit in the doubts you propose!

I am not sure I follow this but the history of the Jewish faith begins with Abraham and he according to the Bible wandered in Canaan or what also call the land of Israel. Jacob (meaning heel or leg-puller) was the son of Isaac so the grandson of Abraham and brother to Esau. Jacob was later named Israel (perservere with God) by God. So what on earth are you talking about as it is not beyond your understanding that a place, any place can be known by more than one name?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

This is totally wrong, the Bible has about 30,000 verses, with a vocabulary of about 18,000 words so you appear to not know that the Bible contains old and new testaments.

Not particularly fair to pad your resume a little when your god allegedly abrogated the OT statements, you can't be the wrathful vengeful god of the Israelites in the OT asking for the murder of women and children sparing the virgins and then by the same token by the self-sacrificial humble lamb of a God in the NT and have it be one book, especially that jews want to extricate themselves from your beliefs.. To them there is the Torah, mishna, talmud and whatever else their hands have offered but it surely doesn't include a self-immolating god, thus I fail to see why you insist in including all that in? The site is accurate for what your bible contains and it doesn't at all change the matter at all whatsoever.. more wordiness has done nothing for your religion except send it into a thousand sect all deeming the other heretical!

Furthermore, I have asked you to desist making an object of comparison between the Quran and the bible.. again, if anything it can be akin to, it would be the hadith and as I have stated before, even those have a chain of narration to support their validity that doesn't exist for the bible!

I said it borrows persian and syriac words and you surely must know that and cannot possibly believe that the Qu'ran is entirely made up of of pure Arabic words as if the language is an isolate?

Whatever words in existence were already in integration and used by the Arabs prior to the revelation of the Quran.. your choice of expression is shady!

So no translation of the Qu'ran can capture its essence so the message is effectuvely hidden from the vast majority of people because God can only speak in 7th Centuary Arabic. English has available over a million different words so its is linguistically possible to capture its message and that cannot be denied. In my view the Arberry translation does this best as it tries to capture more than just the meanin g of verses though sometime his choice of English words makes the text a little obscure.What do you mean by successful

God Chose the language that best preserves his word and obviously his judicial choice is noteworthy given that, the Quran is the only scriptural book in existence that remains as is since its revelation. You are yet to bring us scholars that agree on the actual spoken language of Jesus, let alone that what you allegedly have written down of him is what he actually said or did!
Also, who you view as the best translator is easily dismissed, since you actually have to speak Arabic to judge that point with any dexterity!

- empires sustained by conquest, oppression and slavery because that is what happened is it not?Of course you can that is in the nature of subjectivity. If we measure intellect by what one believes then shall I now list what I consider total absurdities in Islamic doctrine and hence prove that you are intelectually inferior to me? The only Muslim Nobel Prize winner in physics is a Bah'i so is he intellectually deffective as well? What you say here is a consequence of your total subjectively with regard to Islam is it not? You keep referring to Christian doctrine and yet to me it is a perfectly logical description as to how God redeems us from sin - Islam has no such doctrine that will give any kind of assurance of heaven - but if you wish to discuss that then we need another thread.

No, it isn't what happened, actually you describe christian conquests (crusades) and the middle ages more perfectly. The topic has been discussed here before, if you want to know how Islam spread then you may use the search feature, or read this amongst others:

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...amic%20history

It is logical for you that god would pray to himself, forsake himself to self-immolate so that you can have a cart Blanche to sin? That is very counter-intuitive to what life is like, let alone what one would expect from the one who created the most complex of tiny cells to the most massive orbiting stars!

Also, I'd refrain from the whole 'Nobel prize' thing if you have no desire to embarrass yourself publicly, firstly as you are grossly wrong, since there are several Egyptian sunni Muslims who won it, and secondly because the prize itself means nothing. The Muslims have as many 'prizes' as the chinese, go figure!
The sad thing that those who circulate the 'Nobel prize' fiasco are none but Jews since they are the most winners-- Jews have won in over 68% of all award years.. how does this reflect on Christians if we are to go by your enfeebled mentality? God obviously must favor the Jews over Christians? Jews makeup as much of the world population as sikhs yet they comprise 68% of Nobel winners... Amazing isn't it? You want to go down that route?

The Bible does that for a start and it outsells the Qu'ran by miles but no book can address everything can it.

I am not sure in which way it outsells? in the flatness of the earth or the death of god, or the ineffectualness of the apostles or the redemption of god's nemesis after the death of god to send the masses into confusion. In the abrogation of OT rules, in sinning because god paid for your sins?
I don't even have to be Muslim to see how it completely fails short to be anything but a concocted incongruous tales of idle men!

I think your view of logic is simple, if it leads to your Islamic truth it is fine and everywhere else it is flawed. Let us take one example for the Qu'ran; 'where it came from', well let me see the logical steps you use to show that it came from God out of a guarded tablet in heaven via the angel Gabriel?

Yes so? The fact that we have the inimitable Quran is a testament to that event, just as we don't need to see the bee to know where the honey came from from its consistency and taste!

Can you see the point now, I can logically account for what I believe but like you it will always rest on some unprovable premises about God. There is NO system that can have all its foundations as logically provable, even in mathematics as Godel showed and people like Turing made it even worse by showing that there is no way to know which conjectures can or cannot be proved. I am rather glad that God made things like that to keep us on the edge of certainty so we are always ready then to hear what he says.

I really can't see your point. Something at least circumstantial has to substantiate the claims. Even if mere history, you have two very poor accounts that Jesus even existed, let alone the account you ascribe to him. I don't even know where you begin to make a comparison?
witnesses to the Quran and its revelation are recorded and we have long chains of narrations, the most preserved history as early scholars recognized that importance, and the challenge of the Quran was posed to all and all have failed and will continue to! I am sick of going over that point, because you want me to see something that I know isn't true. Firstly as an Arabic speaker and secondly as having at least a minimum foundation in history!

I don't have to account for anything in the Qu'ran I simply take it as a book. To me its obvious it inserts and changes Bible stories - why I cannot tell, can I prove Mohammed did it, no, can you prove he did not, no - its all about personal faith. Let us take you example about the sea - it is plausible he never witnessed it but it is equally plausible he heard plenty of sea stories. As I said, you are disposed to accept the supernatural and not simply accept that the Qu'ran records something about the sea and try to find out what God is saying in that section.

You can take it any which way you want. I think a rather detailed history of its compilation and revelation has been elucidated. If you'd dismiss everything of it for what makes you feel better, then you are certainly so entitled. It has no bearing on the actuality or the nature of the Quran!

I am sure you can in general and that is what often makes me wonder why as soon as you see something about the miraculous nature nature of the Qu'ran you automatically accept it as if not to do so would be letting the side down. Miller almost never gives any references, even to the Qu'ran and when he does quote it he often inserts comments in brackets so to me he is unreliable. You would not accept it if Miller was peddling a cure for Arthritis and you saw no clear refs or evidence would you? A few years ago there were books about the so called Bible code and it was based on very sound mathematics and by using it you could extract all kinds of predictions but to me it was rubbish because you could do the same with Moby Dick or any book - do you see the point, anyone can go through any book and with an agenda find all sorts of proofs of all sorts of things and claim it is therefore supernatural.

No, I really don't see your point, I have two papers published and they bear my name and three other people I have worked with I haven't cited other sources in there because it was my work, I have listed what I have done and my results, when folks want to write of this particular subject matter they can cite me if they have opposing or similar views better elucidated or come up with their own pioneering on that particular matter and cite their own. He cites the Quran and explains its miraculous nature.. Rather than take a stab on the man who spent 20 years of his life studying the Quran, why not do exactly what he did and prove why he is wrong?
We are not talking about mathematical predictions here as the Quran explicitly tells us that the dates of the hour or major events belong with God! So again not only a poor comparison but of completely different nature to the subject matter, since Miller's book is a commentary on the verses of the Quran rather than a prediction peddler!

In the case of the Merchant Marine example from Miller's site I gave I think two other possible explanations. I also in an earlier post showed some of his other ideas so have other plausible explanations. Just because you or I can find no other plausible explanation does not mean there is no other.

Your explanations are worth nill. No one could have seen underlying currents in the deep sea with the technology of that date and lived to speak about it let alone integrate it in the Quran in its distinctive style furthermore a man who actually lived in the desert and produced two completely different types of work. Until such a time you can substantiate your claims, I ask you to desist with the heresy. I am not going to spend all day appeasing your ego of what you propose happened, when it has no basis in reality, in history or in the style of text we have whatsoever!
I am yet to see you also address the others, such as high altitude hypoxia etc and then reconcile it with a good reason as to why?
All of this to get people to believe in a monotheistic God and die penniless..
the problem with your conjectures, is that the more you make them, the less sense you make and I wonder if you realize that at all?

