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

Greetings Hugo,

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

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.

I don’t see how I said something incorrect. You were alleging that these tests were exceptions to the rule, and I was trying to show how this isn’t so. Even if it comes down to a judgement, then we have to evaluate which judgement is more sound.

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 strange that you keep disregarding points by claiming they are ‘conjecture’, when what I have stated is common knowledge known through experience and therefore does not need to be proven. I doubt you believe that a translation of the Bible captures all the subtleties and nuances of the original language in which it was written, hence I’m not sure why you are so reluctant to accept this basic fact for the Qur’an. Moreover, first you try to discredit the Qur’an on the basis that its literary excellence can’t be appreciated fully in another language, but when the argument was shown to be futile considering the more important point of the universality of the Qur’an’s message, you then change your tone to, “Oh, but the Bible can do this and more!”, even though this isn’t a Qur’an vs Bible discussion which you are very keen to point out when we respond to such comparisons.

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.

If the Bible is really that unique, why do you often follow the shifting teachings of the Church over the Bible, instead of governing according to the exact teachings that the Bible conveys?Why does each denomination have its own Bible if the message is so universal? As for superiority, surely you will agree that truth should be regarded as superior to falsehood.

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.

You ignored the bit where I said, “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.” Furthermore, while it easy for someone who has not studied the language of the Qur’an to make such subjective claims, one only has to consider how the scholars of language regarded the Qur’an itself a reference for the language.

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.

You keep repeating that “it’s a matter of judgement”, yet you ignore all the evidence to the contrary. Which others are you speaking of that have so categorically concluded otherwise? Again, it is easy for a non-Arab to pass these things off as “debatable”, but the matter is as brother Muraad said, “The Qur'aan not only conformed to these grammar rules, it used them in a way that left the greatest masters of the language in awe - it became the apex, the crux and the standard of perfection in the language. It is an matched reference for anyone who studies the language. Any scholar of the language whose knowledge extends beyond modern Arabic and is aware at the very least of classical Arabic can tell you this. This is simple historical fact. It became and still is the reference on grammar, eloquence, and perfection in the language, even the Orientalists grudgingly admit to this, which is why they hardly ever tried to criticize the Qur'aan from this standpoint.

"So honestly, knowing this it's very hard to take anyone seriously when they ignorantly come and attempt to criticize the Qur'aan from the language. Let them study the language first, educate themselves on the 7 branches of the Arabic language, study the science of balaagha (eloquence), study pre-Arabic poetry and then come and say something about the Arabic of the Qur'an, we can take them seriously then.”

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

I see you did not read the links.

Granted, there is subjectivity in any literary evaluation. This would pose a problem in a challenge with a single judge or a panel of judges, or if there is a biased criterion like “only Muslims scholars can be judges”.

However, there is no such restriction in the challenge.

The general consensus of the international Arabic literary community – and the Arab masses – is that nothing exists to meet the challenge. This is an objective yardstick.

Understanding the Qur’an’s Literary Challenge: to “Bring Something Like It”

What Is The Challenge Of The Qur'an With Respect To Arabic Prose & Poetry?

Regards.

