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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hugo
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 500
  • Views Views 104K
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hugo

Account Disabled
Messages
1,528
Reaction score
72
Uthmān;1253079 said:
Greetings Hugo, We can prove that the Qur'an is the word of God by demonstrating it's miraculous nature - the fact that it cannot possibly have been the work of human hands. This is touched upon in this video: How is the Qur'an Miraculous? The Challenge of the Qur'an. Since this is a slightly different area of discussion, I suggest you create a thread in the Clarifications about Islam section if you wish to continue discussing it. Please do watch the video first though.

Regards
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the reply. I can accept that the speaker did not really explain how exactly the Qur'an is a literary miracle which is why I said that it is 'touched upon' in the video.

I'm not sure why he didn't explain it fully - perhaps due to time constraints. The following video gives more justice to the topic and goes some way to actually explain how the Qur'an is a literary miracle:



I realise that the video is fairly long and so I would request that you watch at least some of it, if not all of it.
 
It's important to note, you can't prove everything, but their is proof. And lets say I am a non muslim, I won't believe it to be all the words of God, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a great book to read for guidance and how to conduct oneself.

There are proofs, though no doubt posting them will lead to a massive debate on whether or not they are legit proofs, made up by Muhammad, etc etc

But In my next post I'll try and gather as many as I can for you :)
 
Now truth, is mainly thought in this sense as science. I'll make the point that there is quite a bit of science in the Qu'ran, but many will also make the point that there is no "Strong Science".

web said:
If Allah was going to use science to prove the Qur’an, then why not do it in a way that does not depend upon clever exegesis from the supporters of that argument? Rather, Allah could have done it in a way that was indisputable. For instance, why not predict TV with a verse such as: "Say: ‘Men shall watch images that move in a small box that stands in the corner of their dwelling.’" Or the moon landings: "Say: ‘Lo! And men shall walk upon the face of the moon, and plant a flag thereon.’" Do you see? Verses such as these could have no argument against them, unlike the current situation, which requires a) a somewhat tortured exegesis of these "miracle verses" and b) a categorical insistence by those who interpret them that theirs and theirs alone is the right interpretation (often ignoring over 1,000 years of what previous Muslim scholars and interpreters have said.)
Click to expand...

I was in the process of giving you many scientific proofs shown in the Qu'ran, but its way beyong my capacity both in science and Islam to comprehend them, so with that I'd rather not post some stuff to you that could be a load of rubbish. My apologies though

But yeah, proof brings the idea of science. I'm pretty sure that not many muslims are muslims based on the sole science in the Qu'ran. The many converts like Yusuf Islam talk about finding guidance in the Qu'ran when their spiritual beliefs became brittle. Same sort of thing with ex Christian ministers like Yusuf Estes
 
Re: What is truth, what is a fact and what is an opinion

Before we get going on this thread I need to make a few post to see if we have any agreement on the basic terms. To make it manageable I will have to use a few posts to do it and allow you some time to comment/question or supply an alternative point of view.
Truth is usually simply defined as a fact that has been verified or more loosely as meaning a statement is accurate. Often therefore truth is defined as the problem of being clear about what you are saying when you make some claim or other to be true. Or less obscurely, is our pattern of reasoning or as Aristotle called them the “form” of reasoning valid or invalid.

Confusion - it is important here that you do not confuse belief with proof.

Strands of thought with regard to truth. There are the “absolutists” where they largely rely on dogma (someone tells you what the truth is) and the relativist that see truth as a changing quality. Typically the absolutist is happy in his own convictions and may not care or sympathise with those of others. So absolutism gives a sense of security and self-assurance (sometime spilling over into bigoted self-righteousness) whereas the relativist sees it as unthinking, irrational innocence.

Facts - We use the idea of “fact” all the time; so what is a fact; how do you know when you have a fact? f I look at a fact like "gravity" (called a natural fact) and a fact like "62% of students passed in the May cohort" (called a nominal fact) - is there any differences between these two kinds of fact?