I am not sure I follow this but the history of the Jewish faith begins with Abraham and he according to the Bible wandered in Canaan or what also call the land of Israel. Jacob (meaning heel or leg-puller) was the son of Isaac so the grandson of Abraham and brother to Esau. Jacob was later named Israel (perservere with God) by God. So what on earth are you talking about as it is not beyond your understanding that a place, any place can be known by more than one name?

This isn't about Jewish faith or faith at all. It is about recorded history.. Abraham himself purchased a land from the canaanites to bury his wife Sarah, so tells us your bible in fact! so how can it be the 'Land of Israel' because of Abraham? who himself was an Arab middle easterner btw!

A religion that is most compatible with history and common sense is usually the one that is correct. One that doesn't have to change its words so that the inheritors aren't the ones God decreed, or make a glowing presentation of events that never took place at all!
A Quran that states the following either of those to whom it was revealed or the one bringing the message has nothing to hide:


وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُم مِّنَ الأَعْرَابِ مُنَافِقُونَ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مَرَدُواْ عَلَى النِّفَاقِ لاَ تَعْلَمُهُمْ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ سَنُعَذِّبُهُم مَّرَّتَيْنِ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَى عَذَابٍ عَظِيمٍ {101}
[Pickthal 9:101] And among those around you of the wandering Arabs there are hypocrites, and among the townspeople of Al-Madinah (there are some who) persist in hypocrisy whom thou knowest not. We, We know them, and We shall chastise them twice; then they will be relegated to a painful doom.



الأَعْرَابُ أَشَدُّ كُفْرًا وَنِفَاقًا وَأَجْدَرُ أَلاَّ يَعْلَمُواْ حُدُودَ مَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ وَاللّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ {97}
[Pickthal 9:97] The wandering Arabs are more hard in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be ignorant of the limits which Allah hath revealed unto His messenger. And Allah is Knower, Wise.


or a messenger that chastises himself in a book that should be in glowing praise of him?


[IMG]http://www.*************/Quran/bismillah.gif[/IMG] بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّى {1}
[Pickthal 80:1] He frowned and turned away
أَن جَاءهُ الْأَعْمَى {2}
[Pickthal 80:2] Because the blind man came unto him.
وَمَا يُدْرِيكَ لَعَلَّهُ يَزَّكَّى {3}
[Pickthal 80:3] What could inform thee but that he might grow (in grace)
أَوْ يَذَّكَّرُ فَتَنفَعَهُ الذِّكْرَى {4}
[Pickthal 80:4] Or take heed and so the reminder might avail him?



All the best!

Dear Muhammad,

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

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.

I wanted to focus on these four because I felt that these were the four strongest claims without which, as Hugo has said, you could be speaking of any book. But as you want to return to the list in its entirety, I have gone over each point again with respect to what we have covered since:

1. The language and style of the Qur'an
This is largely subjective and limited to one’s understanding of the Arabic language. This is like playing music which only some people can hear and asking them all to bear witness that the music is beautiful. Or maybe our ears are already ‘sealed’ from birth as the Qur’an sometimes says of the heart?

2. The incapability to produce anything similar to it by the disbelievers during the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) time and those after them
As I have said and stand by, Muawiyah is a straw man and you have all but admitted this. Anyone who tried to reproduce anything like the Qur’an in terms of its claim to be from God would be either mad, a liar or an actual Prophet (which is a misnomer and I only add it to make this point). I would like to borrow something I read because it makes a whole lot of sense here. Consider this argument:

‘Try to produce one chapter like that of Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”. You surely can’t, can you? So you must admit that Sun Tzu is God! AllahuSunTzu!’

Is this not a silly statement? Do you still not see how silly this claim is?

Let is not forget that of the list you have quoted, this is the most important as it separates the Qur’an from any other book. If this claim alone, the self-declared ‘miracle’ of the Qur’an, can be refuted, then the other proofs are irrelevant.

3. The stories and accounts of the nations and prophets of old, since the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had no recourse to such information.
*According to your knowledge of events. As I have discussed there were many opportunities for the Prophet to have recourse to this information, but you have said that the probability of this is irrelevant because he was ‘was raised among his people and every aspect of his life was exposed to them’ and that ‘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 ?’ But the point is that not everyone did believe him, in fact most people didn’t. Besides which how many of the Jews actually converted in Medina before the rest were massacred?

I also do not understand why you have accepting that the Prophet could not have edited the information without being able to read or write. If I went into the desert and heard various fantastical stories from Christian traders (who perhaps wanted me to convert to their religion), and pondered over them during the long desert nights, without writing a single word down I am sure anyone could come up with different permutation without much difficulty.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

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.

Can you then explain what the lesson of the story of ‘Ad and the Thamud is? Is there any purpose to the stories of ‘Ad and Thamud than to spread fear and to create obedient slaves who worship out of fear? Why does Allah need to show off his strength so often in the Qur’an, why is it not enough for Him to let us see grandiosity of the Creation and be satisfied that, yes, God can do great things? To me these stories suggest Allah has a chip on his shoulder and has to constantly use these interchangeable examples of brute force to maintain self-respect.

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.

You mean calling the leader ‘King’ not ‘Phaoroh’ in the story of Joseph and the Phaoroh calling a man ‘Haman’ in the story of Moses? Well what about the far more interesting mentioning of crucifixion in the stories of Moses and Joseph in the Qur’an, when crucifixion was not even used as a punishment by the Egyptians? I have seen some apologists bend over backwards to try and explain how the root letters mean something different to what ‘crucifixion’ means today, but come on, who are we kidding here?

4. The predictions which occurred in the Qur'an, and which later came true
Okay so we discussed in particular the most ‘impressive’ prediction of the Persians being defeated by the Romans. You have said that this prediction is remarkable because the Persians were the stronger force.

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…

Firstly, by ‘decade’ I was referring to the fact that the prediction in that Surah was made in around 615 AD, so when we say ‘3 to 10 years’ it could have either come true in the 610s or the 620s, therefore in either of the two decades.

Secondly you forget the Roman (Byzantine) Empire was now based in Constantinople, and the leadership transferred there in 324 AD – therefore to talk about the setbacks of the Western Roman Empire is not really that relevant by this point and is more of a distraction. The weakened Empire it was still formidable, and let us not forget the Roman-Persian War of 572-591 (shortly after the Prophet’s birth) during which the Romans defeated the Persians and were left in a strategically stronger position towards the Persians than before. If you were going to place bets after that war which side would you pick?

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.

Since when did anything an American President (or other world leader for that matter) has promised mean squat? I’d say my prediction is actually a fairly good example considering I do not have as much data to hand to show how often an American President, let alone Barack Obama keeps his promises (which has to be quite low), compared to the Prophet, who had evidence of the Romans already having defeated the Persians in his lifetime.

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?

Neither. The Battle of Badr was won in 624 whereas the Persians were defeated in 628 AD.

5. The perfect belief of Monotheism - The attribution of all that befits Allaah and the negation of all that does not befit Him, and the call of the Creator to the created to worship Him. All of this is not possible for a human to bring forth unless he was inspired by Allaah.
This is a misassumption and circular logic. What ‘befits’ Allah is a matter of human interpretation and in the case of your argument is based solely on what the Qur’an says Allah is. I could say that God is ‘Most Practical’ (a made up attribute) and it could be argued that I am right because this attribute befits God, because what is God if not a practical being?

6. The laws and sharee'ah that the Qur'an came with, and the morals and conduct that it called for. All of this leads to the betterment of life in this world and in the Hereafter. The perfection of a set of laws that can be applied to any society at any time and place is humanly impossible, and the sharee'ah is the only example of such a set of laws.
What I have asked is: can you prove Shariah law does any of the things you have suggested, particularly in terms of being applied to any society and any time and place? Can you prove it leads to the betterment of society when applied as a comprehensive system?

7. Scientific facts mentioned in the Qur'an that were unknown at that time.
This is something I want to go over in more detail in this post. It seems that to ‘see’ the science in the Qur’an one has to wear rose-tinted glasses. I have already commented on the so-called ‘miracle verses’ describing the orbits of the sun and moon, the water cycle, the description of female bees leaving the hive and the production of milk, which is perhaps the obscurest yet. The ‘Big Bang’ verse is of the same nature although it is being discussed in another thread and whatever that verse describes, it isn’t the big bang, although I once convinced myself that it did.

Embryology:
http://www.islamicboard.com/443221-post70.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ogy-quran.html (Embryology in the Qur'an) (Embryology in the Qur'an)
http://www.quranicstudies.com/articl...mbryology.html

As I said before, embryology in the Qur’an foremost scientific claim considering it relates to something entirely unobservable by Muhammad and is mentioned twice in the Qur’an. From the first link it is discussed that Surah 23, in its apparent meaning mentions bones forming before flesh, which is the opposite of what actually happens:

[23.14] Then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump of flesh, then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators.

