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

By bBillal-A - The Miraculous Nature of the Qur’ān by Dr Maurice Baucaille;
"The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human-being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?" (Speech addressed to the French Academy of Medicine in 1976.)

Ibn al-Muqaffa: “When Ibn al-Muqaffa' arrived at the passage Sura 11:42-46 he realized that it was impossible for any human being to equal the book. So, he desisted from his mu'arada and tore up what he had done.” (G.E Von Grunebaum, A Tenth-Century Document Of Arabic Literary Theory and Criticism)

Since Billal-As posting are supposed to be a thesis what is singularly lacking here is any sign of contrary opinion and indeed everything written above is opinion and subjective. I will not comment on essentially personal stories of Tabari and Muqaffa but I will speak about Baucaille. Bucaille (1920-1998) was a medical doctor and Egyptologist who was physician to King Faisal in Saudi Arabia and in the service of the king, he published his book, The Bible, The Qur'an and Science which argued that the Qu'ran contains no statements contradicting scientific fact.

I cannot quite see why Billal-A would not know there was a book written called The Qur'an and the Bible in the light of history and science by Dr William Campbell in 1968 which shows it has serious and perhaps fatal weaknesses in methods and conclusions. I shall paraphrases some of Dr Campbell's work and to keep it within bounds I shall do it over two posts and in both post you will see it echo's much of what I and others have said.

SOME BASIC ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WORDS
Every author, every reader, every person who takes part in a discussion brings to it certain basic ideas which he/she believes to be true. Sometimes these ideas can be tested by examination or measurement as in science, other times by archaeology, or by reference to historical documents. But often they cannot be tested, and it is especially those ideas which cannot be tested which we refer to as*basic assumptions. For example, that the paper on which this book is printed is really here, solidly present in this world. However when I took philosophy at university, the professor told us about a Greek named Zeno who believed that the world was an illusion. In my innocence I held up my hand and asked, "But how could he enjoy life if he thought that it was all an illusion?"

Naturally the professor answered, "Why? Can't you enjoy an illusion?"

He was right of course. On a theoretical basis there is no reason why you cannot enjoy an illusion. My problem was that it did not fit my basic assumption that the world is real. This particular assumption is the same for Muslims, Christians and Jews. All three believe that there is a God who created the existing universe out of nothing—a real universe which can be touched and measured. When our basic assumptions are not the same, though, we can have all kinds of problems. One time in Morocco, a man came to see me for a medical consultation. When I asked him what his work was, he answered that he was an alim. We had a little discussion about the Gospel and then he invited me to his home to talk some more. As we talked the word "al-messiya" of John 1:41 came up in the conversation. I said,

"This comes originally from the Hebrew "mashiakh" which corresponds to the Arabic al-masih" and equals "the Messiah" in English.
He said, "No, this is another name for Muhammad. Muhammad has many names."

We argued back and forth a bit more and finally I said,

"All right, let's look it up in the dictionary. Surely you have a Munjid.
"Oh no. We can't do that, he answered.
"But why not. I'm sure we'll find it in there".
"No! We can't do that!" he repeated, "You wrote the dictionary!"
"What do you mean ‘I wrote the dictionary?’ " I asked, "I had nothing to do with writing that dictionary."
"Yes you did. It was written by the Christians".

And that was the end of the conversation. In Morocco 65 years ago the only Arabic dictionary sold had been made by the Catholics in Lebanon and he wouldn't agree that it was valid. If we disagreed about the meaning of a word we couldn't consult a dictionary. We no longer had the same basic assumptions, even about the validity of that dictionary.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

I have written more or less the same two numbers: 2,822 and 582 in several post and threads and this is easily checked. What I edited in the post you referred to was to change '582 words' to '582 of them' as one person (you) drew the wrong conclusion - if the figure are wrong then offer what you think are the correct ones. I don't write 'correct opinions' just opinions, I leave that to the arrogant and self-righteous. If my opinions say on Dr Al Azami's book degrades it then someone is assuming my opinion is in fact truth and only an idiot should go down that path. Muhammed introduced the total number of words used and made no comment on these numbers and it appears you have nothing to say either.

I don't see anywhere where I have been proven wrong and in any case I did not set out to prove anything just to make comments and ask questions.

you have written 600 later re-edited, and Muhammad proved to you that whether 582,600 or 2822, is incorrect, I am not sure why you keep beating every point to death because you can't accept facts? you prefer your opinion I understand that.
we are not going for a thread about 'opinions' we are going for a thread about facts, I'd steer clear from making things up!

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

How can you know this, do you follow my every finger fall? Can you just BE precise, if I have made a mistake I want to check it, tell me the thread and post number including the proof offered by Mohammed.

What on earth does "Muhammad proved to you that whether 582, 600 or 2822, is incorrect" mean?

PS Can you define what for you is a 'fact'?

this post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1285151

stands to correct your now edited post!
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1285133

which I didn't quote in full but you know when you are being deceptive.

be that as it may:

a fact = A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred

in other words when you make a mistake about number or verses or words, or compilation or fail to disclose all that was written on a page etc. are later corrected, don't come and re-post your original grievance as a fact. and by the way I have merely quoted one error of many, simply because I don't have the time and you wear out my patience which I really believe is something you do on purpose as one is bound to tire looking for paragraphs in the span of 30+ pages. In fact the last two pages are unnecessary all together if you'd merely read the original reply-- hope that clarifies it?

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

I may not be clicking the right button but all these links do is point me to this thread not a particular post - is it not possible for you say say something like post 465 of a particular thread?

you are funny, short of smacking you in the face with your errors, I don't think they can be any more obvious!

This is not quite good enough is it since you leave out the notion of verification - by your definition any bit of information about something that occurred would have to be a fact. Consider, Prophet Mohammed is said to have had a revelation through an angel - is it a fact? No, because it cannot be verified; it might be true it might not there is no way to be sure. Did Jesus rise from the dead, yes it was witnessed by many.

that is the dictionary definition. And indeed it is a fact that is how he received his revelation, the Quran is a testament to said events taking place, and how much it differs in speech from the prophet's own tongue (Hadith)

In any case these two example show that even if you accept these as facts what you do with it is a matter for each person to decide.

someone indeed was crucified, was it your god?
I think a question of logic comes into play..
we have the Quran as evidence, but what have we of the eye witness of those of old? your god can't even be verified by independent historians as having existed. The two counts of him lack any validity!

I welcome you pointing out errors but don't wear out my patience when you cannot substantiate what you say with poisoning the well of the sort "it was ABC but you must have edited it"

I have all throughout and have no cause to re-quote pages you can't be bothered to open.. btw there were reasons they poisoned the wells back in the day.. you should refresh that and see if your intentions are similar, if you are being intellectually dishonest and then drowning us with verbal loggerhea the majority of which has been amply addressed..

all the best

Of late there have been accusations of insincerity and lying and they have been directed at a number of individuals so I thought it timely to make this post since if one has no integrity one has nothing.

It is always possible to make mistakes but that is a long way from deliberate misinformation. Learning is about struggling with ideas; it is not about dismissing ones we do not like or do not agree with or calling the bringer of knowledge a liar and a cheat. I think Skye quoted Prophet Mohammed who said that gaining knowledge was better than many hour of prayer. Popper in 1943 said I believe that a reasonable discussion is always possible between parties interested in truth, and ready to pay attention to each other. Do you agree with this or are there pre-conditions to what you will discuss?[/quote]

The key ideas here are that of “truth” and “pay attention.” In the world today there are plenty of people who tell you they have the “truth” whether it’s about politics or religion or medical care or diets or any number of things. We are also aware that some religious and political groupings will go to almost any lengths to force the “truth” on you and even kill you if you don’t accept it. One might ask “what is truth” in a careless fashion as Pilate did at the trial of Jesus as if it was of no importance to anyone but one must be aware that many great questions have no proof as such: the existence of God, why we are here, is there a creator, why is there a past and future and so on and although unanswerable we all it seems need to think about them and they are of course worth thinking about.