The Muslim World Book Review, :, 
20
Islamic Thought and Sources
THE HISTORY OF THE QUR’ANIC TEXT FROM REVELATION TO
COMPILATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY WITH THE OLD AND
NEW TESTAMENTS. By Muhammad Mustafa Al-A[zami. Leicester: UK
Islamic Academy, . Pp. . ISBN  (HB), ISBN  
(PB).
From its very beginning, Islam has been under attack not only physically but
academically. Christian demagogues like John of Damascus, Peter the
Venerable, Raymundus Lull, and Martin Luther later were followed by
infamous Jewish, Christian or secularist Orientalists like Julius Wellhausen,
Gustav Flügel, Theodor Nöldeke, Ignaz Goldziher, Alphonse Mingana, Snouck
Hurgronje or Joseph Schacht. They all did their best to prove that Islam was
a corrupted Jewish-Christian copy, based on forged ahadith, without any
originality or saving grace.
This scientific onslaught increasingly focused on the Qur’an, to be
dismantled in the same way the Old Testament (OT) and New Testament
(NT) had been already. The latest wave of attacks, as vicious and biased as
any before, was and is fuelled by the likes of Arthur Jeffrey, Gotthelf
Bergsträsser, Otto Pretzl, John Wansborough, Andrew Rippin, Patricia Crone,
Michael Cook, Gerd Puin and “Ibn Warraq”. Outrageously they more or
less claim that the entire Islamic history is mere fiction and the Qur’an a
late—nd or rd Hijri century—product, projected backwards by what
belatedly came to be called Muslims.
The book under review by an Indian (now Saudi) Deobandi and Azhari
hadith scholar and King Faisal Award winner (), also trained in Cambridge,
is the most detailed, well researched and documented refutation of Occidental
attacks yet written, and that in excellent English. It was prompted by Toby
Lester’s scandalous article of , “What is Koran?”, that appeared in the
Atlantic Monthly. Al-A[zami takes Lester’s article as a starting point for carrying
Edward Said’s critique of Orientalism right into the camp of Western Qur’anic
studies, painstakingly revealing its biases, double standards, arrogance,
incompetence, and, at times, Zionist motivation. The author’s erudition does
indeed put the Orientalists to shame. It is the most devastating critique of
Western Islamological “scholarship”, which is entirely conducted using
Orientalism’s own premises, methods, literature and lines of argumentation.
Remarkably, after establishing the originality and authenticity of the
Qur’anic text (Part I), the author—conscious of Field Marshall von Schlieffen[’s
dictum that Angriff ist die beste Verteidigung (attack is the best form of
defence)—demonstrates the near incredible corruption of both the OT (II,
pp. -) and the NT (II -) in Part II before launching into a final
The Muslim World Book Review, :, 
21
appraisal of Orientalism (III, pp. -). All the way through, al-A[zami
uses photographs of scriptural fragments, well reproduced on glazed paper,
in order to illustrate his points, letting facts speak for themselves. Thus he
lists no less than  Companions who, in addition of Zayd b. Thabit,
functioned as scribes for the Prophet (saas). The author is honest to the
point of giving two differing accounts of the procedure followed for estabishing
the ´[Uthmani mushaf: (i) mere copying the Suhuf prepared by Zayd b. Thabit
during the lifetime of the Caliph Abu Bakr; (ii) checking a version
independently established by [Uthman and the surviving Companions against
the Suhuf and additional material from [A’ishah (pp. -). Nor does he
blindly accept that the earliest extant Qur’anic manuscripts, in Istanbul and
Tashkent, were the ones distributed by [Uthman but leaves open the possibility
that these MSS like  other ones from the first century Hijri listed on p. f.
might be the first copies, from  A.H. at the earliest (p. ).
At the same time, he does demonstrate that Kufic and cursive Arabic
script during the first Hijri century existed side by side with the original
Hijazi script, the oldest Arabic inscription found dating from  CE (p.
). In fact, he proves that Arabic script predated the Nabataean one and
that the introduction of dots (both skeletal and diacritical) and that of verse
separation predated this development in Bible manuscripts by many centuries.
Al-A[zami is aware that if the Bible were to be treated the way the Qur’an
is, i.e. discarding all Jewish or Christian evidence for it, the existence of
Moses and Jesus would have to be denied and both the OT and NT be rated
as comparatively recent, anonymous pieces of constantly changing fiction,
i.e. true “cultural products”. It is in fact difficult not to become cynical when
comparing Judaism and Christianity with the tradition of Islam, based on no
less than , existing Qur’an manuscripts and hundreds of thousands of
huffaz who, authorized by their Prophet from the beginning, recited the
Qur’an in its entirety, without any substantial discrepancies except for some
dialectical variations. That the Arabic word [insert characters] if undotted
can mean “he said”, “he was killed”, “to kiss”, “before”, “front of body” and
“elephant” is immaterial in view of the Muslims’ reliable oral tradition.
Compare that to the fact that the Torah had been erased from Jewish memory
for some  years before miraculously surfacing again, that no authoritative
text of it existed until around  C.E., and that the first extant complete
MS of the OT in Hebrew dates from  of our era.
The author is under no illusion that Orientalists will continue to believe
that Muslims, as believers, cannot be trusted with the basics of their own
faith. Nor does he expect that people who in principle deny the existence of
God (and hence the phenomenon of true revelation) will stop their attacks
on the Qur’an. They will continue to make much of the fact that the Qur’an
was gathered but not written until  years after the Prophet’s (saas) death,
while accepting the Bible with its extremely precarious authenticity. And
The Muslim World Book Review, :, 
they will continue to focus on the inadequacies of the earliest Arabic script
while insisting, simultaneously, that the Qur’an was only orally transmitted
for more than a century. In other words, they continue to apply differential
standards of historical assessment.
It is to be hoped that this book will be circulated and studied widely
among all Muslims engaged in da[wah, dialogue, education and research,
and seen as a truly essential tool. For Muslims, this is easily the most important
book of recent times.
In view of such a monumental piece of deep learning, one hesitates to
point out a few corrections that could be made:
• p. (third millenium) “C.E.” should read “B.C.E.”
• p. : If [Abd Manaf was born in  his son Hashim cannot have been
born in .
• References to the Leningrad Codex should be changed to St. Petersburg
Codex (pp. f.; )
• p. : Emperor Constantine did not become Christian in  C.E.
but, after the Nicene Council of  C.E., in  C.E., baptized only on
his deathbed.
• Ahmad al-Imam ought to have been given credit for his relevant study
on Variant Readings of the Qur’an (Herndon: IIIT ).
Bonn,
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur.../MH_review.pdf
Germany Murad Wilfried Hofmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murad_Wilfried_Hofmann) commentary on Al'Azami's book!