Dr. Abdel-Rahman argues around this by saying that ‘the primordia of both the bone and muscle are present together with those of bones and other tissues in a collective primitive structure during the first 40 days … however in this stage the primordial of muscle have not yet differentiated into definitive bones and muscles.’

But the verse is explicit in saying bones then flesh, whereas if we look at what Keith Moore, a professor who is much praised in the second link you gave me, has written in his book, we find:

‘The skeletal and muscle system develops from the mesoderm, some of which becomes mesenchymal cells. These mesenchymal cells make muscles, and also have the ability to differentiate...into osteoblasts which make bone. At first the bones form as cartilage models so that by the end of the sixth week the whole limb skeleton is formed out of cartilage but without any bony calcium.’

What this is saying is that muscles form before bones, rather than around them. I do not see how what Dr. Abdel-Rahman wrote in any way refutes this. Now as an aside, can I just ask the Muslim biology experts what the clot refers to in 23:14? And why is this translated as a ‘clinging form’ in some translations and a ‘clot’ in others?

8. The fact that it has been protected and remained unchanged over such a long period of time, despite the fact that all other religious books have been distorted.
All the other religious books have been distorted according to your beliefs. Christians believe their Bible is the authentic Bible and Jews believe their Torah is the authentic Torah. Inconsistencies in the Bible do not automatically mean the Bible is an altered version of an original book called the ‘Injeel’ brought down by Jesus just because the Qur’an says so. The most sensible explanation is that Jesus never brought any book and that his followers instead developed a religion around him which incorporated their own pagan beliefs. To use the inconsistencies in the Bible and Torah to try and add credibility to the Qur’an is like standing on the third floor of a tower and saying ‘This floor is the most stable because the two floors below it are completely unstable!’

9. The compilation of the Qur'an and the diligence with which all the knowledge essential for its understanding has been preserved (such as the causes of revelation behind specific verses, verses revealed in Makkah/Madeenah, abrogation etc.)
The reason I did not comment on this one earlier is because it is simply saying that the material needed for the Qur’an to be fully understood has been preserved. If the Qur’an explained itself fully in the first place then this supplementary material would not have been required. Therefore if anything this weakens the Qur’an’s position. For a book to be conceived over 20 years and to still require so much abrogation and further explanation is utterly confounding.

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

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

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

13. The impact that the Qur'an has on those who hear it and the euphonious quality of the Qur'an.

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.

I hope you can see these claims are either; circular arguments (2,5), purely subjective (1,10,12,13), self-fulfilling prophecies (11), torturing the data until it confesses (4,7), simply irrelevant (8,9) or personal opinions without sufficient proof (3,6).

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

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).

The reason I jump from one ‘weak’ theory to another is because the claims of the Qur’an’s divinity is based upon one weak theory after another! It is almost like if you throw enough ‘proofs’ at it something will stick.

The problem if one starts mentioning say, Shakespeare or Yeats, in terms of literature superior to the Qur’an, is that you will then answer that ‘the Qur’an is not a book of poetry or prose.’ If we criticise the ‘science’, you will then answer that ‘the Qur’an is not a book of science’. If we then say well, the Qur’an has questionable ideas of justice, you will say ‘well it is from God so believe it or prepare to suffer, no skin off our noses!’ When we ask why it is from God, you say ‘produce a single surah like it.’ And so the cycle continues.

Peace.

Greetings Hugo,

I'll respond to your shorter post first as I've already touched on some of its points before.

I think what you are asserting in your post, in essence, is that the three arguments you listed disprove the Qur'an is a literary masterpiece (which, by the way, is not a "conjecture" considering the quotations from those who have studied it and the reactions of those who heard it at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)).

In reality, none of these points have any bearing on the literary excellence of the Qur'an...

1. I may suggest, the Qu'ran is said to be untranslatable and therefore it cannot be much of a masterpiece because its ideas cannot be shared unless one is fluent in 7th century Arabic.

I posted this earlier:

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.

... 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.
[...] 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. I might say the vocabulary is tiny for a book of that size so it cannot be a masterpiece because the ideas it can convey must necessarily be limited.

There may be some confusion behind the word 'vocabulary' here. The actual number of words used in the Qur'an surpasses 77,000. Irrespective of this, it is sufficient to consider the volumes upon volumes of exegesis of the Qur'an, leaving no doubt concerning the depth of its message.

3. I might argue that any decision on whether something is a masterpiece will rest on a set of criteria and therefore must be subjective so it is in effect impossible to decide.

However, when it comes to the Qur'an, it stands out so clearly as a masterpiece that not only Muslim scholars but Christian Arabs and Orientalists have come to the same conclusion. Whatever criteria you want to put forward, the Qur'an will prove itself unique. So with this in mind, any subjectivity becomes insignificant if it exists at all.

The real test or exception in determining whether the Qur'an is divine or not is to produce something like it. And as nobody has succeeded in this, one's confidence in the 'theory' can only increase.

Peace.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye

Furthermore, I have asked you to desist making an object of comparison between the Quran and the bible.. again, if anything it can be akin to, it would be the hadith and as I have stated before, even those have a chain of narration to support their validity that doesn't exist for the bible!

I think any objectivity will show that it is more often that not YOU who keep introducing the Bible as a comparison so this is the 'pot calling the kettle black'. Please don't offer silly arguments about chains of narration because all they do is take you back to a source and do not in any way assure you that what is said is in any sense objective truth. Even you must know there are hundreds of hadith that end with one of you scholars or Prophet Mohammed saying something about say Job but where THEY got the information is a mystery - don't you agree?

whatever words in existence were already in integration and used by the Arabs prior to the revelation of the Quran.. your choice of expression is shady!

I think this is your way of saying you agree the Qu'ran and Arabic borrowed words from Persian and Syriac - well why not, if your language does not have a word for an concept there is nothing wrong with borrowing one is there.

God Chose the language that best preserves his word and obviously his judicial choice is noteworthy given that, the Quran is the only scriptural book in existence that remains as is since its revelation.

This of course is total conjecture since not a single thing you have said can be proved - in any case who are you to complement God on his choice and presumably you will also think it noteworthy that his earlier revelation was in Hebrew?

You are yet to bring us scholars that agree on the actual spoken language of Jesus, let alone that what you allegedly have written down of him is what he actually said or did! Also, who you view as the best translator is easily dismissed, since you actually have to speak Arabic to judge that point with any dexterity!

How many scholars does one need since you will simply dismiss them. You are right in that I don't know 7th century Arabic but I can compare several English translations and in that way find the meaning and so reach a conclusion and that should be obvious even to you - do you dismiss a text book because it is a translation and therefore ignore what it has to say? You are not an native English speaker as far as I know so you also have an inbuilt weakness in assessing English translations so we are 'in the same boat' are we not and I guess you like everyone else when then find a difficulty even if they read Arabic will consult translations or a dictionary to seek light - if they don't then their idiots.

No, it isn't what happened, actually you describe christian conquests (crusades) and the middle ages more perfectly. The topic has been discussed here before, if you want to know how Islam spread then you may use the search feature, or read this amongst others

I know what I am talking about and if you choose to ignore Arab and Islamic imperialism then you simply demonstrate your habitual blindness to any negative connotations in Islam. Try reading Efraim Krash's book 'Islamic Imperialism' ISBN 9780300 122633. Christians have acknowledged the tragedy and disgrace of the crusades for centuries and its time you faced up to Islam's own shortcomings.It is logical for you that god would pray to himself, forsake himself to self-immolate so that you can have a cart Blanche to sin? That is very counter-intuitive to what life is like, let alone what one would expect from the one who created the most complex of tiny cells to the most massive orbiting stars!See what I mean, you have no arguments so you introduce Christian teaching which you clearly do not understand with any kind of precision. If this God of yours is so great why would he come up with the silliest of ideas about sending an angel into a cave to give a man a message or insist that men grow beards - it does not make any sense does it. Can you not now see what point is being made? Also, I'd refrain from the whole 'Nobel prize' thing if you have no desire to embarrass yourself publicly, firstly as you are grossly wrong, since there are several Egyptian sunni Muslims who won it, and secondly because the prize itself means nothing. The Muslims have as many 'prizes' as the chinese, go figure!As usual you don't know you facts and did not bother to read my post - I spoke of the first Muslim Nobel prize winner for PHYSICS so as the saying goes 'go figure'. This is really just your way of avoiding the point that was being made that what you might believe in terms of faith has little or nothing to do with ones intellect. .

I am not sure in which way it outsells? in the flatness of the earth or the death of god, or the ineffectualness of the apostles or the redemption of god's nemesis after the death of god to send the masses into confusion. In the abrogation of OT rules, in sinning because god paid for your sins? I don't even have to be Muslim to see how it completely fails short to be anything but a concocted incongruous tales of idle men!