In the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy it is related that Churchill once said: "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened." It also mentions that a bell that has been rung cannot be "unrung", the very annoying problem with knowledge is that, once you know something, you cannot “unknown” it even if it turns out to be wrong. Often therefore truth is defined as the problem of being clear about what you are saying when you make some claim or other is true. Or less obscurely, is our pattern of reasoning valid or invalid.

Be aware that because YOU or I believe something to be true it is not quite the same as it actually being true. You might for example, believe, in Allah or God or Krishna or little green men and that is fine and it is a personal matter for you based on what you might consider the necessary evidence. However, none of these beliefs can be shown to be true because we cannot find a way to falsify them- we cannot think of a fool-proof way to test them. Think of it like this, no one would willingly take an untested drug and normally they want to know that it has gone through all the stages of testing and even then we know things can go wrong. Now we come to the part about paying attention to each other and when we are dealing with truth there are three things that amount to paying attention. They are:

We must be willing at least in principle to consider something new, something we did not know before,
We must be willing at least in principle to consider a modification or adjustment what we thought was truth and
We must be willing at least in principle to consider throwing away altogether what we thought was truth because it is no longer valid.

Underpinning all this of course is the notion of evidence or more loosely proof otherwise we are in danger of accepting anything at all as truth because it suits our need or bias or some other 'truth' make us fearful.

In summary then you must ask yourself are you aware that what you might hold to be “truth” on any subject whatever might in fact not be true or not necessarily the whole truth; that is you are aware that what other say by means of argument or other evidence might cause you accept the new, modify the old or even dispense altogether with what you started out with as truth. You may find this a rather intimidating idea (I do at least) because of course it extends to all the corners of your thinking and life but we must take to heart what Jesus said some 2000 years ago, “hold to the truth because the truth will make you free” – that is the liberty of thought that countless magnificent people have given their lives for it and sadly, countless wretched others have done all they can to suppress it. One might also recall that Prophet Mohammed is reputed to have said "doubt is what brings you to the truth". What I have outlined here is a huge subject and it goes right back to the earliest philosophical texts we know about, the Indian Vedas (1,500B BC), right the way through Greek thought and on into the Enlightenment so you are joining a long line if thinkers, those who reflect – welcome!

Blackburn, Simon, (2001), Think, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-285425-9. Blackburn, Simon, (2006), Truth, Penguin, ISBN 0-141-01423-3

format_quote Originally Posted by reema2009

Thanks for your sincere help in suggesting your fellow scientist a good experiment. I am sincere in wanting to find out and work together, but obviously you don't care a fig. If this is the way we help each other then I couldn't care less.

Don't worry about it sister. Some people have a vested interest in quashing any serious attempt to examine their belief system, and will instead, as we have seen from this thread, make personal attacks regarding your perceived lack of knowledge, sincerity, or integrity, or otherwise draw you into circular arguments and then mock you for repeatedly asking the same question when their copy-pasted answer does not satisfy. They no longer have any sincere desire to find the truth, for they believe they have found the truth already and to question that truth, the Qur'an, is tantamount to blasphemy in their eyes.

I believe your test sounds like a fantastic idea. There are also several sites which have produced comparisons of anonymous real verses to fake ones, asking visitors to choose which ones are the most beautiful, then revealing the source of each verse. These sites do not record responses as you are suggesting, and of course fall within those blacklisted by sites like this as 'anti-Islamic'.

I feel the main reason many Muslims do not want you to conduct any such test is that, beyond it being simply blasphemous in their eyes, they fear it may lead more "susceptible" Muslims astray, weakening the image of Islam, whereas if the Qur'an is as a truly transcendent book it should have the opposite effect.

format_quote Originally Posted by reema2009

Thanks for your sincere help in suggesting your fellow scientist a good experiment. I am sincere in wanting to find out and work together, but obviously you don't care a fig. If this is the way we help each other then I couldn't care less.

I'd definitely come in with a certain bias so it is best you venture into your experiment on your own (& and I don't see you as a 'fellow scientist')so that would be a double whammy against you..however, I have given you the best tools possible for your experiment, and think it would be good if you tighten your confidence interval and give a good P value by having a large population and technicians and participants who don't know what this is all about (hence the double blind) and I wish you godspeed.. I'll definitely be waiting for your results, let me know which esteemed journal shall see your excellent findings!

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

Of late there have been accusations of insincerity and lying and they have been directed at a number of individuals so I thought it timely to make this post since if one has no integrity one has nothing.

It is always possible to make mistakes but that is a long way from deliberate misinformation. Learning is about struggling with ideas; it is not about dismissing ones we do not like or do not agree with or calling the bringer of knowledge a liar and a cheat. I think Skye quoted Prophet Mohammed who said that gaining knowledge was better than many hour of prayer. Popper in 1943 said I believe that a reasonable discussion is always possible between parties interested in truth, and ready to pay attention to each other. Do you agree with this or are there pre-conditions to what you will discuss?

I am not 'accusing' you of insincerity I have actually proven it with your various quotations and the replies given you in return!
There is a difference between being ignorant of a particular matter and deliberately choosing to ignore the facts given you on the matter. As stated before, I believe the term 'fact' denotes something completely different to you than it does the rest of humanity as such, you rest your faith and beliefs on very skewed grounds that not only
1- I don't see us having any commonalities for discussion for you refuse to subject your own beliefs to an ounce of what you choose to subject the Quran to (which is no matter for even when the Quran is vindicated) you find some other portal from which to spew more nonsense.
2- You refuse and repeatedly not only to acknowledge mistakes that you have made but almost a mad insistence of bringing up points which have been repeatedly corrected and asserting their veracity in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and at the end when left with no ammo whatsoever you like to descend down to semantics of definitions and terms.

The key ideas here are that of “truth” and “pay attention.” In the world today there are plenty of people who tell you they have the “truth” whether it’s about politics or religion or medical care or diets or any number of things. We are also aware that some religious and political groupings will go to almost any lengths to force the “truth” on you and even kill you if you don’t accept it. One might ask “what is truth” in a careless fashion as Pilate did at the trial of Jesus as if it was of no importance to anyone but one must be aware that many great questions have no proof as such: the existence of God, why we are here, is there a creator, why is there a past and future and so on and although unanswerable we all it seems need to think about them and they are of course worth thinking about.

Again, the truth is a conformity to reality and actuality, it is what is verifiable by history and consistent with logic!

In the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy it is related that Churchill once said: "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened." It also mentions that a bell that has been rung cannot be "unrung", the very annoying problem with knowledge is that, once you know something, you cannot “unknown” it even if it turns out to be wrong. Often therefore truth is defined as the problem of being clear about what you are saying when you make some claim or other is true. Or less obscurely, is our pattern of reasoning valid or invalid.

Why are you giving us the definition of philosophy, one Muslim geneticist on this forum once said, that ''if you can't dazzle them with logic baffle them with bull ****'' and I see that most christians here in fact when they have no guided reply to questions posed them have to pad every paragraph with tangential topics. Please try to refrain from that, or at least try to tie in your points to the facts so we are not lost in a sea of loggerhea.

Be aware that because YOU or I believe something to be true it is not quite the same as it actually being true. You might for example, believe, in Allah or God or Krishna or little green men and that is fine and it is a personal matter for you based on what you might consider the necessary evidence. However, none of these beliefs can be shown to be true because we cannot find a way to falsify them- we cannot think of a fool-proof way to test them. Think of it like this, no one would willingly take an untested drug and normally they want to know that it has gone through all the stages of testing and even then we know things can go wrong. Now we come to the part about paying attention to each other and when we are dealing with truth there are three things that amount to paying attention. They are:

Allah is what goes with the fitrah of man. It is the knowledge that he bestowed intrinsically in us so that when we want to learn of him he guides us. It should be so simple that the most brilliant neuro-scientist, or the humblest of Bedouins can comprehend. Not a story of convoluted tales as guaranteed no one who has ever sat down and contemplated nature would come up with.