I wonder if we can change direction a little and I add this post based on on an idea by Faruq al-Dhimmi though whether this is a real name or not I cannot say and that is of course common is message boards. Consider:

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides God, if your (doubts) are true. Q2:23 (Yusuf Ali)

Of course as a Christian I can't claim to be impartial in matters of religion but the challenge is a little odd and one assumes it must be to every one, including Muslims, that is Muslims must try as hard as anyone else to find something that is as good as or better - is that not so?

1. A minor objection is that aesthetics can never be a measure of truth. Although truth can certainly be beautiful, so can lies and sometimes even more beautiful. On the other hand, truth can sometimes be unattractive - like when you are told the truth about your attitude or your supposed good looks, or the scriptures speaking about sin and hell, or an uncut dimond or a boring sermon.

It could plausibly be argued that Allah was not making beauty the measure of truth, so much as he was making the Qur'an's beauty a sign to doubters. It's a subtle distinction, but I think it's valid - not unlike Moses besting the sorcerers of Egypt with his miracles. Miracles never became the standard of truth in a logical sense (most of us have probably heard of "lying wonders"), but Moses's miracles were a sign that Allah was with him.

2. So the inappropriateness of aesthetics as an arbiter of truth is not my major objection. The real problem is much graver. In particular, I believe that it is not a legitimate challenge at all, because the deck is heavily stacked in favor of the Qur'an beacuse there is a subtle but very real circularity for believing Muslims.

The circularity goes like this: If you're an orthodox Muslim, you believe that the entire Qur'an is the very word of God, and is therefore inerrant. As an implication of this, he or she also believes that there is no other writing as eloquent as the Qur'an. Therefore, any attempt to "produce a Sura like thereunto" must fail - thus verifying that the Qur'an is the very word of God and inerrant. In fact, the verse following the challenge affirms the impossibility of producing such a Sura, and threatens disbelievers with the Fire whose fuel is men and stones:

But if ye cannot - and of a surety ye cannot - then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith. Q2.24 (Yusuf Ali)

It is no surprise, then, that Muslims have found no sura equal to the Qur'an. The surprise would be if they had, since even admitting the possibility of a better Sura contradicts 2:24, which says "of a surety ye cannot," hence being a sign of disbelief.

When I see a challenge like this it does not convince me of the Qur'an's truth but it does rather the opposite, making me suspect that the message is false. It might also be noted here that the Qu'ran is self-referencing (it talks about itself) and in logical terms that is a very small step away from creating a paradox. (By the way, I mean no offense to any Muslims who may read this. I just couldn't think of any inoffensive way to say this.) It seems to me that the real test of truth is how well it stands up when stripped of eloquence so all we have is what it says.

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power. 1 Corinthians 2:1-5

Eloquence is a good thing, a powerful servant of truth. But it is also fickle, serving falsehood as eagerly as truth as any one who Has ended up buying something they never wanted knows. So, how well do the messages of Islam and Christianity stand up on their own merits? Now that's a question worth debating.

Exactly what would you like?
for us to dismiss a book whose message is clear, its authenticity established, its inimitability unchallenged its history perfectly elucidated for a book whose authors are unknown, its message at odds with itself, at odds with what other denominations use, irreverent to its characters, jarring at times, speaking of figures that might have not existed, as told by a former charlatan and whose earliest manuscripts are some centuries after the fact of the matter, whose bottom line and possibly (all its rituals) are focused on the death of a man who forsake himself and whose apostles were inept at best at shouldering the responsibility? if Jesus did not die on the cross, is your faith any more than a house built on sinking sand?

You must want to only convince yourself of why you choose to remain with archaic and clearly paganistic inclinations than accept the straight path?!