This is your opinion and I doubt you have read the Bible cover to cover but if you can only find assurance by poring scorn on the faith of others one must wonder what kind of assurance that really is. If it is just a matter of opinions then Gibbon said the Qu'ran 'an incoherent rhapsody of fable' or Carlyle called it 'insupportable stupidity' or Reinach who said 'from the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence... It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries and that millions of men are still wasting their time absorbing it'. Do you see the point; opinions abound and the the men I quoted were eminent scholars but you will disagree with them will you not?

I really can't see your point. Something at least circumstantial has to substantiate the claims. Even if mere history, you have two very poor accounts that Jesus even existed, let alone the account you ascribe to him. I don't even know where you begin to make a comparison?

You don't want to see the point is more like it - you say Christians have two very poor accounts (not sure what two accounts you mean as we usually say its 4) but for the Qu'ran you only have ONE account, that of prophet Mohammed and not a single corroborating witness to the words of actual revelation whereas with Jesus there were at least 12 so you are right there is no comparison at all

I am sick of going over that point, because you want me to see something that I know isn't true. Firstly as an Arabic speaker and secondly as having at least a minimum foundation in history!

I am making these points because you continually make reference to Christian principles. If you believe that a special revelation came to Prophet Mohammed that is fine by me and I have nothing to say about it. But if you start saying that it is unquestionably true simply because YOU said so, that my intellect is questionable because I believe something else and contrast what you believe with what other faiths say in what often sounds an arrogant and totally disrespectful fashion then I am compelled to respond and you feeling sick is neither here not there.

You can take it any which way you want. I think a rather detailed history of its compilation and revelation has been elucidated. If you'd dismiss everything of it for what makes you feel better, then you are certainly so entitled. It has no bearing on the actuality or the nature of the Quran!

I don't dismiss it but I do question aspects of it as many Muslim scholars and others have done before me. To simply as you do, go on believing that there are no issues is a bit simple minded and I mean no disrespect.

No, I really don't see your point, I have two papers published and they bear my name and three other people I have worked with I haven't cited other sources in there because it was my work, I have listed what I have done and my results, when folks want to write of this particular subject matter they can cite me if they have opposing or similar views better elucidated or come up with their own pioneering on that particular matter and cite their own. He cites the Quran and explains its miraculous nature.. Rather than take a stab on the man who spent 20 years of his life studying the Quran, why not do exactly what he did and prove why he is wrong?

I cannot quite follow this. If the paper is yours and you cited no one then you are saying you got to that point unaided and that would sound to me unlikely. That is the results can perfectly well be yours and yours alone but you must have used some knowledge that you came by somewhere to get there in the first place, there must be some basis for what you did as we are all building on what others have said or proved so there should be some acknowledgement of that so that others can see where you are coming from. I assume this is about Miller and I would never recommend anyone to follow his example as he is totally scholarly. Just consider, if I said 'there was this man in London and he told me the Qu'ran is a forgery because ...' would you accept it - no not a chance but you will accept the same argument form from Miller - ask yourself why?

We are not talking about mathematical predictions here as the Quran explicitly tells us that the dates of the hour or major events belong with God! So again not only a poor comparison but of completely different nature to the subject matter, since Miller's book is a commentary on the verses of the Quran rather than a prediction Peddler!

Yes sure BUT you are assuming that those events are in there because of some supernatural mechanism and discount ANY other explanation or interpretation of those verses. You fail to understand, and I cannot really see why, you simply have no conception that any supposed fact can lead to any number of conclusions some of which can be opposite and if as you and Miller are disposed to accept anything that sounds like it proves Islam then you are not being rational or even sensible are you. You spoke about your paper earlier but if I or anyone took those same results we might come to different conclusions so are you right or am I? Surely, you agree?

Your explanations are worth nill. No one could have seen underlying currents in the deep sea with the technology of that date and lived to speak about it let alone integrate it in the Quran in its distinctive style furthermore a man who actually lived in the desert and produced two completely different types of work. Until such a time you can substantiate your claims, I ask you to desist with the heresy. I am not going to spend all day appeasing your ego of what you propose happened, when it has no basis in reality, in history or in the style of text we have whatsoever!

Tell me where these verses are in the Qu'ran as I cannot find anywhere where anything special is being said that would not be known through sea stories etc. Miller as far as I recall gives no ref so can you do it and then we can discuss it. How can it be hearsay if I suggest there might be another explanation? If a medical researcher took the view that there is only one explanation he might end up killing someone - don't you agree?

I am yet to see you also address the others, such as high altitude hypoxia etc and then reconcile it with a good reason as to why?All of this to get people to believe in a monotheistic God and die penniless..the problem with your conjectures, is that the more you make them, the less sense you make and I wonder if you realize that at all?

I am afraid I am lost here - is hypoxia mention in the Qu'ran also? I cannot see where I or others are trying to get you to believe in anything. I think the best posts in this thread are ones that force you and me to be sceptical, to think about what has been said and see that there are real issues no matter if you are Muslim or anything else. This isn't about Jewish faith or faith at all. It is about recorded history.. Abraham himself purchased a land from the canaanites to bury his wife Sarah, so tells us your bible in fact! so how can it be the 'Land of Israel' because of Abraham? who himself was an Arab middle easterner btw!
I think you are muddled. Abraham as far as we know from the Bible came from Ur which was part of the Mesopotamian/Sumerian empires if my memory is correct and that was some 4,000 years ago and the idea that he was an Arab is certainly novel - where did that idea come from? We cannot fix with certainty the dates because in the Bible narrative there is not a single named individual outside the patriarchs who can with certainty be tied down to a date. I don't know what kind of logic is in your head, Abraham did by land in Canaan and Canaan was later called Israel - so what are you trying to say?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

I think any objectivity will show that it is more often that not YOU who keep introducing the Bible as a comparison so this is the 'pot calling the kettle black'. Please don't offer silly arguments about chains of narration because all they do is take you back to a source and do not in any way assure you that what is said is in any sense objective truth. Even you must know there are hundreds of hadith that end with one of you scholars or Prophet Mohammed saying something about say Job but where THEY got the information is a mystery - don't you agree?

I bring the bible into this for several reasons:
1- you are a christian arguing about the Quran's credibility/ divinity and go about it in certain fashion which incredibly enough you fail to employ for your bible, now I say this because by mere virtue of being a christian and assumed studied in Christianity you already hold on to fantastic beliefs, which the bible itself isn't in consensus over, now I wonder what formula you use enables you to be so allowing when it comes to the bible and so restrictive when comes to the Quran, when its foundation and beliefs make far better sense yet seem to hold you in a mental block?

.. Much of life is about contrast .. you can't describe white without mention of black, or night without day, or good without evil.. you need some form of common ground.. It is very natural for the bible to enter into the picture...

and natural as well for a few eye brows to be raised for instance when you argue with someone that water doesn't feels wet, yet your own personal beliefs dictate that wooden trees are made of aluminum.. it is a mysterious matter to me as to your own credibility no more no less, and because the arguments that you bring to the table are incongruous with known history and millenniums long scholarship of folks best learned in said subjects makes me question your motives and dismiss it as intellectual dishonesty or mere calisthenics with words!

2- There can only be two answers as to how the prophet have known of certain things, be it ahel al'kahf, zhu alqarenyen, Aad, Tahmud, etc etc.
a- it was revealed unto him! (the most obvious conclusion)
b- someone told him.. in which case you need to bring us the name of that someone, furthermore establish motive and reconcile it with the amount of ridicule he received in his lifetime for mention of said events of which many are a modern find, such as the city of Ubar for instance. And then bring us your grievance against the prophet Mohammed for anyone who would have brought this book (as in told him the stories therein or not) would be considered remarkable based on linguistic style alone!

I think this is your way of saying you agree the Qu'ran and Arabic borrowed words from Persian and Syriac - well why not, if your language does not have a word for an concept there is nothing wrong with borrowing one is there. This of course is total conjecture since not a single thing you have said can be proved - in any case who are you to complement God on his choice and presumably you will also think it noteworthy that his earlier revelation was in Hebrew?

I don't agree at all, I am playing along (see Muhammad's post) as he has gone over this in quite the detai-- if anything of Persian were 'borrowed' that it would be very well integrated into the language prior to the revelation of the Quran. Either way you need to show me words that you allege are borrowed and not merely post it for me to accept at face value. And tell me exactly what it denotes, what should I make of having words in common with another language as this seems to hold a different value in your book than it does me!
As for God's revelations all of them without exception are revealed in the Semitic tongue, of which Arabic is the most evolved, and as stated prior in my post, God gave to his messengers the miracles that he saw best suited for the people:

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye

An Addendum to my previous post:

Allah swt in his most wisdom, sent a message to a particular people that was to supersede what was common for that time.. For instance with moses (p) he gave him the ability to perform miracles, since Egypt was filled with magic at the time, they dismissed it as more magic, however the magicians of Egypt realized that it wasn't magic:

32 Thereupon [Moses] threw down his staff - and lo! it was a serpent, plainly visible;

33 and he drew forth his hand - and lo! it appeared [shining] white the heholders.19

34 Said [Pharaoh] unto the great ones around him "Verily, this is indeed a sorcerer of great knowledge

35 who wants to drive you out of your land by his sorcery.20 What, then, do you advise?"