So is it possible to prove a fact - The answer is that I can find proofs of gravity and I can find proofs of the pass rate. Therefore, a fact can be independently checked in some way. Now for nominal facts you may find that some people will not accept your proof. To take a perhaps extreme example, suppose I say that the existence of God or Allah or Krishna is a fact then I might cite proofs and you might or might not find them convincing but I think you will see that such proofs are not falsifiable (put simply we cannot work out how to test the proposition) and clearly not accepted by all as true. Whereas gravity is always true, can be tested and cannot be ignored by anyone.

Let us say you are a Muslim or Hindu or Christian; that is a nominal fact about you that is true and I accept that fact, but my acceptance of that fact does not mean I also automatically accept that Islam or Hinduism or Christianity as holding the truth. In other words what I do or think based on a supposed nominal fact will depend on me not the fact itself. Notice that with natural facts I cannot, for example, rationally decide that I don’t believe in gravity. But, suppose that I irrationally decide that I don’t believe in gravity, that is a matter for me but what I cannot do is avoid its effects because I do not believe in it. Put simply, you believing something to be a fact is NOT a proof of the fact itself.

A fact sometimes can be changed and sometime not. Please be careful here; I CANNOT change the pass rate of the May cohort BUT I can in principle change the pass rate for later cohorts.

Natural facts like gravity cannot be changed by you but some natural facts do change, for example, if you were asked how many planets there are in the solar system then when I was at school the answer was 9 but now there are more.

Nominal facts are important because they crop up all the time and we can in principle do something about them, change them in some way.

Opinions - In contrast to a fact an opinion is person's personal beliefs, thoughts or feelings about something; these may be rationally held and based on facts or quite irrational. Notice that you cannot independently check an opinion as you could a fact. For example, if someone tells you their birthday is 26 April 1942 then you can independently get that checked. In contrast if you ask someone do they like birthday parties then you cannot check that by some other route, you can ONLY reliably get such an answer from one source? You might also notice that we might reasonably make a decision on a fact but we would be much less sure of ourselves if we made the same decision based on an opinion.

Proof - This means that the phenomenon we are looking at is always true, it’s not a matter of belief but something that cannot be avoided (gravity for example) - it is always true for everyone, all the time, everywhere, is accepted by all and cannot be avoided or ignored by anyone.

Indicators - proof as described above is often not possible – that is indicators are not proof but generalisations; predications made on the basis of some evidence (data) we might have.​
Summary - In this thread I do no think it is possible to find proofs in the first sense for the Qu'ran and we must of necessity relay in the second sense mentioned here.​
​
​
 
Last edited:
Proof is often a very abstract concept and can be very subjective based upon an individuals concept of Allaah(swt).

since Allaah(swt) is not of this physical world and can not be measured by direct observation, we have to seek ways to show the effects of Allaah(swt) rather than showing Allaah(swt).

Now to get back to the Qur'an and how to prove it is the very Words of Allaah(swt). I believe the only way I could prove it would be to prove at least three things in this order.

1. Allaah(swt) exists

2. Allaah(swt) has revealed

3. The Qur'an is one of the messages Allaah(swt) revealed.

Needless to say different types of proof would have to be shown if the person was a theist of an Abrahmic belief (a Person of the Book), a non-Abrahamic monotheist, a polytheist, an Agnostic or an Atheist.

to try to prove it to you I would first have to know what you would accept as proof of Allaah(swt) that is not a simple thing to do. There is a possibility that something exist as proof my be something you had not even considered. But it is still a starting point. so I will begin by simply asking. "What would you accept as proof Allaah(swt) exists?"
 
Woodrow said:
Now to get back to the Qur'an and how to prove it is the very Words of Allaah(swt). I believe the only way I could prove it would be to prove at least three things in this order.

1. Allaah(swt) exists

2. Allaah(swt) has revealed

3. The Qur'an is one of the messages Allaah(swt) revealed.

to try to prove it to you I would first have to know what you would accept as proof of Allaah(swt) that is not a simple thing to do. There is a possibility that something exist as proof my be something you had not even considered. But it is still a starting point. so I will begin by simply asking. "What would you accept as proof Allaah(swt) exists?"
Click to expand...

The simplest way to prove God exists is to say that I did not make myself, therefore someone must have made me, and the things around me did not make themselves, therefore something must have made them.