(2:256) Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things!


all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

The circularity goes like this: If you're an orthodox Muslim, you believe that the entire Qur'an is the very word of God, and is therefore inerrant. As an implication of this, he or she also believes that there is no other writing as eloquent as the Qur'an. Therefore, any attempt to "produce a Sura like thereunto" must fail - thus verifying that the Qur'an is the very word of God and inerrant. In fact, the verse following the challenge affirms the impossibility of producing such a Sura, and threatens disbelievers with the Fire whose fuel is men and stones:

But if ye cannot - and of a surety ye cannot - then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith. Q2.24 (Yusuf Ali)

It is no surprise, then, that Muslims have found no sura equal to the Qur'an. The surprise would be if they had, since even admitting the possibility of a better Sura contradicts 2:24, which says "of a surety ye cannot," hence being a sign of disbelief.

your logic fails. theoretically if the muslims found anyone produced a chapter like the words of the quran their faith would be broken. hence no fear of punishment.
and even if their was such a exemplar man made chapter and it was dismissed this clearly means the words of quran (of punishment) have a greater effect then the words of the false chapter. hence the man made chapter is not comparable to the quranic verses.

unfortunatley your essential problem is that, like most christians, you rely on faith to turn a blind eye to everything. whereas muslims know for a fact, by faith and proof the Islam is the only truth of existence and hence logical reasons can be provided for any critisism.

so we dont need Christian apologetics which any two year old can see through.

and to save yourself humiliation looking at christianity on its own merits is really something you dont want to get yourself into.

format_quote Originally Posted by tango92

your logic fails. theoretically if the muslims found anyone produced a chapter like the words of the quran their faith would be broken. hence no fear of punishment. and even if their was such a exemplar man made chapter and it was dismissed this clearly means the words of quran (of punishment) have a greater effect then the words of the false chapter. hence the man made chapter is not comparable to the quranic verses.

I think you miss the point, have YOU sought to find a sura, tried as hard as you can to do it? I known what the answer is, you have not and my guess is that you would not even subscribe to the possibility of such a thing? I an earlier post I offered an 'exemplar' for the first sura, no one as far as I know made any comments on it - what does that prove?

unfortunatley your essential problem is that, like most christians, you rely on faith to turn a blind eye to everything. whereas Muslims know for a fact, by faith and proof the Islam is the only truth of existence and hence logical reasons can be provided for any criticism. so we don't need Christian apologetics which any two year old can see through.

Arrogance is not argument is it, every one but a Muslim is something of an idiot and does not know his logic from his elbow according to you, we have a saying "there is none so blind as those who do not want to see'? Just show me logically how 'you know for a fact' that Islam is the only truth so that we 2 year olds can see the quality of your thinking and rationality?

and to save yourself humiliation looking at christianity on its own merits is really something you dont want to get yourself into.

So now you couple arrogance with insult and this really is calling the pot calling the kettle black - I have my faith, its not about absolute certainty and I have doubts all then time so you can see at least I act rationally and understand that it is about believing, you I suspect accept everything Islamic without a second thought - is that true?

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

I think you miss the point of the thread which is to discuss sometime fantastical claims made about the Qu'ran so I am asking for nothing more that you answer or offer some answers or just add to the debate over questions posed without assuming that you are right just because you say so. Let me reply to what you have said:

1. I nowhere dismissed the Qu'ran or advised you to do so, I only questioned what I regard as often irrational claims that are supposed to verify its supposed divine origins and almost always these claims are outside its message.

2. You must be in another world if you believe that the Qu'ran is unchallenged in terms of its message, its clarity, its authenticity, its inimitability with a perfect history and toi mind that borders on delusion not rationality.

3. If you wish to discuss these unfounded claims about the Bible then create a thread let us do it. Everything you said above comes out of ignorance not knowledge and indeed everything you said might easily be applied to the Qu'ran. So if you want rational debate on those issues then get permission and set up a thread.

Perhaps you would like to consider your own position in the light of what what in 1830, the Mathematician Charles Babbage wrote of the distinction between truth seekers and fraudsters in his Reflections on the Decline Science in England and some of its causes. The former he said, zealously prevent bias from influencing facts, whereas the fraudster consciously allows his prejudices to interfere with his observations.

There are NO unfounded claims in the Quran of its divinity. Its very conclusive statements are meant to bring comfort to the believer while probably sending non-believers to the five page tirade as only a book that is authored by God can!

An example of that would be with abu lahab, the surah of abu lahab was revealed ten years before he died.. he had ample time if for nothing else but pure hatred of Islam and the prophet of whom he and his wife constantly tortured to repent or fake a conversion as there were many hypocrites who said one thing and did another to a different end-- if nothing else simply to prove the Quran wrong as folks have been attempting through the ages.. but he didn't.. God's word is the absolute and certainty.

I don't want to consider other positions since I have already seen what you read and what you propose for 'evidence' and frankly I have regret spending my time in such a fashion..