We must be willing at least in principle to consider something new, something we did not know before,
We must be willing at least in principle to consider a modification or adjustment what we thought was truth and
We must be willing at least in principle to consider throwing away altogether what we thought was truth because it is no longer valid.

I agree with that, and using that logic I have indeed caste aside any so-called religion that convolutes the truth with tales of six armed blue gods or dying man/gods, or gods from outerspace that put souls into batteries. Again, God should be understood as going with the innate nature of man!

Underpinning all this of course is the notion of evidence or more loosely proof otherwise we are in danger of accepting anything at all as truth because it suits our need or bias or some other 'truth' make us fearful.

Indeed.. one wonders then by what token do you subscribe to your brand of truths, all these points seem to be logical, why you fail to employ logic in your personal persuasions but demand it from others paints a very poor picture of you!


all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

The is my second post on Baucaille as posted by Billal-A: Since this is supposed to be a thesis what is singularly lacking here is any sign of contrary opinion and indeed everything written above is opinion and subjective. I will not comment on essentially personal stories of Tabari and Muqaffa but I will speak about Baucaille. Bucaille*(1920-1998) was a medical doctor and Egyptologist who was physician to*King Faisal in Saudi Arabia. While still in the service of the king, he published his book,*The Bible, The Qur'an and Science*which argued that the*Qu'ran contains no statements*contradicting scientific fact

Is there a point of discussing the man Baucaille rather than his work?
so far I have learned that his work is an opinion, why? not out of mention of his actual work but because
he is an egyptologist? he was in service of a king?
because he made a comparison between the Quran and the bible?

Again in answer I copy from Dr Campbell's book:

He claims (Baucaille) to start from the facts rather than metaphysical concepts, and assumes that one can build inductively from "facts" without injecting any presuppositions into this process. This, of course, ignores the findings of 20th century social sciences that there is no such thing as a "bare, uninterpreted fact". Kuhn, in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions shows that even in science the interpretation of "facts" depends on one's prior metaphysical framework. He says, "Philosophers of science have repeatedly demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can always be placed upon a given collection of data."Earlier scholars have also recognized this. James Orr, writing in 1905 quotes a German theologian, Biedermann (Christliche Dogmatik), who put it this way:

He indeed starts from facts rather then metaphysical because the verses in question don't have a metaphysical aspect to them, He speaks of embryology, the gross description what metaphysics can one inject into this topic do you suppose? Padding the rest with Jamed and biedermann really does nothing to solidify a point you are making, if in fact you were aiming for a point?

It is not true, but sand in the eyes, if one asserts that genuinely scientific and historic criticism can and should proceed without dogmatic presuppositions (basic assumptions)...every student brings with him to historical investigations some sort of boundary definitions, be they ever so elastically held, of what is historically possible, and these are for that student dogmatic presuppositions.

What 'presuppositions' would you like to bring into this? I'd really love to learn of them.
Every time you have a 'scientific' aspect which really are meant to be in concert with the natural world, and you have an alternate method with which this has been introduced to the Quran, you should account for it, in an equally credible fashion. If not then you must concede to the obvious. If you allege (like the other fellow) for instance that the Quran borrows from Greek embryology, you must first demonstrate in which fashion (as any one can see from my previous post on the matter to 'Eliphaz' nothing can be further from the truth, but by the same token, you must also account for the poetic inclusion in the Quran, as well who could have translated the Greek texts, and establish a purpose and a motive.. certainly when you theorize of certain crimes one of the most important factors is to establish a motive. The propher Muhammed (p) died penniless with his Armour pawned to a Jew. So I'd like a cohesive tale and I'd like you to repeat it when every such reference is made!

Dr. Bucaille's claim of complete objectivity ignores several of his own presuppositions. Therefore, we shall look at one (I may post more later) of his four basic assumptions*and bring them out into the light so that every reader can perceive them.

Science is the measure of all things
Dr. Bucaille's first assumption is that corroboration between the scriptures and science is the primary measuring scale by which we are to judge the authenticity of a sacred text. There is some truth in this assumption, but a question must be asked. What level of agreement is required? What level of scientific accuracy is necessary? As everyone knows, scientific "knowledge" has often changed in the past. Dr. Bucaille recognizes this too, so he has proposed the following definition as the basis for his book:

Gross description is sufficient enough to establish veracity given the lack of microscopes some 14 centuries ago, that they make lucid sense and not be a tale of for instance the Greek embryology, Section 22 -27 compares the animal embryo with plant seeds, and concludes that from beginning to end the process of growth in plants and in humans is exactly the same. or Indian ideas about embryology are to found in the Bhagavad Gita (2 BC) which describes structures such as the amniotic membrane. And the Susruta-samhita (2-3 AD), which says that the embryo is formed of a mixture of semen and blood (this idea was also held by the Greeks, as we shall see later), both of which originate from chyle (digested fats). The differentiation into the various parts of the body, arms and head occurs in the third month.

all of this is discussed in very great detail in my previous post if you'll bother. But starting there would be imperative, first compare with what was, and compare with what is. If it always stands the test of time then that is its own testament to veracity!

Dr. Bucaille's definition of science is a good beginning for our discussion, but it gives the impression that science is limited to watercycles, astrophysics, and embryology.

How many subjects would you like him to discuss in order for the number to be sufficient to your satisfaction? as stated before, you don't strike me as the sort who will be happy no matter how much is offered, and such tells us the Quran indeed:

Al-muddathir
52 Yea, every one of them claims that he [himself] ought to have been given revelations unfolded!29

When we look at the root (as Dr. Bucaille loves to do) of the word science, we find that it comes from the Latin*scientia*meaning knowledge. Therefore our usage of the word science must include all that we "know". It must include archeological facts and historical facts, as well as how mountains are formed. There are even certain types of religious facts, such as fulfilled prophecy, which must be considered. Then on page viii he further qualifies his definition by writing, "This confrontation with science excludes all religious problems strictly speaking."

I love your definitions, mountains indeed are mentioned in the Quran in a scientifically accurate fashion, but the good doctor should keep with interests to his expertise?

Again I find myself in disagreement with Dr. Bucaille's attempt to circumscribe the area of discussion and eliminate "religious problems strictly speaking". The only reason for writing and reading, either his book or this book, is the search for religious truth. The real questions are,*"Is there a God?"*And if so,*"How can I know him and be in contact with him?"

So the problem is really not that you are in disagreement with what is written in the book, you'd rather have a book establishing that there is a God? Don't you find yourself absurd? Why doesn't anyone who writes a book start with another book simply to meet with your expectations? You are absurd. I set t write a book on pathology, but you'd rather have me discuss histology?

A biology or chemistry book might have no scientific errors, but it won't tell us about God. Sometimes scientific knowledge and religious assumptions run into each other. As an example of this type of interaction let us consider pages 156-158 where Dr. Bucaille discusses stars, planets and shooting stars. He quotes the Sura of the Ranks (Al-Saffat) 37:6, early Meccan, as follows,

"We (God) have indeed adorned the lowest heaven with the beauty of the planets..."

Obviously there is no problem with this, but let us look at the context. When we add verses 7-10 it reads,

"We (God) have indeed adorned the lowest heaven with the beauty of the planets and*for guard against every rebellious evil spirit, (so) they will not hear in the direction of the exalted assembly, but be cast away from every side, repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty,*except such as snatch by stealth and they are pursued by a flaming fire of piercing brightness (a shooting star).

Here, shooting stars, a scientific fact using Dr. Bucaille's definition, are found in action and reaction with scientifically unverifiable spiritual facts—God and the devils. Everyone with a modern education knows that a shooting star is a meteor. Therefore God, a spiritual being, is throwing material objects at devils which are also spiritual beings.

Indeed a portion of the verse is a verifiable scientific fact and the other is a religious fact that can neither be verified or falsified by modern science. You don't know the nature of God, in fact you've assumed him or the devils to be 'spiritual beings' bringing your own bias and personal beliefs into this. I can't find anything wrong with the verse save for your own interjections of what you deem to be the 'nature' of beings unseen.