36 They answered: "Let him and his brother wait a while, and send unto all cities heralds

37 who shall assemble before thee all sorcerers of great knowledge."

38 And so the sorcerers were assembled at a set time on a certain day,

39 and the people were asked: "Are you all present, 40 so that we might follow [in the footsteps of] the sorcerers if it is they who prevail?" 21

41 Now when the sorcerers came, they said unto Pharaoh: "Verily, we ought to have a great reward if it is we who prevail."22

42 Answered he: "Yea-and, verily, in that case you shall be among those who are near unto me."

43 [And] Moses said unto them: "Throw whatever you are going to throw!"

44 Thereupon they threw their [magic] ropes and their staffs, and said: "By Pharaoh's might, behold, it is we indeed who have prevailed!"23

45 [But] then Moses threw his staff-and lo! it swallowed up all their deceptions.24

46 And down fell the sorcerers, prostrating them-selves in adoration,

47 [and] exclaimed: "We have come to believe in the Sustainer of all the worlds,

48 the Sustainer of Moses and Aaron!"
___________________________________

Jesus (p) came at a time when folks were interested in medicine, and healing, and as such he healed by the leave of Allah swt (such is his miracle which they misconstrued for godhood) :

49 and [will make him] an apostle unto the children of Israel."36 "I HAVE COME unto you with a message from your Sustainer. I shall create for you out of clay, as it were, the shape of [your] destiny, and then breathe into it, so that it might become [your] destiny by God's leave:37 and I shall heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead back to life by God's leave:38 and I shall let you know what you may eat and what you should store up in your houses.39 Behold, in all this there is indeed a message for you, if you are [truly] believers.


5:110 110 Lo!131 God will say: "O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember the blessings which I bestowed upon thee and thy mother - how I strengthened thee with holy inspiration,132 so that thou couldst speak unto men in thy cradle, and as a grown man; and how I imparted unto thee revelation and wisdom, including the Torah and the Gospel;133 and how by My leave thou didst create out of clay, as it were, the shape of [thy followers'] destiny, and then didst breathe into it, so that it might become, by My leave, [their] destiny;134 and how thou didst heal the blind and the leper by My leave, and how thou didst raise the dead by My leave;135 and how I prevented the children of Israel from harming thee when thou camest unto them with all evidence of the truth, and [when] those of them who were bent on denying the truth were saying 'This is clearly nothing but deception!'"

_________________________________________
Prophet Mohammed's (p) miracle, was the gift of Quran.. for language was the interest of the people of Arabia:

12:2 We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur-an, in order that ye may learn wisdom

13:37 Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority in Arabic. Wert thou to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither protector nor defender against Allah.


16:103 We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.



20:113 Thus have We sent this down - an Arabic Qur-an and explained therein in detail some of the warnings, in order that they may fear Allah, or that it may cause their remembrance (of Him).



26:195 In the perspicuous Arabic tongue.


39:28 It is) a Qur-an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein): in order that they may guard against Evil.

41:44 Had We sent this as a Qur-an (in a language) other than Arabic, they would have said: "Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a Book) not in Arabic? And (a Messenger) an Arab?" Say: "It is a guide and a healing to those who believe; and for those who believe not, there is a deafness in their ears, and it is blindness in their (eyes): they are (as it were) being called from a place far distant!"



________________________________________________


and I end on another verse:


18: 54 THUS, INDEED, have We given in this Qur'an many facets to every kind of lesson [designed] for [the benefit of] mankind.60 However, man is, above all else, always given to contention:

So you'll forgive me when I say, No I don't think you have read the Quran cover to cover..

all the best!

Whereas most of the previous miracles died with their messengers, the Quran is a living inimitable miracle that will not die and such should be a message of God that is said to be for all of mankind, not the god of the Israelites or the minor mangod sent to lead the Israelites from being astray!

How many scholars does one need since you will simply dismiss them. You are right in that I don't know 7th century Arabic but I can compare several English translations and in that way find the meaning and so reach a conclusion and that should be obvious even to you - do you dismiss a text book because it is a translation and therefore ignore what it has to say? You are not an native English speaker as far as I know so you also have an inbuilt weakness in assessing English translations so we are 'in the same boat' are we not and I guess you like everyone else when then find a difficulty even if they read Arabic will consult translations or a dictionary to seek light - if they don't then their idiots.

What rubbish? this is common sense that should be apparent to a school boy and is a conundrum why it is so elusive to you? if I wanted to read a book about pathology do I reach for Robin's or do I go for a katzung? If I want a book that discusses art history do I reach for someone whose training is in Genetics but a novice in the arts?
Your analogy is so incredibly poor for even if English isn't my first language I am still able to express myself and present an argument in it. Can you refute me here right now in Arabic as I am refuting you in English? If the answer is no, that it should be obvious why I dismiss your claims. You allege one particular 'scholar' is the best translator of the Quran, based on what exactly should I hold your opinion in any esteem?

I know what I am talking about and if you choose to ignore Arab and Islamic imperialism then you simply demonstrate your habitual blindness to any negative connotations in Islam. Try reading Efraim Krash's book 'Islamic Imperialism' ISBN 9780300 122633. Christians have acknowledged the tragedy and disgrace of the crusades for centuries and its time you faced up to Islam's own shortcomings.

Efraim's book is irrelevant to immortalized recorded facts. Christianity acknowledged its disgrace? yet it continues to rain its tyranny on the world.. what is more important acknowledgment or accomplishment in your opinion is the latter I question why missionaries still roam Africa bullying people into accepting Christianity for food or medicine..

http://motherjones.com/politics/2002/05/stealth-crusade

!See what I mean, you have no arguments so you introduce Christian teaching which you clearly do not understand with any kind of precision. If this God of yours is so great why would he come up with the silliest of ideas about sending an angel into a cave to give a man a message or insist that men grow beards - it does not make any sense does it. Can you not now see what point is being made?

Again I don't see silliness, I see it as congruous with how the messages were revealed to most messengers ..

"And verily, there came our Messengers to Ibrahim with glad tidings. They said ‘salaam’ (i.e. greetings of peace). He answered, "salaam..."

Qur’an: Hud 11:69-83

"Then we sent to her our Spirit (angel Gabriel) and he appeared before her in the form of a man in all respects..."

(Qur’an 19:17-21)



"And there is not any among us, except that has a known position. And we are indeed the ones who glorify Allah."

(Qur’an 37:164-166)

"And it is surely the revelation of the Lord of the worlds. The trusted Spirit has brought it down to your heart, in order that you might be one of the warners, in clear Arabic speech."

(Qur’an: 26:192-195)


"And we gave Isa, son of Maryam, clear proofs, and supported him with Ruh-al-Qudus (holy spirit ie. Gabriel)."

(Qur’an 2:253)

Messengers received their messages in such a fashion only confirms to me the validity of the claim and as such it is consistent with what has always been! What I do find silly is a suckling god who da*ns the earth he allegedly created for not bearing him fruit, or asking himself to save himself and then forsaking himself anyway for something as counter-intuitive as relieving you of your sins. and then abrogating his commandments through someone he didn't even elect as an apostle while he was alive.. I find the idea of a mangod silly all together, and further complicated by making him a three headed god and forcing on people that they are all one in the same!



I guess to bring it down to the lowest common denominator it is a matter of what I find more believable based on living evidence!

As usual you don't know you facts and did not bother to read my post - I spoke of the first Muslim Nobel prize winner for PHYSICS so as the saying goes 'go figure'. This is really just your way of avoiding the point that was being made that what you might believe in terms of faith has little or nothing to do with ones intellect.

firstly, there is no point to the whole Nobel prize winners all together I have no idea why you keep introducing it in any form or fashion to make a non-point, but if you bring it as if physics is the only field worthy of mention, and if all the Muslim physicists in the world should be neglected for the one who won (who isn't a traditional muslim) then how do you personally reconcile that with the fact that 67% or so of Nobel winners are Jews? and how this reflects on the Christians? Are you cementing the fact that Christians are illogical even when the center that awards said prizes is established in their lair? If you want to bring this topic at all in any form or fashion to the discussion then why not see it through or realize that it is a poor analogy on your part and only inviting of ridicule!

. This is your opinion and I doubt you have read the Bible cover to cover but if you can only find assurance by poring scorn on the faith of others one must wonder what kind of assurance that really is.