Lut didn't sleep with his daughters and Abraham didn't marry his sister, Jusus didn't pray in Gethsemane and he didn't forsake himself? the godness of Jesus wasn't proposed by the Nicene council or paul.. You don't believe in a three headed god.. such a shame that I should make so many unfounded claims of the bible.. lucky thing to that I have to be out the door in 4 mins else we'd be here all day!


all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

I think you miss the point, have YOU sought to find a sura, tried as hard as you can to do it? I known what the answer is, you have not and my guess is that you would not even subscribe to the possibility of such a thing? I an earlier post I offered an 'exemplar' for the first sura, no one as far as I know made any comments on it - what does that prove?

please direct me to said 'examplar' as i cba to sift through 21 pages of discussion.
i have seen more than enough 'attempts' at quran copying to either laugh flat out at their content or recognize they are all plagiarism.

Arrogance is not argument is it, every one but a Muslim is something of an idiot and does not know his logic from his elbow according to you, we have a saying "there is none so blind as those who do not want to see'? Just show me logically how 'you know for a fact' that Islam is the only truth so that we 2 year olds can see the quality of your thinking and rationality?

when it comes to apologetics, how can you convince me im free to do what i like cause some MAN died for my sins. its something nobody i know really agrees with.

has god revealed?
how come there are so many different claimed prophets? its ridiculous to say they all copied each other. what is the fundamental message everyone teaches?
there is only one god.

now lets see which religions teach this. immediately we rule out christianity believing in a three headed god. most hindus belive in a zillion gods. islam and a handful of other religions teaches monotheism.

now lets see scriptures, only islam has the scripture surviving in its entirety today with no errors or contradictions. and is thus the only preserved religion.

lets look at prophet muhammad. a man in the desert comes up with a book of such literary excellence (bear in mind at this time no scientific facts could be verified nor could they say the quran has been preserved over 1400 yrs) that within aprox 20 yrs of his life he wins the hearts of an entire country. within 100 yrs or so the muslim rule spreads out over most of the middle east.
and what was his motivation? if it was just power, money or women, he would have been given it by the tribal leaders of mecca.
every other proof (scientific etc) has already been mentioned in this thread and if your so blind as to turn away from it, then thats that.

now the real proof. when i read the quran from the start i knew inside this must be from god.

A L M.
This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah

Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;

And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter

They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper

As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/002.asp

what kind of book is this? declaring itself the guidance from god. how come i feel blood rushing to my head? im scared to keep reading but i do. and then my heart warms knowing i found something that knows me better than i know myself.
every teaching, every rationale, everything in the quran i agree with. i dont chase girls anymore either. i quit some seriously bad addictions i had because of this book.

whenever i had doubts about islam, my hands would shake and i knew that i was wrong. not only that but any doubt i had was clearly and logically explained to me both by others and my own thought. something that is not found in christianity.

so theres my proof based on inner faith and logic . and im unshakeable in it, unlike you. if you have any questions on the quran then ask and we will answer. but please only do so if your genuine.

im sorry to say but if you keep having doubts then surely they are not being resolved?

brother noman ali khan explains many of my points better than me:

is the quran miraculuous?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcmAbkZwRRI
The Miraculous Quran and the Islamic revolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axM5p8IazZk

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

Can you give one example of the Qu'ran claiming for itself divinity? Also one might add here that such self-referencing amounts to a circular argument - is it divine because it says so or is it divine so what ever it says must be true - its a paradox is it not - unless perhaps every book that makes such a claim is divine. But let us see one such claim and we can examine it.

I don't understand, first you want a Quranic claim of divinity, only to pre-dismiss it as 'circular logic?'
It is the truth, because God is truth, and it is inerrant because it doesn't come from human pens!

I cannot quite work out the logic you are using here as it can hardy be prophetic to say even for God that someone would die. One also wonders what purpose God might have in putting into a supposed eternal book such a temporal and local threat to Abu Lahab? It may be that Abu Lahab hated Islam but that does not mean that every one who has an objection or some doubts does; that is flawed reasoning. I agree from a faith point of view that God's word is certain but the issues is how can we know we have it?

The Sura isn't about abu lahb's 'death', did you read it? before commenting on it I suggest you read it. Of course we are all going to die.. why do you even bother take web-space to state something so obvious?
and the threat is hardly temporal it is quite eternal hence for the amount of hatred Abu lahab had, he could have certainly simply for the sake of making a point challenged the prophet on its veracity or divinity even for a couple of days, but to abu lahab's and his wife's dying days they kept with their method!
You can't really have it both ways, allege that the Quran borrow freely from the bible, when your biblical characters behave shadily at best, and then question where the Quran has such a contradictory account of them ( a book that plagiarizes should stick to the original account, in the same language of said events and recounts them in exact sameness further by the same token you can't question why it offers a threat to the local characters if it had Hebrew /Grecian roots from the local friendly jews and the two tribes of Christians!
The local character deserved what he had coming. But from Hadith we know what Abu Lahab who was an uncle to the prophet will be spared painful punishments on mondays for it was a day he spared a slave girl and because God isn't unjust to people!
Now, as I have stated before:

Gossamer--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 explanations 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!

and now naturally why is it being temporal?!