The second point is harder and I would argue, with some sadness as a former follower of Abrahamic faith, that there is no way to prove God has revealed anything. A revelation to one man is not a revelation to all humanity. If you then ask, well then what is the purpose of our existence, I would say that God knows better than I do, but that the entire creation is His revelation. It is not limited to one language but is knowable to all in equal measure.

If 2 cannot be proved, then 3 is neither here nor there, no matter how much 'good stuff' is in there.
 
Woodrow said:
Proof is often a very abstract concept and can be very subjective based upon an individuals concept of Allaah(swt). since Allaah(swt) is not of this physical world and can not be measured by direct observation, we have to seek ways to show the effects of Allaah(swt) rather than showing Allaah(swt). Now to get back to the Qur'an and how to prove it is the very Words of Allah(swt). I believe the only way I could prove it would be to prove at least three things in this order.

1. Allaah(swt) exists
2. Allaah(swt) has revealed
3. The Qur'an is one of the messages Allaah(swt) revealed.

Needless to say different types of proof would have to be shown if the person was a theist of an Abrahmic belief (a Person of the Book), a non-Abrahamic monotheist, a polytheist, an Agnostic or an Atheist.

to try to prove it to you I would first have to know what you would accept as proof of Allaah(swt) that is not a simple thing to do. There is a possibility that something exist as proof my be something you had not even considered. But it is still a starting point. so I will begin by simply asking. "What would you accept as proof Allah (swt) exists?"
Click to expand...
This is a good start and it is fair to ask what might be acceptable as proof. But it seem a little odd to me to say we need different kinds of proof which implies that X might be a proof for me and Y for you and neither for someone else. Though I might go along with the idea that X and Y are evidence for God but not absolute proof.

One of the defining things about proof is that it cannot be avoided or set aside by anyone. For example, suppose I say that flowers being so beautiful is a proof of a creator then in a way all I am doing is making a proof by definition and it would be no different logically if I said that flowers is a proof that the world was created by little green men. I don't know what would constitute absolute proof and I like billions before me fall back on faith, that inward conviction that like Abraham we have heard God speak.

Its just a thought but another way of dealing with this to say why we don't believe, I might be able to say why I am not a Muslim, another might be able to say why he is not a Buddhist and so on as that might give us a chink of light as to what direction to go to find proof.
 
Re: Sophistry is not Proof

I will post a little more on what is meant be proof later but it is as well to say what is not right bat the start. So here is a little note and example (sent to me)

Sophistry
Much that you will read on the internet in particular can only be classed as sophistry that is clever but worthless argument. The Sophists arose as philosophers more or less at the same time as Socrates in ancient Greece and felt themselves to be very wise men who knew everything in contrast to Socrates who claimed he knew nothing. The Sophists it seems were not much interested in truth but only in winning an augment and many believe they in effect sowed the seeds of the demise of the Greek nation at that time. This may all have happened 2,500 years ago but their legacy lives on and the corrosive influences of their attitude is evident everywhere today and certainly in politics and religion.

As it happens I was discussing these ideas with a student about a year ago (so the link might have changed) and she pointed me to a site written by Dr Gary Miller. Dr Miller invites us to use his materials freely so I will do that to illustrate several things about proof. On this site he wrote many things which he regards are some sort of proof and he says it is possible to set standards for truth and talks about falsification tests. Here is one example of the kind of argument he uses. (See http://www.islamicinvitationcentre.com/articles/gary_miller/quran/Quran.htm#Intro)

An engineer at the University of Toronto who was interested in psychology and who had read something on it, conducted research and wrote a thesis on Efficiency of Group Discussions. The purpose of his research was to find out how much people accomplish when they get together to talk in groups of two, three, ten, etc. The graph of his findings: people accomplish most when they talk in groups of two. Of course, this discovery was entirely beyond his expectations, but it is very old advice given in the Qur'an: "Say, 'I exhort you to one thing - that you stand for Allah, [assessing the truth] by twos and singly, and then reflect.....' ​
Some thoughts on this:

1. Can this in any way be regarded as proof. We might easily observe that there are no references and it is impossible for us to check what has been said as it’s a hopeless task to find “An Engineer at the University…” He quotes the Qu’ran but does not tell us the surah or the English translation it is taken from (or did he translate it himself or even just make it up). When you see this kind of extremely poor scholarship one has no alternative but to ignore Dr Millar’s work entirely as it cannot be trusted. That does not mean Dr Miller is a bad person, all we are saying is that his work cannot be trusted as he seem ignorant of normal scholarly practices.