Dr. Bucaille admits to trouble with this and concludes, "When, however the Qur'an associates material notions intelligible to us,*enlightened as we are today by modern science, with statements of a purely spiritual nature, their meaning becomes*obscure". And below, on the same page, "All these observations seem to lie outside the subject of this study".

Indeed.

Whether to call this a scientific difficulty can be questioned, but it is a real difficulty, a "truth" difficulty, a difficulty which cannot be passed over with the statement that "the Qur'an...becomes obscure", or that it "seems to lie outside of the subject of this book". This type of statement where science and religion come together is exactly what one would expect to find discussed in a book called*The BIBLE, The QUR'AN, And SCIENCE.

You have heard of the null hypothesis?
A null hypothesis is never proven, as the absence of evidence against the null hypothesis does not establish its truth. In other words, one may either reject, or not reject the null hypothesis; one cannot accept it. This means that one cannot make decisions or draw conclusions that assume the truth of the null hypothesis. Just as failing to reject it does not "prove" the null hypothesis, one does not conclude that the alternative hypothesis is disproven or rejected, even though this seems reasonable. One simply concludes that the null hypothesis is not rejected. Not rejecting the null hypothesis still allows for getting new data to test the alternative hypothesis again. On the other hand, rejecting the null hypothesis only means that the alternative hypothesis may be true, pending further testing.

If a statement in part or majority is steeped in truth one can't discount the metaphysical aspects as truths or non-truths simply because there is no method to verify it. For me personally the portions that I have to take on faith are so little. There is very little in the Quran that would make me say hmm. This is a quandary and completely at odds with what I know of science or what is satisfactory to fulfill my spiritual needs. I start off with more facts than fiction making the rest very easy to accept. Can you honestly say the same of your beliefs?

For these reasons I do not claim that this book deals only with Science, or that spiritual matters "lie outside the subject of our study". This book deals with science, but it also deals with the problems which are really basic to any discussion between Muslims and Christians. What does the Qur'an say about the Bible? Has the Bible really been changed? How does the Muslim know that the Qur'an hasn't been changed? What is the place of the Hadith? What does God say about intercession in the Bible and the Qur'an? How can we recognize a*true prophet?

The rest of your questions on the integrity of the Quran and those of the bible have been answered here!

all the best

Greetings Eliphaz,

Dear me, Eliphaz, what happened?! I thought you were here to discuss in a rational manner, using arguments appealing to reason; however, it appears I was very wrong. Instead of being open-minded and responding to the points, you've instead focused so much energy on attacking Islam and relieving yourself of the clear hatred harboured towards it, such that much of what you said has no basis other than an emotional outburst and your prejudices have prevented you from having any rational discussion.

You mentioned Hellfire a number of times, presumably because that was an aspect of Islam you disagreed with. Yet by failing to understand that a Muslim does not live his life solely in fear but rather in a balance of love, fear and hope in Allaah (swt), you've spoke nonsense about Islam that simply isn't true and hence isn't worth responding to. I shall try not to waste too much time by sifting out the parts that actually have some substance.

format_quote Originally Posted by Eliphaz

What if they don’t want to learn Arabic and are therefore stuck with the awkward English translations. Does that make them worthy of eternal Hellfire? Just because you have taken upon yourself to learn Arabic does that mean that others have to?

Where did anyone say that if you don't know Arabic you'll be entered into Hellfire? Where did I force anyone to learn Arabic? This is characteristic of many of your replies in your post - you've implied statements and beliefs that nobody even said or believes in. It's thus a strawman fallacy to base arguments on these false statements, rendering them meaningless.

Moreover, if you can't be bothered to learn Arabic, then who are you to start making claims like, "Oh the linguistic aspect of the Qur'an is purely subjective"? Is it any wonder that people like you will claim that the Qur'an is "inaccessible", "it isn't clear", when it is yourself who doesn't even want to take the necessary steps to access the Qur'an at a deeper level!

Musaylimah, Muawiyah, whatever.

It's actually a big difference.

Anyway I cannot possibly make it any clearer that Musaylimah is a definitive straw man, and just like every other pagan Arab who never converts in the end, only serves one purpose: to make Muhammad and Islam look good.

The reason you cannot make it any clearer than repeating the same thing is because you can't support your claim. You've been making it in so many posts yet not once have you actually substantiated it. How does someone not converting to Islam make Islam "look good"? Yet if something does make Islam "look good", that doesn't mean it's a strawman - please go and learn the definition of the word.

You mean Muslim and your cherry-picked non-Muslim scholars whom you only know about from reading Islamic books?

An example of your hollow replies - you were welcome to refer to any non-Muslim scholars qualified to evaluate the challenge. Yet blindly attacking documented evaluations does nothing but demonstrate your ignorance.

Do you live in medieval times? Do all your ‘proofs’ for the inimitability of the Qur’an come from medieval times or earlier?

Earlier times is actually very significant, as I've said a number of times. The people most qualified to meet the challenge of the Qur'an were those alive when it was revealed. Their failure to do so says a great deal about the Qur'an's inimitability.

And no I didn’t trawl through all of your wonderful examples (how could anyone refute such a long list of Arab names, surely not!).

That's a pity, I thought you were serious about the Qur'anic challenge.

I don’t fortunately require someone to tell me if the Qur’an is inimitable or not; therefore I do not need someone to tell me it isn’t because I can see with my own eyes that is isn’t.

I am amazed at your deductive skills! Please tell me how you came to this conclusion without even knowing the language of the Qur'an?

Well, here is a slightly better example than Musaylimah of ‘producing a surah like it’:

...
Just an average guy defeating the Qur’an’s greatest challenge!

And you actually believed his claim? It's funny how you were very quick to dismiss any examples I mentioned of people failing at the challenge - people whose work has actually been analysed by scholars. And yet you expect me to accept this copy-and-paste from a website by "an average guy" - please tell me which scholars have analysed it, assuming its actually been objectively appraised? Moreover,the only reason why these modern challengers have not recognized their failure is because they are truly ignorant of the literary devices to begin with, and thus are unequipped to compare their meek compositions with the Word of Allaah (swt).

Originally posted byAnsar Al-'Adl

...whenever I discuss this issue, I begin with an important definition -that of the Qur'an. When the Qur'an challenges others to produce something like it, the prerequisite is that someone understand what the Qur'an is to be able to attempt the challenge. The 'Qur'an' literally means a recitation. The Qur'an was not revealed to Prophet Muhammad saws as a book, nor was it dispersed or preached primarily in written form - it was through recitation that is was primarily recieved and dispersed. Thus, anyone attempting to answer the challenge must produce for us a recitation - not just a written composition. So let us see if these critics can produce for us a recitation that matches the quality of such:
[Note: expired links have been replaced]
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

There are probably thousands of other recitations forum members could link you to. Let these critics try tp produce anything that has the power of these recitations. When, I listen to these recitations, understanding their meaning as well, I'm gripped by their power and beauty. I get a feeling of immense tranquility when I listen to these recitations that I never get listening to anything else. And its not just me or other Muslims raised as Muslims. Those who convert to Islam having read much of the Qur'an experience the same undescribable feeling when listening to the Qur'an.

And I'm not ignorant of the compositions of the critics either. I have read many of their attempts to answer the Qur'anic challenge in arabic, and have tried many times reciting them out-loud but in vain, as each word feels like an obstacle to the one trying to recite with tajweed. These compositions are unrecitable and are no different from the average written pieces of arabic composed by human beings (in many cases the critics' compositions do not even meet the standard of acceptable written arabic).

My above explanation has focused on the literary style of the Qur'an, although one must remember that to produce something like the Qur'an involves other things as well. Briefly, I'll mention them. The composition must be able to match the Qur'an in terms of purity of the message - it must call human beings to something recognizable as truth and free from defects. The message itself must also be free of discrepancies/inconsistencies. The message must be universal and practical - beyond the bounds of culture and time, and must appeal to human beings so to attract followers from across the world as the Qur'an has. The message must be comprehensive in that it gives human beings guidance in every sector of life, be it social, physical, mental, emotional, political, environmental, and of course spiritual. It must stand the test of time, and be able to stand up in the face of logical and scientific criticism. It must be deep enough to invite centuries of works expounding on its meanings (just as the number of Tafsirs of the Holy Qur'an are more than hundreds of thousands).