Media Tags are no longer supported

one wonders what grievances you'll grace us with next?

all I can say to you is this directly from the Noble Quran:


وَدَّ كَثِيرٌ مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ لَوْ يَرُدُّونَكُم مِّن بَعْدِ إِيمَانِكُمْ كُفَّاراً حَسَدًا مِّنْ عِندِ أَنفُسِهِم مِّن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُمُ الْحَقُّ فَاعْفُواْ وَاصْفَحُواْ حَتَّى يَأْتِيَ اللّهُ بِأَمْرِهِ إِنَّ اللّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ {109}
[Pickthal 2:109] Many of the people of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. Forgive and be indulgent (toward them) until Allah give command. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.

Well that is a matter for you but one can hardly offer any rational argument if one does not at least appreciate that other positions are at least possible and plausible

I don't know what 'rational' is in your book. A rational approach has been elucidated, your refusal to accept it, is a personal issue, from which I can't be made to suffer. Rational to you is a man/god.. how can I possibly meet with your expectations and be 'rational' you start from a different baseline!

It is not an argument to make statements is it? Can we consider your claim, the Bible in Genesis 19 clearly states that Lot in a drunken stupor slept with his daughters, that claim is the earliest record we have so if you say it is incorrect please tell us your source?

And Lot, who said to his nation: 'Do you commit such indecency (sodomy) in a way that no one has preceded you in the worlds? You approach men lustfully instead of women. Truly, you are a nation who exceed (in sin).' The only answer of his nation was: 'Expel them from your village. They are people who keep themselves purified.' We saved him and all his family, except his wife, who was made to remain, and We rained down upon them a rain. So look how was the end of the evildoers.
—Qur'an 7:80-84
Your Lord, He is the Almighty, the Most Merciful.

Lot's nation, belied their Messengers. When their brother Lot said to them: 'Will you not be cautious? I am for you an honest Messenger. So fear God, and obey me. ask of you no wage for this; my wage is only with the Lord of the Worlds. What, do you come to the males of the world, and leave your wives whom your Lord has created for you? No, but you are a transgressing nation.' 'Lot,' they replied, 'if you do not desist, you shall be thrown out.' He said: 'Truly, I am a detester of what you do.' 'My Lord, save me and my people from that they are doing.' So We saved him and all his people, except an old woman who stayed behind, then We destroyed the others. We rained upon them a rain, and evil is the rain (of stones) on those that are warned. Surely, in that there is a sign. Yet most of them do not believe. Your Lord, He is the Almighty, the Most Merciful.

—Qur'an 26:159-175

(We also sent) Lut (as a messenger): behold, He said to his people, "Do ye do what is shameful though ye see (its iniquity)? Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant! But his people gave no other answer but this: they said, "Drive out the followers of Lut from your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!" But We saved him and his family, except his wife; her We destined to be of those who lagged behind. And We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)!
—Qur'an 27:54-58

And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: "Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. "Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?- and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?" But his people gave no answer but this: they said: "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth." He said: "O my Lord! help Thou me against people who do mischief!" When Our Messengers came to Abraham with the good news, they said: "We are indeed going to destroy the people of this township: for truly they are (addicted to) crime." He said: "But there is Lut there." They said: "Well do we know who is there : we will certainly save him and his following,- except his wife: she is of those who lag behind!" And when Our Messengers came to Lut, he was grieved on their account, and felt himself powerless (to protect) them: but they said: "Fear thou not, nor grieve: we are (here) to save thee and thy following, except thy wife: she is of those who lag behind. "For we are going to bring down on the people of this township a Punishment from heaven, because they have been wickedly rebellious."
—Qur'an 29:28-34

God doesn't send chosen messengers who proscribe evil and preach good if they are both drunks and incestuous. fear God and stop saying that which you don't know of righteous folks hand picked by God.
This is the matter of being 'rational and logical'!

My source is the divine Quran!
your source is a book written some centuries after the matter by lecherous men who made a man of god and incestuous drunks of his messengers!

all the best!

Surah 30 contains a remarkable historical prophecy which was fulfilled.

"The Romans have been defeated

"In the nearer land, and they, after their defeat will be victorious

"Within ten years - Allah's is the command in the former case and in the latter - and in that day believers will rejoice .