2. You may also note that the quotation from the Qu’ran is extremely short and that would make me wonder if he is just being very selective to try to make his own point; that is the quote in full might not support his conjecture so he ignores the bits that don’t suit him. Again because we have no references we cannot easily check it.

Also notice that he adds something in brackets to the Qu’ran “that you stand for Allah, [assessing the truth]” and so he perhaps forces an interpretation on the words” that you stand for Allah” but like any interpretation it is only one of many. Additionally, he assumes that it means assessing the truth of anything and it is almost impossible to see that the actual Qu’ranic verse is saying that. Overall this looks like Dr Miller is being tendentious (the author simply wants to convince you of something and may use any means to do it) in the extreme.

3. What is he trying to prove here? That the Qu’ran agrees with an Engineer’s findings? That the Engineer has verified something the Qu’ran has said? Is he offering an interpretation of the Engineers findings or the Qu’ran? We simply don’t know for sure what point he is making. In any case this was just one case study and no one is going to assume that what the Engineer found is universally true, and has been and will be for all time on just one set of results.

4. It is interesting to note here that if this Engineer or the Qu’ran is saying that working in two’s is powerful he might like to recall that Socrates made the same observation, which he called his dialectical, with impeccable logic about 2,500 years before the Engineer was even born and about 1,000 years before any copies of the Qu’ran existed.

This point is quite important and that is why we must read widely otherwise we may well think we have discovered something only to find that it is already known and published and we end up making an idiot of ourselves because we have not prepared properly. At worst of course this can also look like plagiarism – to take my example a little further we could argue then that the Engineer and the Qu’ran both plagiarised the idea of Socrates – but of course we take the obvious solution to be that the Engineer and Prophet Mohammed had no knowledge of Socrates. Whilst we might easily allow that Prophet Mohammed had no knowledge of Greek thinkers (although there was great library at Alexandria at the time so we cannot be sure) we are much less inclined to forgive this Engineer or Dr Miller for not knowing something about Socrates, perhaps the greatest thinker of all time.

In short what this example is saying is that you must be sceptical and careful with what people say and you must ask for evidence. Now of course in everyday life we don’t question everything we hear or read otherwise life would be an impossibility but we must always be aware that things may not be what they seem and of course in research and what we read we do need to carefully question what it is because we want to be credible and not make a laughingstock of ourselves.
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying to offend, you may find as I have done as going in to as much depth as one would like just ends up making the person even more confused. It's happened to me many times in questioning things, because one question leads to another endlessly

All I know that even if I may not be sure of the truth of the Qu'ran, there are 1.5 Billion muslims out there who know and have felt the truth of the Qu'ran, and will try their best to follow everything in it. They will pray five times a day amongst others as they know its the truth.

So in answer to your question, yes it is possible to prove, to those who will believe, on God's will. And also no, not to those who don't want to believe, no matter how much proof is given I doubt it'd suffice. All we can do is pray to God that everyone can find the truth.

You have problems no doubt, with people who can't see or don't want to see.
These people will go with the stereotypes like Islam places women below men, and say things like this make Islam a massive problem. Yet we forget that above all these we're here, that God has given us life, let us be possible, given us eyes to see, hands to feel. That itself is a proof of the truth.

Personally, I know its the truth. Just an example, but if the Qu'ran guides something that allows people to stray away from their lives 5 times a day to go to the mosque, where hundreds of people cry as one when asking god for forgiveness, to help the sick, to help their children and parents, thanking God for everything that we have; then I know it is the truth.
 
Hugo said:
This is a good start and it is fair to ask what might be acceptable as proof. But it seem a little odd to me to say we need different kinds of proof which implies that X might be a proof for me and Y for you and neither for someone else. Though I might go along with the idea that X and Y are evidence for God but not absolute proof.
Click to expand...