I have spent three years of my life in a catholic school, taking a religion course, bible studies three times a week and attending regular mass and ironically came in fourth in my class with a 97% average in the religion course. I am not pouring scorn, I am bewildered at how thinking reasoning people can deduce that god is a man who died as the central theme of their religion and spend a life time mocking and finding error in other religions, evangelizing, incorrectly interpreting texts and forcing impoverished tribes to convert by bribery or by introducing ludicrous claims to their Nobel Prize winning to detract away from the fulcrum of said faith resting on something that can't sustain itself from the very book used to derive such a claim!

If it is just a matter of opinions then Gibbon said the Qu'ran 'an incoherent rhapsody of fable' or Carlyle called it 'insupportable stupidity' or Reinach who said 'from the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence... It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries and that millions of men are still wasting their time absorbing it'. Do you see the point; opinions abound and the the men I quoted were eminent scholars but you will disagree with them will you not?

No, again I don't.. heresy based hatred can't be compared to study and reflection with a commentary to referenced verses and other works as I'll include on the bottom. To begin with Dr. Miller said nothing of scorn to the religion he left behind to embrace Islam and all he commented on were Quranic verses and their resplendence--
The people you bring forth to make a point make me realize how much time you spend on anti-Islamic sites looking for a morsel to hold against this beautiful religion, and I really find that very sad!

You don't want to see the point is more like it - you say Christians have two very poor accounts (not sure what two accounts you mean as we usually say its 4) but for the Qu'ran you only have ONE account, that of prophet Mohammed and not a single corroborating witness to the words of actual revelation whereas with Jesus there were at least 12 so you are right there is no comparison at allI am making these points because you continually make reference to Christian principles. If you believe that a special revelation came to Prophet Mohammed that is fine by me and I have nothing to say about it.

I am talking of 'historical' accounts of Jesus the man having at all existed!
You can't really use the bible as an independent historical source!

as for revelations, there were several accounts when the prophet (PBUH) received revelations with companions present, and I have written various examples and verses to the account and in fact if you have read a history of Quranic text from revelation to compilation they should be referenced there for you, as I can't possibly be made to labor to write passages over and over for your perusal when you refuse to read them or better yet refuse to acknowledge them as is also apparent from your reply to Br. Muhammad above in reference to Al' Azami's book!

But if you start saying that it is unquestionably true simply because YOU said so, that my intellect is questionable because I believe something else and contrast what you believe with what other faiths say in what often sounds an arrogant and totally disrespectful fashion then I am compelled to respond and you feeling sick is neither here not there. I don't dismiss it but I do question aspects of it as many Muslim scholars and others have done before me. To simply as you do, go on believing that there are no issues is a bit simple minded and I mean no disrespect

I question your intellect for that is exactly the term you've used! you said, 'the Quran doesn't appeal to me 'intellectually'.. intellect denotes use of the rational mind, that it is a cerebral noetic pursuit. So it is fairly understandable that I question how your mind has 'intellectually' rationalized and reasoned that god is a suckling man who annunciated himself, traveled to an earth woman's womb, kept his godhood under wraps until adulthood and then decided to die to forgive you from all sins you are to commit, yet by the same token fail to rationalize the Quran with all that it is as a living example and easily subjected to essaying isn't a direct revelation from God?!

. I cannot quite follow this. If the paper is yours and you cited no one then you are saying you got to that point unaided and that would sound to me unlikely. That is the results can perfectly well be yours and yours alone but you must have used some knowledge that you came by somewhere to get there in the first place, there must be some basis for what you did as we are all building on what others have said or proved so there should be some acknowledgement of that so that others can see where you are coming from. I assume this is about Miller and I would never recommend anyone to follow his example as he is totally scholarly. Just consider, if I said 'there was this man in London and he told me the Qu'ran is a forgery because ...' would you accept it - no not a chance but you will accept the same argument form from Miller - ask yourself why?

very possible for a research to have only the names of those having worked on it and recorded their findings it is really not that difficult to imagine, look at any orphan drug trial about any particular drug when the module is set, you need only to record the names and finding of those who have worked on it and not have it subject to some other cross trial or third party references .. be that as it may, I still don't see how that applies to Miller's work? Have you actually read it in full? These are his references on the bottom:

presented for your inspection:
"The Holy Quran," Text, Translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, 1934. (Latest Publisher: Amana
Publications, Beltsville, MD, USA; Title: "The Meaning of the Holy Quran," 1992). Includes subject index.
"The Meaning of the Glorious Koran," An Explanatory Translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, a Mentor
Book Publication. (Also available as: "The Meaning of the Glorious Koran," by Marmaduke Pickthall, Dorset Press,
N.Y.; Published by several publishers since 1930).
"The Bible, The Quran and Science (Le Bible, le Coran et la Science)," The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of
Modern Knowledge, by Maurice Bucaille, English version published by North American Trust Publication, 1978.

The Amazing Quran

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

and the rest is his commentary which you have failed to rebut in a scholarly fashion!...

Yes sure BUT you are assuming that those events are in there because of some supernatural mechanism and discount ANY other explanation or interpretation of those verses. You fail to understand, and I cannot really see why, you simply have no conception that any supposed fact can lead to any number of conclusions some of which can be opposite and if as you and Miller are disposed to accept anything that sounds like it proves Islam then you are not being rational or even sensible are you.

I fail to understand them for the reason I have mentioned and repeatedly, I don't really care for conjectures that can't be substantiated or find any meaning at all in heresy that opposes millenniums long scholarship of folks best studied in said subject. I think it is you who can't understand. If I make a claim now, that you are a rapist and a liar, I'll have to go about proving it. Making the claim or stating that such is a possibility I fear doesn't hold up to any thorough investigation!
The Quran is a self-evincing truth.. the night journey even if fantastic has brought us predictions that have unfolded one by one of signs of the end.. the best way to substantiate claims to an un-witnessed event is to look at the final product.
I see a final product with Islam that is living and expanding a thinking man's religion.. I don't see such things with Christianity, just empty claims of god's death to pay for our sins..

You spoke about your paper earlier but if I or anyone took those same results we might come to different conclusions so are you right or am I? Surely, you agree? Tell me where these verses are in the Qu'ran as I cannot find anywhere where anything special is being said that would not be known through sea stories etc. Miller as far as I recall gives no ref so can you do it and then we can discuss it. How can it be hearsay if I suggest there might be another explanation? If a medical researcher took the view that there is only one explanation he might end up killing someone - don't you agree? I am afraid I am lost here - is hypoxia mention in the Qu'ran also? I cannot see where I or others are trying to get you to believe in anything. I think the best posts in this thread are ones that force you and me to be sceptical, to think about what has been said and see that there are real issues no matter if you are Muslim or anything else

All of the Quran is unique, with an unparalleled inimitable style giving us parables of old, predictions of things to come, letting us how best to live righteous lives, how to fulfill our purpose both spiritually and as far as worldly affairs are concerned --the problem is, that you are not satisfied with what it says, and trying to find fault where none actually exists.

If it is obvious, then it is nothing special it is natural observation even if a far fetched observation for folks in that region-- if it is occult, then why is God being so cryptic and then render your orientalist explanatios such as al'motqat3at being the initials of the 'writer's of the quran (as an e.x) if it requires some faith, then it is absurd as this can't be scientifically verified! Do you not see that nothing will be to your satisfaction and that it is unfair that you ask me to make it into something that you've already made up your mind that it isn't or that I should cater at all to what your mind considers unique or special considering your criteria is so faulty one that accepts men for gods?

2:120 Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah, that is the (only) Guidance," wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor Helper against Allah.

There is nothing wrong with the message or the messenger, rather the problem is with you!

2: 78 And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.


I am not after following whims or yielding to the vain discourse and empty desires of men..

12: 108 Say: "This is my way: Resting upon conscious insight accessible to reason, I am calling [you all] unto God - I and they who follow me. And [say:] "Limitless is God in His glory; and I am not one of those who ascribe divinity to aught beside Him!"

If I go into a surgery and I need to scrub, and I know the protocol to scrubbing, yet I keep questioning why I must scrub above the elbow, why must I go over four planes of every finger five times, when in the end I'll glove and gown anyway, no research shows that scrubbing 32 times instead of 33 is superior, or 31 instead of 32 or that double gloving beats single gloving in needle accidents. It is your mindset that hinders you not the protocol.

I think you are muddled. Abraham as far as we know from the Bible came from Ur which was part of the Mesopotamian/Sumerian empires if my memory is correct and that was some 4,000 years ago and the idea that he was an Arab is certainly novel - where did that idea come from? We cannot fix with certainty the dates because in the Bible narrative there is not a single named individual outside the patriarchs who can with certainty be tied down to a date. I don't know what kind of logic is in your head, Abraham did by land in Canaan and Canaan was later called Israel - so what are you trying to say?