"In Allah's help to victory. He helpeth to victory whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Merciful." Quran (Pickthal translation), 30:2-5

The period of the revelation of this Surah is determined absolutely by the historical event that has been mentioned at the outset. It says: "The Romans have been vanquished in the neighboring land." In those days the Byzantine occupied territories adjacent to Arabia were Jordan, Syria and Palestine, and in these territories the Romans were completely overpowered by the Iranians in 615 A. D. Therefore, it can be said with absolute certainty that this Surah was sent down in the same year, and this was the year in which the migration to Habash took place.


"Muhammad In World Scriptures," Volume I, Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi (New USA Edition, 1999), p. 253.

Both prophecies were actually fulfilled within ten years in 624 C.E.

"[D]uring the fixed period of time, exactly after nine years, the Roman armies entered Iran triumphantly, and on the same day Muslims also scored their victory against the idolaters on the field of Badr. The event of the Roman victory took place in 624 C.E., and it is written in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, under the heading 'Chosroes II':

"'In 624 he [Heraclius] advanced into northern Media, where he destroyed the great fire-temple of Goudzak.'"

Ibid., emphasis added.

"[Byzantine Emperor] Heraclius started his counter attack in 623 A. D. from Armenia. Next year, in 624 A. D., he entered Azerbaijan and destroyed Clorumia, the birthplace of Zoroaster, and ravaged the principal fire temple of Iran. Great are the powers of Allah, this was the very year when the Muslims achieved a decisive victory at Badr for the first time against the mushriks. Thus both the predictions made in Surah Rum were fulfilled simultaneously within the stipulated period of ten years."

Syed Maudani, supra

What is remarkable is that, at the time the Prophet revealed Surah Rum its fulfillment would have seemed extremely unlikely to objective human observers: These were the conditions when this Surah of the Quran was sent down, and in it a prediction was made, saying: "The Romans have been vanquished in the neighboring land and within a few years after their defeat, they shall be victorious. And it will be the day when the believers will rejoice in the victory granted by Allah." It contained not one but two predictions: First, the Romans shall be Victorious; and second, the Muslims also shall win a victory at the same time.

Apparently, there was not a remote chance of the fulfillment of the either prediction in the next few years. On the one hand, there were a handful of the Muslims, who were being beaten and tortured in Makkah, and even till eight years after this prediction there appeared no chance of their victory and domination. On the other, the Romans were losing more and more ground every next day. By 619 A. D. the whole of Egypt had passed into Sassanid hands and the Magian armies had reached as far as Tripoli. In Asia Minor they beat and pushed back the Romans to Bosporus, and in 617 A. D. they captured Chalcedon (modern, Kadikoy) just opposite Constantinople. The Emperor sent an envoy to Khusrau, praying that he was ready to have peace on any terms, but he replied, "I shall not give protection to the emperor until he is brought in chains before me and gives up obedience to his crucified god and adopts submission to the fire god." At last, the Emperor became so depressed by defeat that he decided to leave Constantinople and shift to Carthage (modern, Tunis). In short, as the British historian Gibbon says, even seven to eight years after this prediction of the Quran, the conditions were such that no one could even imagine that the Byzantine Empire would ever gain an upper hand over Iran. Not to speak of gaining domination, no one could hope that the Empire, under the circumstances, would even survive.

Syed Maudani, supra.

The correctness of this unlikely prophecy clearly points to Divine Revelation as the source of the Quran. This is what Arab polytheists at the time thought:

After this no one could have any doubt about the truth of the prophecy of the Quran, with the result that most of the Arab polytheists accepted Islam.

Syed Maudani, supra.

The prophecy is no less impressive today than it was 1475 years ago!

After the Romans were heavily defeated by the persians anyone would of laughed at you if you said they will be victorious again, but the Qur'an predicted that they would be victorious again and they were. What's even more amazing is on the day the Romans were victorious so were the Muslims.

the verse says "Within ten years - Allah's is the command in the former case and in the latter - and in that day believers will rejoice"

all the believers at the time thought they would be rejoicing because the Romans had defeated the persians, but they were rejoicing because they had won the battle of Badr, and it was a weeks later that they found out the Romans had defeated the persons on the same day.

You see the Muslim's wanted the Roman Christians to win the battle because they had a link with them through Jesus, and the Persians were Zoroastrians. And when the news came that the Romans had been defeated by the Persians the Muslim's were disappointed and that's when God revealed the verses that they will be victorious again and on the day the believers will be rejoicing.

Everyone took it to mean that the believers will be rejoicing at the fact the Christians defeated the Zoroastrians but they were infact rejoicing because they'd defeated the pagans of Makkah in the battle of badr on the exact same day the Romans defeated the Persians.

format_quote Originally Posted by tango92

when it comes to apologetics, how can you convince me im free to do what i like cause some MAN died for my sins. its something nobody i know really agrees with.