That probably was worded awkwardly. But for Example if I am debating with a Christian or Jew I would not need to prove the existence of God(swt) But I would need to prove that Allaah(swt) is the same God(swt) tat was mentioned by the Prophets(PBUH) we agree upon.

Hugo said:
One of the defining things about proof is that it cannot be avoided or set aside by anyone. For example, suppose I say that flowers being so beautiful is a proof of a creator then in a way all I am doing is making a proof by definition and it would be no different logically if I said that flowers is a proof that the world was created by little green men. I don't know what would constitute absolute proof and I like billions before me fall back on faith, that inward conviction that like Abraham we have heard God speak.
Click to expand...

I see the difficulty that is here. To use an analogy of how electricity is measured. Electricity itself is not measurable and is non material so we measure the effects of electricity and use that as an analog to calculate the quantity or quality of Electricity. So it is with trying to Qualify and Quantify God(swt) we have no physical object to measure and therefor have to find an acceptable analog to show the effects of God(swt).

Hugo said:
Its just a thought but another way of dealing with this to say why we don't believe, I might be able to say why I am not a Muslim, another might be able to say why he is not a Buddhist and so on as that might give us a chink of light as to what direction to go to find proof.
Click to expand...

That could be the best way of all. So tell me why you do not believe the Qur'an is the word of Allaah(swt).
 
mahi said:
I'm not trying to offend, you may find as I have done as going in to as much depth as one would like just ends up making the person even more confused. It's happened to me many times in questioning things, because one question leads to another endlessly

All I know that even if I may not be sure of the truth of the Qu'ran, there are 1.5 Billion muslims out there who know and have felt the truth of the Qu'ran, and will try their best to follow everything in it. They will pray five times a day amongst others as they know its the truth.

So in answer to your question, yes it is possible to prove, to those who will believe, on God's will. And also no, not to those who don't want to believe, no matter how much proof is given I doubt it'd suffice. All we can do is pray to God that everyone can find the truth.

You have problems no doubt, with people who can't see or don't want to see.
These people will go with the stereotypes like Islam places women below men, and say things like this make Islam a massive problem. Yet we forget that above all these we're here, that God has given us life, let us be possible, given us eyes to see, hands to feel. That itself is a proof of the truth.

Personally, I know its the truth. Just an example, but if the Qu'ran guides something that allows people to stray away from their lives 5 times a day to go to the mosque, where hundreds of people cry as one when asking god for forgiveness, to help the sick, to help their children and parents, thanking God for everything that we have; then I know it is the truth.
Click to expand...

I see your point but if the logic you have used it is true for Islam then it is true for lots of other religions as well. That is I can re-write you post putting Christian or Buddhist with a few minor changes and we get the same argument - ipso facto it amounts to a fallacy.

This does not mean you cannot feel it to be the truth, live by it, but what you feel or what you believe is not a proof of anything.
 
Woodrow said:
That probably was worded awkwardly. But for Example if I am debating with a Christian or Jew I would not need to prove the existence of God(swt) But I would need to prove that Allaah(swt) is the same God(swt) tat was mentioned by the Prophets(PBUH) we agree upon.

I see the difficulty that is here. To use an analogy of how electricity is measured. Electricity itself is not measurable and is non material so we measure the effects of electricity and use that as an analog to calculate the quantity or quality of Electricity. So it is with trying to Qualify and Quantify God(swt) we have no physical object to measure and therefor have to find an acceptable analog to show the effects of God(swt).

That could be the best way of all. So tell me why you do not believe the Qur'an is the word of Allaah(swt).
Click to expand...

Good idea but let me start a bit further back. If you visit Islamic discussion boards or U-Tube one is struck by the sheer amount of traffic on proving this or that one of several impossible things before breakfast (to me) about the Qu'ran. You will not find the same thing in Jewish or Christian circles with regard to the Bible.

I for example, have spend a lifetime in Christian circles and listened to probably several thousands of hours of sermons and teaching and I cannot recall one that tried to prove anything about the Bible or Jesus or the law or transmission etc. The whole thrust is about finding out what God is saying through the accepted scriptures. This does not mean Christian are not interested in authenticity but that they do it by reading the words so to speak, understanding interpreting the message.