Where is Ur in your mind? is it not Modern day Iraq? btw Abraham (p) ancestry originated from what is known as modern day Yemen:

The Yemeni desert regions (Rub' al Khali and Sayhad) were the core settlements of the Nomadic Semites that would migrate to the North, settling Akkad, later penetrating Mesopotamia,[3] eventually conquering Sumer by 2300 BCE, and assimilating the Amorites of Syria.
Some scholars[who?] believe that Yemen remains the only region in the world that is exclusively Semitic, meaning that Yemen historically did not have any non-Semitic speaking people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Yemen

These are his roots before migration to north (he is known as the father of the prophet) for his travels amongst other reasons, of course you'll need a skilled historian to teach you such things before yielding blindly to what your books peddle (sort of like) sacrificing his 'only' son, when if his 'only' son then it would have been Ishmael and if not then 'only' certainly doesn't belong (but let's not digress for the purposes of our topics here)!

a couple of videos on his prophet-hood and travels in these videos, in the 2nd series of five Jewish man speaks in perfect Arabic of said travels.. you should get the 'best translator as per your standards' to translate these videos to you, but I post them anyway for the Muslim members who speak Arabic and for visual appeal!

Media Tags are no longer supported

Media Tags are no longer supported

here is a map of Mesopotamia



and a map of ancient Samaria





It was all in the middle east, whether he came from Yemen or Iraq or Palestine or Samaria or traveled here or there, he still purchased a land from the Palestinians (Canaanites/also of Semitic stock) who long had a history before Jewish tribes immigrated there.. Any modern day Jew or Christian if not of middle eastern origin has no link whatsoever to the original Semitic people of Samaria/Mesopotamia or the original Israelites (sons of Jacob) of whom the majority became Christian with Jesus (p) and then Muslim with the emergence of Islam before spread to foreign lands.. Islam came from the same region of the world as the other Abrahamic religions and all the messengers including prophet Mohammed (PBUH) have a direct link to Abraham! and so you in essence to take it down to the lowest denominator you are worshiping a middle eastern man from west Asia. One, Whose language and style and customs are very dissimilar from yours, and yet see it fit to tell us the (natives) of said places of the contents of our book via 'the best translator in your opinion' or convince us that taking it back from us (crusades)or other modern day style warfare as if you had any ownership or rights to said prophets or said places. You can't really call it a conquest when the folks are of the same Semitic stock and when the religion is the one that was intended all along.. so pls don't come and teach me of your brand of Christianity or of your European three headed gods and think that your scholarship is best suited to discern the history and religion that, said region is steeped in and devoted to and then have the audacity to call me muddled!



all the best!

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

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

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

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

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

Try reading "The Qur'anic Phenomenon", Malik Ibn Nabi.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye

Furthermore, I have asked you to desist making an object of comparison between the Quran and the bible.. again, if anything it can be akin to, it would be the hadith and as I have stated before, even those have a chain of narration to support their validity that doesn't exist for the bible!

From the above we can see how inconsistent you are. Here you claim it is me bringing in the Bible but as I said elsewhere it is you and you clearly say so below. If we are to allow comparison we can do it on the basis that the Bible and Qu'ran are both revelations so they should agree or we simple say they are both books. As has been said many times; but I say it again here that it matters not a hoot what authenticity claims there are for the Bible or what its teachings might be as far as proving claims about the Qu'ran. It would be like saying Ford is a poor car manufactured therefore Nissan is a good one and even your shaky logic would not go that far I hope.

1- you are a Christian arguing about the Quran's credibility/divinity and go about it in certain fashion which incredibly enough you fail to employ for your bible, now I say this because by mere virtue of being a christian and assumed studied in Christianity you already hold on to fantastic beliefs, which the bible itself isn't in consensus over, now I wonder what formula you use enables you to be so allowing when it comes to the bible and so restrictive when comes to the Quran, when its foundation and beliefs make far better sense yet seem to hold you in a mental block?

Strictly I am questioning the claims for authenticity that you and others are making for the Qu'ran - is that not allowed, does one have to accept it without question as you do? If you want to discuss the Bible and its teaching then start a thread and I would be happy to join in. What you sadly seem totally unaware of is your own mental block - is it so intellectuality difficult for you to see that your own words apply to your own beliefs as much as they do to mine. If you cannot see that then there is no basis for discussion because you are unable to see any other than you own point of view, ipso facto you are not interested in truth.

There can only be two answers as to how the prophet have known of certain things, be it ahel al'kahf, zhu alqarenyen, Aad, Tahmud, etc etc.

a- it was revealed unto him! (the most obvious conclusion)
b- someone told him.. in which case you need to bring us the name of that someone, furthermore establish motive and reconcile it with the amount of ridicule he received in his lifetime for mention of said events of which many are a modern find, such as the city of Ubar for instance. And then bring us your grievance against the prophet Mohammed for anyone who would have brought this book (as in told him the stories therein or not) would be considered remarkable based on linguistic style alone!

To show how silly this is as an argument let me use an analogy. Suppose I say to you "The cure for a bacterial infection is Penicillin" and there are ONLY two ways I could know that according to you: it was revealed to me by God or someone told me - which is more likely do you think or are there a host of other ways I could know this? What you are doing is called the fallacy of the false dilemma but again your own bias and disposition will not allow even the thought to enter you mind that you could possibly be illogical here.

I will responder to the rest of you post later

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

I think what you are asserting in your post, in essence, is that the three arguments you listed disprove the Qur'an is a literary masterpiece (which, by the way, is not a "conjecture" considering the quotations from those who have studied it and the reactions of those who heard it at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)). In reality, none of these points have any bearing on the literary excellence of the Qur'an...

No this is not quite correct, I added a note on the notion of proof to expanded on what I said earlier and by way of example suggested possible tests that one might use to to establish literary merit. But like ANY criteria at some point one must make a judgement and even though you dismiss the tests that itself is a judgement you have made - no more no less.

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 transcends 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.

I accept the point but these are conjectures as I cannot see how one can prove that a translation CANNOT capture perfectly - it may be that some translations don't but that is not proof that none can do it. It is not unique either that the Qu'ran does all the things you say it does and I for example would claim the Bible does and more, indeed it preserves what is best in cultures and Islam cannot usually be said to do that because it always thinks of itself as superior. To see what I mean, I have a book called 'The inimitable Jeeves' and the broadcaster Stephen Fry says 'You don't analyse such sunlit perfection, you just bask in its warmth and splendour' - its a judgement of course just like yours and if indeed you spoke of the Qu'ran in then same personal way I would have little to say but as soon as you dig out all these proofs and what nots then it all seems to me a house of cards that can be destroyed with a puff of wind.

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.

Here I agree and this is what a Christian would say about the Bible - that the revelation is accessible to all and its implications universal

There may be some confusion behind the word 'vocabulary' here. The actual number of words used in the Qur'an surpasses 77,000. Irrespective of this, it is sufficient to consider the volumes upon volumes of exegesis of the Qur'an, leaving no doubt concerning the depth of its message.

It may be that you missed in my original that I was speaking about the number of DIFFERENT and their distribution words not the total word count. The point being that if a vocabulary is limited then the ideas it can express are necessarily limited by that.

However, when it comes to the Qur'an, it stands out so clearly as a masterpiece that not only Muslim scholars but Christian Arabs and Orientalists have come to the same conclusion. Whatever criteria you want to put forward, the Qur'an will prove itself unique. So with this in mind, any subjectivity becomes insignificant if it exists at all.

But others have come to different conclusions so again it is a matter of judgement no matter what criteria you use. What you say may be true of its setting 14 centuries ago and for Arabic but whether it now transcends any other work existing or yet to be written is at least debatable.

The real test or exception in determining whether the Qur'an is divine or not is to produce something like it. And as nobody has succeeded in this, one's confidence in the 'theory' can only increase.

How would we judge this? For example, I might argue that the first Sura can bettered by just 3 verses from Isaiah Chapter 6.

Go and tell this people: "'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed." Then I said, "For how long, O Lord?" And he answered: "Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged,..

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

From the above we can see how inconsistent you are. Here you claim it is me bringing in the Bible but as I said elsewhere it is you and you clearly say so below. If we are to allow comparison we can do it on the basis that the Bible and Qu'ran are both revelations so they should agree or we simple say they are both books. As has been said many times; but I say it again here that it matters not a hoot what authenticity claims there are for the Bible or what its teachings might be as far as proving claims about the Qu'ran. It would be like saying Ford is a poor car manufactured therefore Nissan is a good one and even your shaky logic would not go that far I hope.

I have never said you are bringing the bible, do you actually read what I have written or so eager to rain upon us your logic or lack thereof that you fail to see what is right in front of you? Which btw you do consistently with every post!
1- I have clearly questioned the criteria you employ that enables you to be so allowing in accepting the bible as a revelation but so restrictive when it comes to the Quran. The problem isn't in the Quran or the criteria-- the problem is in what you are programmed or allow yourself to believe..
The Quran's claims on authenticity aren't only established by known history of its revelation but comes with a challenge!
If you can fulfill said challenge then you can prove it inauthentic!
So far you have't been able to do that!