These are just some of the basic aspects of the challenge.

Special attention is paid to a website called "SurahLikeIt" which posts false Surahs and tries to pass them on as part of the Holy Qur'an. First hosted on AOL, it was shut down after protests from Muslims, but has since appeared on other sites."Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-ArtCulture/ACELayout&cid=1158658424566#ixzz0dfp5ITGr

Yes, rather typical I am afraid. This is why Muslims will never accept any serious attempt to meet the challenge by non-Muslims and will instead cry foul and protest, whilst remaining content that people like silly old Musaylimah and many others failed miserably.

There's a big difference in attempting to meet the Qur'an's challenge and forging parts of the Qur'an to confuse people. If you read your link again, it says, "which posts false Surahs and tries to pass them on as part of the Holy Qur'an." I'm not surprised they protested.

I think you are mistaken brother. All the aspects were not always available in totality. For example the so-called scientific facts or the so-called agreement with scientific facts or whatever spin you want to try and put on it, were not available to early Muslims.

If we say for the sake of argument that they couldn't prove these scientific facts at that time, they still could appreciate pretty much everything else other than the predictions that have not yet come true. The main point is that one should consider all of these aspects together, not focus on one and pretend the others don't exist.

The ONLY claim the Qur’an makes that it is from God is that it is inimitable.

The only claim? Well for one thing, if you actually understood what this challenge alone means, you would realise it's no small thing. Refer to the quote by Ansar Al-'Adl above for some elaboration.

Sorry I can’t help you there more than I have done.

Well you haven't answered me anywhere else so I assume there isn't an answer.

Secondly, I apologise if I cannot respond to every single multi-paragraphed quote and question from every single “scholar” and “well known/famous Western* (*key word) scientist” who seemingly undeniably proves the Qur’an is from God.

I'm not asking you to respond to every single quote. Many of the quotes are there to support my arguments, unlike yours which apparently are supposed to be taken at face value. I'm simply asking for the underlying point to be responded to, which is a fairly reasonable request considering the usual way people have discussions. That is, of course, unless I was mistaken in assuming you were actually serious about this topic.

What?

You posted something that was a distortion of the facts in an attempt to add credibility to your point (again).

I have a sincere heart in understanding God and the universe.

Well, you could have fooled me. The way you reject clear lessons from the Qur'an shows you aren't very interested in hearing the truth. Your arguments are akin to, "I don't like this story so it must be made-up", and, "I don't understand why God did that, so God must be wrong and I am right! Why don't I just say evil things about Him instead?" You still think this is a sincere approach?

Well, I guess a “well done” is in order prophet Muhammad. Oh wait, no, he was out by three years.

More unsubstantiated claims (and childish remarks) that have no value whatsoever.

I guess I should respond to this quote from a “renowned historian” (he is western after all and so must be right, unless he’s disagreeing with Islam that is).

Well it'd certainly add weight to your point if you could respond with something better than scornful comments. If we used Muslim historians you'd probably start complaining about bias...

Actually, I think that fact that he is calling a prediction including the words in “a few years” or “within ten years” a prophecy is just silly.

You're going round in circles - go back and read the previous posts.

Look, there is a big difference between ‘begun gaining victory’ and ‘being victorious’. That is what you call a very, very liberal interpretation. The prophecy is the Romans will be victorious, not that they will start winning the war.

It wasn't just one war. There were a series of victories, so it's simply a matter of which one you refer to. I don't see what's "very, very liberal" about understanding that.

I never said ‘other religions’ were right or better than Islam. This is a popular way for Muslims to affirm their own beliefs. ‘Look at Christianity, they worship THREE GODS LOL!” “Look at Hindus, they worship elephant gods!” It doesn’t make Islam look any more genuine to the non-religious outsider, trust me.

I'm afraid you'll have to provide a better refutation than asking me to simply "trust you" on your view. The illogical beliefs in other religions was actually quite relevant to the discussion since it proves that a belief system standing out in its purity and appeal to human rationale is unique to Islam. By considering different possibilities from a rational perspective, it's a way of recognising what is befitting for Allaah (swt) and what isn't, which is what you wanted to know. The fact that Islam stands out so clearly is evidence that the source of its teachings can only be Allaah (swt). In contrast, everything produced or distorted by man inevitably contains error, as clearly illustrated through comparison of truth and falsehood. The matter isn't simply a case of mocking other religions to gain credibility as you falsely portray, rather there is a deeper analysis that is perfectly acceptable to discuss and is in fact what has guided countless seekers of truth to Islam.

Tell me, if Islam is all about “pure monotheism”, then why do you kiss a black stone which was kissed by the pagan Arabs,

We kiss the black stone because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did it, not because we worship it as a god. Only someone very ignorant about Islam could conceive such an idea.

In a hadeeth in Bukhari and Muslim, it is narrated that ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) came to the Black Stone and kissed it, then he said: “I know that you are only a stone which can neither bring benefit nor cause harm. Were it not that I had seen the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) kiss you, I would not have kissed you.”

why is your God named after a God of the pagan Arabs?

A refuted myth: http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/26850-moon-god.html

Why is monotheism so rational to you?

Read the Qur'an - it will tell you why.

Unfortunately some of those superstitious beliefs continued into Islam. Nothing new, same thing happened with Christianity also. See: Jinns, kissing black stones, blowing into knots etc etc etc.

Far from it. Islam makes it very clear that Allaah (swt) is in complete control of everything and that without His permission, we can neither be harmed nor benefitted by particular things. This is why we are taught to place complete trust and reliance in Allaah (swt) and seek His help alone in all affairs. Hence, using the Jinn as an example, the Qur'an says:

'And verily, there were men among mankind who took shelter with the males among the jinn, but they (jinn) increased them (mankind) in sin and transgression. [72:6]

The pre-Islamic Arabs, when travelling, would seek refuge in the Jinns of that valley where they stopped. So here we see that Islam condemns such behaviour of seeking divine refuge in anyone other than Allaah (swt). For the example about seeking refuge against those blowing into knots, read Surah Al-Falaq.

As there was no caliphate until after the Prophet’s life this does not count as an implementation of Shariah law.

Yet was not the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) the leader of the Muslims, applying the Shariah that was revealed to him? What else could he rule by?!

Please show me a time under a rightly guided or un-rightly guided (or maybe partially-guided) Caliph where there was not discord, fitnah, in-fighting, corruption or tyranny, and maybe then the whole shariah thing might gain some credibility beyond ‘Shariah-compliant banking’.

Firstly, I have already explained earlier that the presence of fitnah and corruption does not necessarily mean that the law is to be blamed, because no matter how good a law is, people of weak or no faith will commit evil in opposition to the law.

Secondly, as for application of the Shariah amongst the rightly guided Caliphs, lets take Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) as an example.

After taking charge of his office, 'Umar spoke to the Muslims of Medina:

"...O people, you have some rights on me which you can always claim. One of your rights is that if anyone of you comes to me with a claim, he should leave satisfied. Another of your rights is that you can demand that I take nothing unjustly from the revenues of the State. You can also demand that... I fortify your frontiers and do not put you into danger. It is also your right that if you go to battle I should look after your families as a father would while you are away. "O people, remain conscious of Allah, forgive me my faults and help me in my task. Assist me in enforcing what is good and forbidding what is evil. Advise me regarding the obligations that have been imposed upon me by Allah..."