So my starting question is why are Muslim so concerned and to me it obsessively so, about proving the Qu'ran is the word of God, proving its is unchanged etc etc and often it seems as if what it say is of little importance
 
Last edited:
Hugo said:
Good idea but let me start a bit further back. If you visit Islamic discussion boards or U-Tube one is struck by the sheer amount of traffic on proving this or that one of several impossible things before breakfast (to me) about the Qu'ran. You will not find the same thing in Jewish or Christian circles with regard to the Bible.
Click to expand...


I will agree that is true of many non-zionist Jews. But it is not true of some of the Evangelical movements in Christianity. May Allaah(swt) spare me from the incessant knocking on the door by the merchants of salvation.

Your point is taken and I understand that this onlaught is usually counter productive and possibly even sometimes misleading. When somebody knocks on the door too often and too loudly people soon become deaf to the sound.

I doubt if many people reverted to Islam as the result of Youtube videos or fear tactic preaching. speaking as a revert myself, none of those things led me to Islam. I tend to doubt if any of us reverted as a result of any of that. (That just gave me an idea for a poll, please stay tuned to this forum for a soon to be posted poll in the poll section)

Hugo said:
I for example, have spend a lifetime in Christian circles and listened to probably several thousands of hours of sermons and teaching and I cannot recall one that tried to prove anything about the Bible or Jesus or the law or transmission etc. The whole thrust is about finding out what God is saying through the accepted scriptures. This does not mean Christian are not interested in authenticity but that they do it by reading the words so to speak, understanding interpreting the message.
Click to expand...

Many do try that and get rebutted for doing so. Usually with the statement that we are going in circles by using the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an is true.

Those of us who try to do so by explaing our understanding of the scripture get hit with we are giving opinions not facts.

It is difficult to find a method of communication that is readily palatable to the taste of non-Muslim audiences and still state the facts fully.

Perhaps as a non-Muslim you may be able to give suggestions as to what Da'wah methods would most likely be seen or listened to by non-Muslims.

Hugo said:
So my starting question is why are Muslim so concerned and to me it obsessively so, about proving the Qu'ran is the word of God, proving its is unchanged etc etc and often it seems as if what it say is of little importance
Click to expand...

We get paid to do so.















Not a cash or material payment but payment in the satisfaction we are serving Allaah(swt) and at the same time rescuing some of our Brothers and Sisters in humanity from the flames of hell. No different from the same feeling that prods a fireman to run into a burning building to pull out a trapped child.

we also find it to be a very fulfilling and enjoyable life style we want to share with others.
 
Woodrow said:
I will agree that is true of many non-zionist Jews. But it is not true of some of the Evangelical movements in Christianity. May Allaah(swt) spare me from the incessant knocking on the door by the merchants of salvation. Your point is taken and I understand that this onlaught is usually counter productive and possibly even sometimes misleading. When somebody knocks on the door too often and too loudly people soon become deaf to the sound. I doubt if many people reverted to Islam as the result of Youtube videos or fear tactic preaching. speaking as a revert myself, none of those things led me to Islam. I tend to doubt if any of us reverted as a result of any of that. (That just gave me an idea for a poll, please stay tuned to this forum for a soon to be posted poll in the poll section)

Many do try that and get rebutted for doing so. Usually with the statement that we are going in circles by using the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an is true. Those of us who try to do so by explaing our understanding of the scripture get hit with we are giving opinions not facts.

It is difficult to find a method of communication that is readily palatable to the taste of non-Muslim audiences and still state the facts fully. Perhaps as a non-Muslim you may be able to give suggestions as to what Da'wah methods would most likely be seen or listened to by non-Muslims.

We get paid to do so. Not a cash or material payment but payment in the satisfaction we are serving Allaah(swt) and at the same time rescuing some of our Brothers and Sisters in humanity from the flames of hell. No different from the same feeling that prods a fireman to run into a burning building to pull out a trapped child. we also find it to be a very fulfilling and enjoyable life style we want to share with others.
Click to expand...

It would be a bit odd to not use the Qu'ran as part of the task of authentication so I don't quite understand such an attitude. In terms of methods of spreading the message Christians would always point to Jesus and the Gospels because they would say that it is God that make a difference not a method.