[Pickthal 2:23] And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave, then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful.

Strictly I am questioning the claims for authenticity that you and others are making for the Qu'ran - is that not allowed, does one have to accept it without question as you do?

See above!

To show how silly this is as an argument let me use an analogy. Suppose I say to you "The cure for a bacterial infection is Penicillin" and there are ONLY two ways I could know that according to you: it was revealed to me by God or someone told me - which is more likely do you think or are there a host of other ways I could know this? What you are doing is called the fallacy of the false dilemma but again your own bias and disposition will not allow even the thought to enter you mind that you could possibly be illogical here.

..
How hilarious that you should bring this up, to tighten the noose around your neck? Who are the authors for the bible? do you actually know and where are the references? This is exactly what I mean, by what the baseline is for your criteria by virtue of being christian, making you a hypocrite at best! And No, I have no interest to discuss the bible, aside from universal moral standards shared even by heathens, there is absolutely nothing exceptional or new about it save for a three headed god as far away from monotheism as any religion that alleges to be monotheistic can get!


Further it isn't a matter of how prophet Mohammed could have known what is in the Quran, not all of it is knowledge in the Quran was readily available (examples dispensed all over this place), it is the linguistic style in which it was revealed. That is its living miracle and have it reconciled with his personal life and known history as well his other side spoken words the hadith--for not only does he need a historian, a fortune teller, an economist, a politician, a mathematician, a cosmologist, an embryologist, geologist he also needs a very skilled poet and have them all work pro bono and in a clandestine fashion while carrying out full worldly affairs and implementation of these new 'man/made revelations' as well be really loving of abuse for I think it would be easier to poke ones eyes out than to withstand all that pain incurred from resistant pagan arabs/ jews and christians and then dying penniless with armor pawned to a Jew just to get people to pray to the one God!
If you are unable to do that, and you won't be able to do that, then concede to the obvious or do what you do best which is bury your head in the sand because I have had it with your innuendos!

BTW. was Boerhaave's syndrome known before Dr. Boerhaave's wrote about it? Should show you how faulty your logic is!
Here is an example (though a digression) of a case report written by only those involved with little or no references to anything else!

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-p...5&size=largest





all the best!

The miraculous Qur'an

Every messenger of God was assisted by divine miracles in order to prove they were genuine prophets. It would have been unfair to expect people to believe in something that is implausible, and then punish or reward them based on that in the hereafter. Afterall, there were many false prophets as well, hwo seeked personal gain. No, merely by looking at these miracles, one would be able to distinguish the genuine prophets apart from the other people.
Of course the problem is, only the people who were present to witness the miracle, can truly rely on it to be certain of said prophecy. Everyone else would have to rely on the reports of others. Due to this lack in universal validation for each individual person, many have jumped to the conclusion that those ancient prophets were most likely clever and witty people, ahead of their time who tricked people into following them for whatever benefit they sought to find in that. It is in a way understandable that people would reach such a conclusion. However with an Islam background, one shouldn't make the same assumption.
We believe that every genuine prophet was send with a specific message only to a specific nation at a specific time. So there is no need for people out of different areas & eras to validate the prophecy of the earlier prophets. Only the last prophet (peace be upon him) was sent to all of mankind. So therefore, according to Islam only the miracles of the last prophet needs to be universally validatable. The most significant miracle to validate this prophet, was the revelation of the Qur'an to him. Now, since the Qur'an was written down and preserved over time, people can still today witness the miracle. If you paid close attention to what I said, perhaps you have an objection to what I'm saying. If the origin of the Qur'an was indeed miraculous, how can people of different times validate that divinity. Just reading the text doesn't show you whether or not it was divinely inspired does it? Well not exactly, the Qur'an is miraculous in nature on various levels. It is miraculous not only in the method trough which it was revealed, but also in it's content. Reading the Qur'an, it appeared obvious that whoever has made it; had a very deep and profound knowledge of nature, physics, human psychology, and so on. A knowledge so profound, that the only plausible explanation to me seems that it was indeed divine revelation. It's just the only logical explanation that adds up. God Challenges us by saying,
"Will they not then consider the Qur'an with care? If it has been from the other than Allah they would have found therein much discrepancy." (Qur'an 4:82).
"And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful. "
(Qur'an 2:23)

Even though I did have the intention in mind to find flaws in the Qur'an, when I first started reading a translation of it. I was unable to find any. Quite the opposite! I was amazed at some of the scientific miracles. I should give a fair warning though; not all of the popular alleged miracles of the Qur'an are genuine. In a passionate attempt to validate the Qur'an as genuine, some writers have placed quantity over quality and thus the genuine miracles are somewhat hard to find amongst a bunch of semi-science far fetched miracles. The correct approach that we should use, is to keep religion and science separate. That is to say, if you study science, then use the scientific methodology, and if you study scripture, then use the correct methodology of exegesis. If then trough these two independent studies, we reach a mutual conclusion there is nothing wrong with such an event. However we should not let our knowledge of scripture interfere with the scientific methodology, nor should our knowledge of science interfere with the rules of exegesis.

As I see it, there are 5 classes of alleged scientific miracles in the Qur'an:

1. Miracle based on correct exegesis, confirmed by scientific proven theories.
2. Miracle based on correct exegesis, confirmed by unproven scientific hypothesis.
3. Miracle based on incorrect exegesis, confirmed by scientific proven theories.
4. Miracle based on incorrect exegesis, confirmed by unproven scientific hypothesis.
5. Miracle based on incorrect exegesis, and which are unscientific.

1. The first category, are those that truly validate the prophecy of Muhammed (peace be upon him).
Among these are:
The description of embryonic states.
The descriptions of the root of mountains and their function.
The description of the different layers of the sea, and their effect on light.
The description of the barrier between salt and fresh water where they meet.
2. The second category, are interesting to note, but should be dealt with cautiously.
3. These are controversial, a Muslim should avoid exegesis which is not according to the rules of tefsir (see introduction of Ibn kathir's tefsir). these alleged miracles are where they re-interpret the meaning of the Qur'an in order to "fit" scientific knowledge. Rather then validating the Qur'an, this behaviour actually damages the trustworthiness of Muslims and should thus by all means be avoided.
4. This category should be avoided for the same reasons as the 3rd and even more so, since there's a plausible probability that science abandons the hypothesis when future discoveries prove them wrong.
5. These are the worst category. They are suggested by popular writers who have a poor knowledge on both science as well in religion. these miracles are obviously wrong, and hurt the image of Islam the most.

I will attempt to discuss some of the miracles of the 1st class.

The descriptions of the root of mountains and their function.

The Qur'an says:
Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs? (78:6-7)
The part saying "mountains as pegs" is not vague. It gives a clear view of their shape, and this has been confirmed by science, and there was no way to discover these things without our current scientific advancement. If we look at an early tefsir made prior to scientific discoveries it's also clear that this is not a make-fit-translation:
Tafsir ibn kathir
And here's a scientific article that confirms the shape of mountains:
Beneath the mountains

In an earlier verse we see:
And We have placed on the earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them, and We placed therein broad highways for them to pass through, that they may be guided. (21:31)
Here the Qur'an goes further, not only telling us the shape of mountains, but also their function. Again the early tefisr:
Tefsir Ibn Kathir
Article explaining how research confirms the function of mountains as insulators for earthquakes:
Effects of Large-Scale Surface Topography on Ground Motions

The description of the different layers of the sea, and their effect on light.

The Qur'an says:
Or as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covereth him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light. (24:40)
this verse claims that:
1. Deep inside the sea there is darkness, this has now been tested with diving equipment and validated.
2. There are different waves above each other. This has now been tested with hightech equipment, measuring density and temperature, you can find "layers" of sea.
3. The darkness is caused by the layers. Again this is correct. These different layers of sea, since they each have a different density and temperature cause a phenomena which in science we call: "light refraction". Upon each refraction, a percentage of light is reflected back up. So the light is really stoped in part layer by layer.

(In all fairness, do note this only accounts for part of the darkness, allot of the light is also reflected on the surface (+-30%) and also some part of it is absorbed as heat by collisions. However, I find it amazing that this verse does not contradict science nevertheless)


Conclusion

If you read these verses at face value, they have an obvious direct meaning. They are clearly not meant in a metaphorical way, and give a direct message. Of course people can interpret that differently, but that's not my point. My point is:
1. The direct literal meaning of these verses is confirmed by science
2. The early scholars, who lived before we had these scientific knowledge, believed that these meant the same as we now believe.
3. This knowledge could not have been discovered without our current technological equipment.
4. The only logical explanations are that it is truly a divine revelation or that it was a lucky guess. However to claim that all of these different miracles were all lucky guesses defy the logic of chance-calculation and luck, and is therefore no longer a logical explanation.

Copy paste from my website: www.seemyparadigm.webs.com