The most notable feature of 'Umar's caliphate was the vast expansion of Islam. Apart from Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Palestine and Iran also came under the protection of the Islamic government. But the greatness of 'Umar himself lies in the quality of his rule. He gave a practical meaning to the Qur'anic injunction:

"O you who believe, stand out firmly for justice as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it concerns rich or poor, for Allah can best protect both." [Qur'an 4:135]

Once a woman brought a claim against the Caliph 'Umar. When 'Umar appeared on trial before the judge, the judge stood up as a sign of respect toward him. 'Umar reprimanded him, saying, "This is the first act of injustice you did to this woman!"

He insisted that his appointed governors live simple lives, keep no guard at their doors and be accessible to the people at all times, and he himself set the example for them. Many times foreign envoys and messengers sent to him by his generals found him resting under a palm tree or praying in the mosque among the people, and it was difficult for them to distinguish which man was the Caliph. He spent many a watchful night going about the streets of Medina to see whether anyone needed help or assistance. The general social and moral tone of the Muslim society at that time is well-illustrated by the words of an Egyptian who was sent to spy on the Muslims during their Egyptian campaign. He reported:

"I have seen a people, every one of whom loves death more than he loves life. They cultivate humility rather than pride. None is given to material ambitions. Their mode of living is simple... Their commander is their equal. They make no distinction between superior and inferior, between master and slave. When the time of prayer approaches, none remains behind..."

'Umar gave his government an administrative structure. Departments of treasury, army and public revenues were established. Regular salaries were set up for soldiers. A popuation census was held. Elaborate land surveys were conducted to assess equitable taxes. New cities were founded. The areas which came under his rule were divided into provinces and governors were appointed. New roads were laid, canals were lug and wayside hotels were built. Provision was made for he support of the poor and the needy from public funds. He defined, by precept and by example, the rights and privileges of non-Muslims, an example of which is the following contract with the Christians of Jerusalem:

"This is the protection which the servant of Allah, 'Umar, the Ruler of the Believers has granted to the people of Eiliya [Jerusalem]. The protection is for their lives and properties, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and for all their coreligionists. Their churches shall not be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them or to their compounds, or to their crosses, nor shall their properties be injured in any way. There shall be no compulsion for these people in the matter of religion, nor shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion... Whatever is written herein is under the covenant of Allah and the responsibility of His Messenger, of the Caliphs and of the believers, and shall hold good as long as they pay Jizya [the tax for their defense] imposed on them."

In his book Mahomet and His Successors, Washington Irving estimates the achievements of Umar in the following terms:

"The whole history of Umar shows him to have been a man of great powers of mind, inflexible integrity and rigid justice. He was more than any one else the founder of the Islamic empire; confirming and carrying out the inspirations of the Prophet; aiding Abu Bakr with his counsels during his brief Caliphate; and establishing wise regulations for the strict administration of the law throughout the rapidly-extending bounds of the Muslim conquests. The rigid hand which he kept upon his most popular generals in the midst of their armies, and in the most distant scenes of their triumphs, gives signal evidence of his extra-ordinary capacity to rule. In the simplicity of his habits, and his contempt for all pomp and luxury, he emulated the example of the Prophet and Abu Bakr. He endeavored incessantly to impress the merit and policy of the same in his letters to his generals. 'Beware' he would say of Persian luxury both in food and raiment. Keep to the simple habits of your country, and Allah will continue you victorious; depart from them and He will reverse your fortunes'. It was his strong conviction of the truth of this policy which made him so severe in punishing all ostentatious style and luxurious indulgence in his officers. Some of his ordinances do credit to his heart as well as his head. He forbade that any female captive who had borne a child should be sold as a slave. In his weekly distributions of the surplus money of his treasury, he proportioned them to the wants, not the merits of the applicants. 'God' said he, 'has bestowed the good things of this world to relieve our necessities, not to reward our virtues: those will be rewarded in another world'.

Encyclopedia Britannica remarks about Umar:

"To Umar's ten years' Caliphate belong, for the most part, the great conquests. He himself did not take the field, but remained in Madina; he never, however, suffered the reins to slip from his grasp, so powerful was the influence of his personality and the Muslim community of feeling. His political insight is shown by the fact that he endeavored to limit the indefinite extension of Muslim conquest, to maintain and strengthen the national Arabian character of the commonwealth of Islam; also by making it his foremost task to promote law and order in its internal affairs. The saying with which he began his reign will never grow antiquated: 'By God, he that is weakest among you shall be in my eye the strongest, until I have vindicated for him his rights; he that is strongest I will treat as the weakest, until he complies with the law'. It would be impossible to give a better general definition of the function of the State.'

And there is yet more that could be said regarding the state of the society during Abubakr's (may Allaah be pleased with him) caliphate. When he appointed Umar as a judge over Madeenah, one whole year later Umar wanted to give up this position because nobody was coming to him due to the standard of social justice. Everyone knew the rights of others and people were able to settle disputes themselves. You are welcome to read this in the books of history.

I think this is sufficient regarding your request, "Just show me one example where shariah was comprehensively applied by a caliph and it led to the betterment of that society".

And guess who placed in 39th place in that wonderful much-cited-by-Muslims list: Adolph Hitler! And why is that? Well because the list is “influential” people irrelevant of whether that impact was positive or negative. Okay, so Muhammad mobilised a flotsam of tribes. How do you measure whether his overall influence on society was positive or negative? You can’t.

It's very easy actually. Read his biography. And these quotes: http://www.islamicboard.com/45987-post2.html

Bones first or flesh first? There are muscles before there are calcified bones. You can try and say that muscles take their final positions around the bones etc but there is muscle before there is calcified bone - that is really the bottom line here. The surah says otherwise and nothing in what you have quoted proves the surah is correct.

As the bones develop they are 'clothed' with developing muscle tissue. The Qur'an does not say that fully formed bones precede any development in muscle tissue. It says that bones are clothed in muscle tissue. Dr. Moore's own comments on this stage:

‘The continuation of Surah 23:14 indicates that out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models, and then muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm...when the cartilage bones are differentiated, the embryonic connective tissue or mesenchyme around them is undifferentiated. It later develops into the muscles and ligaments attached to the bones’

Nothing in what you've posted about this proves the Qur'an wrong.

Do bees eat fruit? Does science tell us bees eat fruit? Yes or no?
And don’t try and say that the verse is telling humans to eat from fruit because that is a deliberate twisting of the meaning of this verse, in disagreement with what the most highly recognised scholars of Islam such as Ibn Kathir have discerned from this verse.

It's funny how you now quote from Ibn Kathir and accept what he says, yet you don't accept the rest of his work, such as the explanation of the clear prediction of the victory of the Romans. As for your question, I would first have to research the correct understanding of the verse, which does not come about by merely reading a translation in English. Ibn Kathir does not go into great detail, hence it would require further research.

Oh okay so the traditional ‘clot’ used in most recognised printed translations of the Qur’an has nothing to do with the belief that humans came from congealed blood? Is it not strange that until Dr. Bucaille re-translated it as ‘clinging form’ it was generally thought to mean a ‘clot’?

In Arabic, the word ‘Alaqah in fact has several meanings, including: 'something which clings or a suspended thing', 'a leech-like structure', and a clot or congealed blood. So this is just a matter of interpretation and it demonstrates the need to have a firm grounding in Arabic when understanding the Qur'an - something which you don't think is important.

Okay that’s great. Three veils of darkness = three layers. Wonderful. If science had revealed four layers then I guess we would have kept quiet about that one like the bees, huh?

Supposing something that is non-existant does not mean anything. One could list a thousand statements along the lines of, "if xyz had happened, you would have...", but it would not add a shred of weight to the argument. Sticking to the facts unfortunately does not appear to be your strong point.

Many things have been preserved, for example fossils. Whether those fossils can teach us how to live or whether we just study them for what they are: historical remains,

That's exactly the point: fossils can't teach you how to live and are hence entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

and whether you can prove any chain of narration is sahih, hasan or daif (answer: you can’t without taking someone’s word for it, and in the best case scenario the chain just takes you back to the source) is another thing entirely.

Here you expose your ignorance of the science of Hadeeth - please learn about Mustalah al Hadeeth before discrediting it!