It interesting to see you note on 'getting paid' and Christians would take a quite different attitude and perhaps this is best expressed in the well-known prayer of Saint Ignatius Loyola and it would be one of the reason I for example would feel Islam to be unsatisfactory - that is no amount of good works can bring us forgiveness.

Teach us, Good Lord,
To Serve Thee as Thou deservest;
To give and not to count the cost;
To fight and not to heed the wounds;
To labour and not to ask for any reward,
save that of knowing that we do Thy will.​
In my next post I will offer a reason for not seeing the Qu'ran as God's words as you asked earlier.
 
Last edited:
Woodrow said:
That could be the best way of all. So tell me why you do not believe the Qur'an is the word of Allaah(swt).
Click to expand...

Please understand that what I say here is not intended to offend but simply state my position. Let us begin with a fairly well known line. In 10:35 -38 we read "This Koran could not have been devised by any but God. It confirms what was revealed before it and fully explains the scripture. It is beyond doubt from the Lord of the Universe" (Dawood).

If we assume that 'scriptures' here means the Bible then:

a. Why is that Muslim don't study and accept the OT and NT as we have them now?

b. If you don't accept them then what can this verse mean? I of course know the Muslim position that the scriptures have been corrupted but you are then in the totally illogical position of trusting in scriptures that do not now as far as we know exist and that is if I may say so an absurd stance.

c. One presumes that Prophet Mohammed understood this verse but could not as far as we know have had access to the supposed uncorrupted versions so he must have understood it as being the versions we know about.
 
Hugo said:
Please understand that what I say here is not intended to offend but simply state my position. Let us begin with a fairly well known line. In 10:35 -38 we read "This Koran could not have been devised by any but God. It confirms what was revealed before it and fully explains the scripture. It is beyond doubt from the Lord of the Universe" (Dawood).
Click to expand...


No offense taken. I see that verse as meaning that in the past messages have been sent to mankid and the Qur'an reiterates and reminds mankind of what those messages were.

Hugo said:
If we assume that 'scriptures' here means the Bible then:
Click to expand...

Not exactly. We are told the messages were the
tauret, Zaboor and Injil. No where are we told that these are in the Bible. Although when we read the Bible it appears that may be partially included in the Torah and the first five books of the OT the Book of Psalms may be from the Zaboor and perhaps some of the quotes attributed to Jesus(as) in the NT are from the Injil

Hugo said:
a. Why is that Muslim don't study and accept the OT and NT as we have them now?
Click to expand...

There is no indication that it accurately includes the Tauret, Zaboor and Injil

Hugo said:
b. If you don't accept them then what can this verse mean? I of course know the Muslim position that the scriptures have been corrupted but you are then in the totally illogical position of trusting in scriptures that do not now as far as we know exist and that is if I may say so an absurd stance.
Click to expand...

It means the Qur'an does repeat and covers what was originally given in the past

Hugo said:
c. One presumes that Prophet Mohammed understood this verse but could not as far as we know have had access to the supposed uncorrupted versions so he must have understood it as being the versions we know about.
Click to expand...

I think your assumption is that Muhammad(PBUH) was the Author. We do not believe he was and he did not know what was going to be in the Qur'an until it was revealed to him. I do not personally know what he understood but do get some insight in what is in Ahadeeth about what he taught.

Just my own words and opinion here. My impression of the Qur'an is that Allaah(swt) had revealed to us what we need 3 times in the past, we botched it up all 3 times so Allaah(swt) gave it a fourth and final time in the Qur'an
 
:salamext:

The rest of your post was spot on Woodrow except for this:

Woodrow said:
Just my own words and opinion here. My impression of the Qur'an is that Allaah(swt) had revealed to us what we need 3 times in the past, we botched it up all 3 times so Allaah(swt) gave it a fourth and final time in the Qur'an
Click to expand...
The Qur'an is the only scripture to have been revealed for the whole of mankind until the end of time. The rest of the scriptures were only intended for the particular time and for the specific nation that they were sent to.

It is for this reason that the miracles given to the previous prophets (the purposes of which were to prove that they truly were prophets) were only observable at that time and place - because the message of those prophets were only intended for that time and place. In short, the proof that the prophets truly were prophets was only observable by the people that the prophets were sent to.