I do not quite see what you mean here - nowhere in the Bible does it say we are free to do what we like even if we have faith. The idea that one can repent and accept God way of salvation and then carry on sinning is an absurd idea - God forbid that you should even think such a thing because it is plainly nonsense as that would be to abuse God's gifts. If you want a fuller explanation go and Read Romans chapters 1 to 3

how come there are so many different claimed prophets? its ridiculous to say they all copied each other. what is the fundamental message everyone teaches? there is only one god. now lets see which religions teach this. immediately we rule out christianity believing in a three headed god. most hindus belive in a zillion gods. islam and a handful of other religions teaches monotheism.

It is it seem typical of you to speak out of ignorance, no Christian would deny the oneness of God. Because they have a different conceptions of God to you does not make you right does it

now lets see scriptures, only islam has the scripture surviving in its entirety today with no errors or contradictions. and is thus the only preserved religion

.I doubt you have read any of this thread to make such a statement and such neglect is unworthy of you. Go and take a bit of trouble and see what I have posted from Dr Al Azami's book for a start.

lets look at prophet muhammad. a man in the desert comes up with a book of such literary excellence (bear in mind at this time no scientific facts could be verified nor could they say the quran has been preserved over 1400 yrs) that within aprox 20 yrs of his life he wins the hearts of an entire country. within 100 yrs or so the muslim rule spreads out over most of the middle east. and what was his motivation? if it was just power, money or women, he would have been given it by the tribal leaders of mecca. every other proof (scientific etc) has already been mentioned in this thread and if your so blind as to turn away from it, then thats that.

As I said you have not bothered to read this thread have you so if there is any blindness it is in your own eyes. You can of course believe what you like but at least take the trouble to find out what the objections are.

now the real proof. when i read the quran from the start i knew inside this must be from god. This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah, Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them; And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter...

YOU KNEW inside it was from God? If this logic is correct then any book I read I can have the same assurance it is from God - it cannot just apply to the Qu'ran can it and lets face it a book that talks about and recommends itself would normally be viewed with suspicion not the kind of unalloyed certainty. IF it worked for you that is fine but that does not mean it will work for me or anyone else does it? Just as a matter of interest what is your assurance of the hear after - are you as certain about where you are going as you say you are about the Qu'ran?

what kind of book is this? declaring itself the guidance from god. how come i feel myself blood rushing to my head? im scared to keep reading but i do. and then my heart warms knowing i found something that knows me better than i know myself. every teaching, every rationale, everything in the quran i agree with. i dont chase girls anymore either. i quit some seriously bad addictions i had.... something that is not found in Christianity.

I am very glad to hear how the Qu'ran changed you but surely you realise that I can find tens of thousands of Christian testimonies that will say the same kind of thing

so theres my proof based on inner faith and logic . and im unshakeable in it, unlike you. if you have any questions on the quran then ask and we will answer. but please only do so if your genuine.

Inner faith and logic is not proof, all you are saying is it worked for you and you cannot then generalise it to say it will work for everyone because that plainly is not the case. Here again we see arrogance and self-righteousness as a hallmark of your faith and you cannot even conceive that others can be as faithful and as rational as you are and in its own way that proves you have no real faith only and iron clad dogma which you cling to - so may I say to if you are genuine then ask you questions about my faith and I will answer you

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

I suggest before posting this kind of stuff you take the trouble to read the earlies posts on it such as those by Eliphaz so you are aware of the objections not simply copy from a web site as you have done

You can lash out at 'kittenlover' for posting what has been earlier--but pls. no reason to insult your own queries by stating the objections of 'Eliphaz' as reason!

a ' female bee leaving' and then again mentioned to Muhammad as per his earlier posts hardly qualifies as a complete statement let alone an objection. Do you wonder in the least, why many of your own posts are deserving of a shrug for even the one you seek to cement your stance is ludicrous at best!

I have posted some corrections of Dr. Hoffman of Dr. Al-Azami's book..
Books need editing and going through one or two or three editions with said editorial changes. (such as happens when humans err) do contrast that with the unerring Quran and See post: http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1271084

being happy about compiling an excellent book, and perhaps having an error in judgment hardly constitutes a contradictory statement to the recorded history that lies therein which is cemented by both historians and manuscripts!

now do contrast that with orientalist bull **** like Mary conceiving Jesus out of eating dates or Muslims worshiping the moon god and pushing books of said nature as scholarly!

Discrediting the author has been your ammo since the day you have purchased the book, now rather than focusing on a statement made in the preface, why not challenge content or are you that not far ahead in your reading yet accuse other members of not being read?

all the best