What difference does it make? Does that fact that the Qur’an has been studied and its sciences preserved inherently make it worth studying?

Did you even read what I wrote? "The fact that such minute details have been preserved till this day leaves one in awe of how meticulously Islamic knowledge has been preserved and further increase one's conviction in the truth of the Qur'an." It makes a lot of difference - please go and read some Tafseer.

I know how abrogation works in the Qur’an and ahadith, and needless to say, my point stands. For it to take OVER TWENTY YEARS for that book to be completed (though still somehow not written down by anyone) and then STILL require further abrogation from ahadith is just mind-boggling.

Your statement makes it very clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Complete verses of the Qur'an and even whole surahs were being revealed over the period of 23 years or so, and these were being memorised and written as they were revealed. It wasn't as if people were composing the verses and constantly going back to change them!

Not really. The fact that they fall at the tail end of your list mean that they could only ever be secondary ‘proofs’.

So shall I disregard these last points of yours because "they could only ever be secondary ‘proofs’" for being near the end? Do you see what a shallow response this is?

I hope that we can leave this aside and focus on the first points which are the only ones which anyone could take seriously in weighing up the Qur’an as being the words of God. In the interests of keeping posts under 10,000 words?

No, actually I think I deserve a response to the whole of my post, not just the parts that are easy for you to reply to. Your laughable excuses of keeping the word limit down and "focusing on the first points" are nothing but a clear cop-out from the discussion.

I think an easy way to sidetrack the discussion is through demanding responses to the most trivial points made.

I see, so whatever you can't respond to, you will label as trivial and simply ignore? See previous point.

I have gone over why the Qur’an is so oft-memorised, why the qira’aat is so unremarkable (I studied it for several years under a Saudi imam for heavens sake),

No you haven't! You stopped replying to the point about memorisation and you didn't elaborate on the qira'aat at all, which should have been easy considering your several years of study. First you say the points are "secondary proofs" for being too low down the list, then you use the excuse of keeping the word limit down, then you say they are "trivial" points, and now you claim you've already gone over them?!

why the statement “the reader never tires of reading the Qur’an” is just so outrageously fanciful I don’t know where to begin. Who is the “reader”? You? Me? If the latter then I stopped reading it awhile ago.

Obviously it's talking about someone who is actually searching for the truth and someone who reflects upon the deep meanings that are present inside the Qur'an.

Point 14: so all those westerners who were constantly complaining about the “racket” of the Fajr prayers waking them up in Saudi Arabia were just immune to the “euphonious quality of the Qur’an” right? Okay.

Being woken up by a sound is not the same as attentively listening to something, and moreover you'd probably have a hard time listening to the Qur'an when all the different recitations from the Masjids can be heard at once. I hope you didn't think this somehow refutes the point. And btw, why the sudden change in tone? Earlier you said, "How I wish I could go back to not understanding it and purely enjoying it based on the sound of recitation." Your attempts to cover up the truth are very clear indeed.

Ah. Just “accept” your responses? Sorry, I can’t do that. To do so would be a crime against my God-given intellect.

I don't mean accepting them at face value, I mean accepting responses to your points instead of ignoring them only to repeat the same mistaken points. It doesn't take much "God-given intellect" to realise this basic manner of discussion.

Also, in the interests of keeping post-size down I have not responded to your quotes regarding why Muhammad did not author the Qur’an as I will respond to this separately.

You should have thought of that before needlessly filling your post with anti-Islamic sentiments.

Hopefully though it is already clear to most open-minded people here that God did not author the Qur’an and so by process of elimination we can arrive at Muhammad.

How can that be "already clear" when you have ignored so many questions/points and tried to evade answering others by resorting to meaningless remarks? Any open-minded person will see how worthless this is, and that truth is found by using facts and evidence, not conjecture and distortion.

Regards.

Greetings Hugo,

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

I think you are drifting from the points and questions I asked. So I will restate them and hope once I get your answer we can move on.

You keep saying I have "missed" the point, "drifted" from the point etc. when I have quoted your exact words and responded to them. I'm not sure which other points there are to respond to. Asking different questions in later posts does not mean I am "drifting" from the point when I refer to what you originally said.

Dr Al Azami said he had received the 'most accurate Qu'ran'.

No, he didn't - you've blantanty misquoted these words for the second time. To repeat again: What he actually said was, "...[thanks to] the people behind the Madina Mushaf for printing the most accurate Qu'ranic text in the world'.

Logically, this must imply there are ones that are not as accurate which seems to puncture the notion that there has been faultless transmission from the Angel to the page.

Misquoting an author is logical to you?

Secondly, I asked what was used, what manuscripts or manuscripts were used to get this most accurate Qu'ran - Dr Al Azami does not say but it would I think be of interesting to know.

We've already had this discussion - please go back and read what was written.

Thirdly, where is the source manuscript from which printers construct their copies? One assumes they do no pop into the street and buy a Qu'ran and used that or ask someone to come in an recite it?

What will that prove?

I cannot see what is unscientific about these questions? Using your analogy suppose I go and pick up a copy of the Daily Telegraph from 10 different shops and they are all the same would that mean every other Telegraph must also be the same (they are not all printed at the same place) and even if they were would it mean that its editorial is unquestionably the truth?

I'm not sure which of my analogies you are referring to, but disregarding information is very unscientific - information like the oral preservation of the Qur'an - its memorisation by such a large number of people and the integral role it plays in Muslim lives. I don't need to keep responding to endless conjecture about this topic because the facts are very clear. The burden is upon you to substantiate your claims - find ONE single copy of the Qur'an that differs with any other.

And related to this is:

I assume here you are referring to what is written on pages 206 to 208 so its quite a long conclusion. Let me summarise:

1. We have a citation from 1938 (Jeffery) "Practically all the early Codices and fragments that have so far been carefully examined, show the same type of text, such variants as occur being almost exclusively explainable as scribal errors". So this quote is about the TYPE of text not about differences in wording which Azami make no comment upon.

Your disregarding of clear statements is again apparent and you are bending over backwards to draw conclusions from Dr Al Azami's work that simply aren't there. Did you not read, in the opening couple of paragraphs, about the institute set up by the University of Munich to gather all the Qur'anic manuscripts and compare them to see if any differences could be found? They collected around 40,000 manuscripts and could not find any differences!

As for your summary of the other points - you just dismissed them as being nothing more than "irrelevant", a "rant" or "ramble" etc. Well I can do the same for Ibn Warraq's book. Strangely, you criticise others for doing this yet are guilty of it yourself.

Here YOU seem to be totally unscientific - if Azami believed there were no different versions then it is hard to see what evidence he can use since there would be nothing to find and nothing to defend. In any case he assumes there are versions and then deals with them...

Let's try reading what he wrote in the beginning itself:

1. The Qur’ān is the very Word of Allāh, His final message to all humanity, revealed to His final messenger Muhammad and transcending all limitations of time and space. it is preserved in its original tongue without any amendments, additions or deletions.

2. There will never be a discovery of a Qur’ān, fragmental or whole, which differs from the consensus text circulating throughout the world. If it does differ then it cannot be regarded as Qur’ān, because one of the foremost conditions for accepting anything as such is that it conforms to the text used in ‘Uthmān’s Mushaf.[37]

This is further evidence against your absurd claims of Dr Al Azami believing there are different versions of the Qur'an!

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

I think again you are missing the point. Let me use an illustration, some years ago at University our professor was demonstrating the properties of light and to me he was wearing back gloves and I was certain of it. As soon as the demo was over and the lecture theatre lights came on every one could see that the gloves were in fact as white as white could be! So you don't have to be lying or deluded or insane to get it wrong even when you see it with your own eyes.

But we are not talking about a simple case of seeing something black that is actually white. We're talking about someone who believed that he had been inspired with legal codes and rulings, stories of the previous prophets that no one knew of, descriptions of the day of resurrection, etc.

So do you really think a sane person could bring forth all this and that it's just a matter of "getting it wrong"?!

There is a famous and as far as I can see irrefutable conjecture from Paine,

I already responded to this when you quoted it the first time.

It is impossible to be objective, I have said that many times and that applies to those who see the Qu'ran as God given as well as those who don't. All one can do is suggest this or that is an indicator of its validity or as I did suggest that some stories like that of Zaynab cast doubt, at least to me on something that was supposed to be eternal. If you think there is an objective way, a way that is not about belief or judgement then let us here it because I don't think it is possible.

When you want to justify your subjective notions, you say "it is impossible to be objective", yet if I used a subjective argument you'd start spurting out scientific definitions about proof, fact and validity and so on. There have been many objective arguments made, feel free to browse the previous posts. But I hope you will see that relying on a whim that a story "casts doubts" without explaining why or how, is a far cry from being an "indicator of (in)validity". Feeble statements like 'some stories cast doubt, at least to me', and "it does seem very obscure to me" have no room in a discussion that is supposed to be based on facts and objective arguments to prove one's position. Disagreement alone is not sufficient to disprove the Qur'an as being the Word of Allaah (swt).

The point I was making is that if the qu'ran can be abrogated why is there so much insistence of on an unchanged sharia?

Perhaps you haven't been reading my responses. No abrogation can occur after the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

This perhaps is what I find incredibly difficult, why don't you in simple humanity just say slavery is a bad thing, a very bad thing and always was? As Lincoln once said "Whenever I hear anyone advocating slavery I suggest he take a try at it". Please remember, it was the West that forced Islamic countries to stop slavery and if Islam was so enlighten on the issues, why was it resisted right up until the 1960s - and not a few want to bring it back? However, the substantive point for this thread is that why does Islam stand still?

It was the West who "forced" Islamic countries to stop slavery?! Please read the rest of the quote I gave you:

...When Islam came, there were many causes of slavery, such as warfare, debt (where if the debtor could not pay off his debt, he became a slave), kidnapping and raids, and poverty and need.
Slavery did not spread in this appalling manner throughout all continents except by means of kidnapping; rather the main source of slaves in Europe and America in later centuries was this method.

The texts of Islam took a strong stance against this. It says in a hadeeth qudsi: “Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat … A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227).

It is worth pointing out that you do not find any text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah which enjoins taking others as slaves, whereas there are dozens of texts in the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which call for manumitting slaves and freeing them.

There were many sources of slaves at the time of the advent of Islam, whereas the means of manumitting them were virtually nil. Islam changed the way in which slavery was dealt with; it created many new ways of liberating slaves, blocked many ways of enslaving people, and established guidelines which blocked these means.

Moreover:

Gustave le Bon says in Hadaarat al-‘Arab (Arab Civilization) (p. 459-460): What I sincerely believe is that slavery among the Muslims is better than slavery among any other people, and that the situation of slaves in the east is better than that of servants in Europe, and that slaves in the east are part of the family. Slaves who wanted to be free could attain freedom by expressing their wish. But despite that, they did not resort to exercising this right. End quote.

And if you think the West was so civilised regarding slavery, you really should read this:

Contemporary Europe and slavery

It is the reader’s right, in this era of advancement and progress, to ask questions about the pioneers of this progress and the numbers of people who died because of the way in which they were hunted, and who died on their way to the coast where the ships of the English Company and others would wait, then the rest died due to changes in climate. Approximately 4% died as they were being loaded onto the ships, and 12 % during the journey, let alone those who died in the colonies.

The slave trade continued at the hands of English companies that obtained the right of monopoly with the permission of the British government, then gave free rein to British subjects to enslave people. Some experts estimate that the total number of people seized by the British during slavery and exiled to the colonies between 1680 and 1786 CE was around 2,130,000.

When Europe made contact with Black Africa, this contact led to human misery during which the black people of that continent were faced with a major calamity that lasted for five centuries. The states of Europe came up with evil ways of kidnapping these people and bringing them to their lands to serve as fuel for their revival, where they burdened them with more work than they could bear. When America was discovered, the calamity increased and they became slaves in two continents instead of just one.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says (2/779) on the topic of slavery: Hunting slaves in the villages that were surrounded by the jungle was done by lighting fires in the straw of which the corrals surrounding the villages were made, then when the villagers fled to open land, the British hunted them down with whatever means they had at their disposal.

During the period from 1661 to 1774, for every million Black Africans who reached the Americas, a further nine million died during the hunting, loading and transportation. In other words, only one tenth of those who were hunted survived and actually reached the Americas, where they found no rest or relief, rather they were subjected to hard labour and torture.

At that time, they had laws which any wise person would be ashamed of.

Among these evil laws were those which said that any slave who transgressed against his master was to be killed, and any slave who ran away was to have his hands and feet cut off, and he was to be branded with hot iron; if he ran away again, he was to be killed. How could he run away if his hands and feet had been cut off?!

It was forbidden for a black man to become educated, and the jobs of whites were forbidden to coloureds.

In America, if seven black people gathered together, that was regarded as a crime, and if a white man passed by them it was permissible for him to spit at them and give them twenty lashes.

Another law stated that the blacks had no soul and that they possessed no smartness, intelligence or willpower, and that life existed only in their arms.

To sum up, with regard to his duties and service to his master, the slave was regarded as sane, responsible and punishable if he fell short, but with regard to his rights, he had no soul and no being, and he was not more than a strong pair of arms!

Finally, after many centuries of enslavement and oppression, there came the protocol to abolish slavery and strive to put an end to it, in a resolution issued by the United Nations in 1953 CE.

Hence their consciences did not awaken until the last century, after they had built their civilization on the corpses of free men whom they had enslaved unlawfully. What fair-minded person can compare this with the teachings of Islam, which came fourteen hundred years ago? It seems that accusing Islam with regard to this topic is like the saying, “She accused me of her problem then walked away.”

Regards.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad

It was the West who "forced" Islamic countries to stop slavery?! Please read the rest of the quote I gave you:.

excellent posts, and I wanted to add:


Slaves and Masters (as per Christianity)


5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

as well:

New International Version (©1984)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.New Living Translation (©2007)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
English Standard Version (©2001)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;
International Standard Version (©2008)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear, trembling, and sincerity, as when you obey the Messiah.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with proper respect. Be as sincere as you are when you obey Christ.
King James Bible
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
American King James Version
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as to Christ;
American Standard Version
Servants, be obedient unto them that according to the flesh are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Bible in Basic English
Servants, do what is ordered by those who are your natural masters, having respect and fear for them, with all your heart, as to Christ;
Douay-Rheims Bible
Servants, be obedient to them that are your lords according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ:
Darby Bible Translation
Bondmen, obey masters according to flesh, with fear and trembling, in simplicity of your heart as to the Christ;
English Revised Version
Servants, be obedient unto them that according to the flesh are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Webster's Bible Translation
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as to Christ;
Weymouth New Testament
Slaves, be obedient to your earthly masters, with respect and eager anxiety to please and with simplicity of motive as if you were obeying Christ.
World English Bible
Servants, be obedient to those who according to the flesh are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as to Christ;
Young's Literal Translation
The servants! obey the masters according to the flesh with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to the Christ;

http://bible.cc/ephesians/6-5.htm

Christianity is in the worst type of abuse and ignorance toward natural law and fellow man, again leaving me utterly bewildered against half the accusations that our dear member Hugo, alleges against Islam and leaving me to wonder what is his measuring stick is when approaching this topic as he clearly exempts if not overtly ignores passages from the religion he avers superior.
He'd say, this topic isn't about Christianity later ignores the replies given, collects himself and poses the same questions anew as if no one labored for pages on scholarly exegesis and commentaries finding some ridiculous portal to allay what should be serious reservations in your own religions. One can't help but look at the whole package, especially when you are trying so desperately to sell something that just isn't an accurate picture. What is your reply then to these truths about your own religion? surely as your house is made of such fragile glass.

Hugo.
Please approach this topic with some sort of integrity, honesty and totality so that you don't end up so upset and in protest when others draw the 'wrong' conclusion about you!

all the best