By contrast, the miraculous nature of the Qur'an - the greatest and most superior miracle given to the final prophet Muhammad (:saws:) - is still observable to this day. The reason for this is that the message given to Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) is intended for all of mankind until the end of time. Therefore, the proof that he truly was a prophet will be observable by all of mankind until the end of time, in accordance with the principle I mentioned above: that the proof of prophethood is only observable by the people that the prophets are sent to.
 
Uthmān;1254142 said:
:salamext:

The rest of your post was spot on Woodrow except for this:

The Qur'an is the only scripture to have been revealed for the whole of mankind until the end of time. The rest of the scriptures were only intended for the particular time and for the specific nation that they were sent to.

It is for this reason that the miracles given to the previous prophets (the purposes of which were to prove that they truly were prophets) were only observable at that time and place - because the message of those prophets were only intended for that time and place. In short, the proof that the prophets truly were prophets was only observable by the people that the prophets were sent to.

By contrast, the miraculous nature of the Qur'an - the greatest and most superior miracle given to the final prophet Muhammad (:saws:) - is still observable to this day. The reason for this is that the message given to Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) is intended for all of mankind until the end of time. Therefore, the proof that he truly was a prophet will be observable by all of mankind until the end of time, in accordance with the principle I mentioned above: that the proof of prophethood is only observable by the people that the prophets are sent to.
Click to expand...

Jazkallahu Khayran for your correction. I gladly accept correction and welcome additional information on all of my posts. My opinion is just that, my opinion and very limited.
 
Woodrow said:
No offense taken. I see that verse as meaning that in the past messages have been sent to mankid and the Qur'an reiterates and reminds mankind of what those messages were.
Hugo - I note here you use the word 'reiterates' and so there was nothing new in the Qu'ran' - well I have not been able to find anything new.

We are told the messages were the tauret, Zaboor and Injil. No where are we told that these are in the Bible. Although when we read the Bible it appears that may be partially included in the Torah and the first five books of the OT the Book of Psalms may be from the Zaboor and perhaps some of the quotes attributed to Jesus(as) in the NT are from the Injil
Hugo - there are in fact 4 holy books in Islam aside from the Qu'ran and here you omitted Suhuf Ibrahim. The Qu'ran here is interesting as it typically uses the word 'scriptures' and does it about 100 times and often in translations the words Gospel or Psalms is added for clarification.

I don't quite see there is any argument in your words that it does not say these various books are in the Bible and frankly it would sound absurd to keep saying 'Injeel as found in the Bible'; it is much more natural and credible to assume people know where these books are.

Now, as far as I know there is no sign of these 4 books outside of the Bible. Let us consider the Injeel - its is used in the Qu'ran 12 times and refers to the message of Jesus but nowhere in the Qu'ran does it say what that message was. Qu'ranic scholars have suggested three explanations: an oral message, the book is lost or the books are corrupted (tahrif), anything but the obvious one that it is the 4 gospels we find in the NT. One understands this difficulty because as soon as you accept the Gospels as we know them then there are obvious and basic doctrinal difficulties. So in my view Muslims loose out and deprive themselves of such passages as the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapter 6 or the great treatise on love in 1 Corinthians 13 and I cannot see there would be any doctrinal difficulties there.

There is no indication that it accurately includes the Tauret, Zaboor and Injil
Hugo - how can there be from your perspective as you do not have these books so your sentence amounts to nonsense because you cannot know or ever know whether its accurate or not.

It means the Qur'an does repeat and covers what was originally given in the past
Hugo - I have already stated what is common knowledge; that the Qu'ran does not tell us what the message of Jesus was so there is no way to know if it repeats or covers what was given in the past.

I think your assumption is that Muhammad(PBUH) was the Author. We do not believe he was and he did not know what was going to be in the Qur'an until it was revealed to him. I do not personally know what he understood but do get some insight in what is in Ahadeeth about what he taught.
Hugo - I don't think I made any such assumption though it is obviously a possibility. No prophet knew what was revealed until it was revealed so there is no weight is such a statement. The word 'scripture' is easily found in the hadith though not that often so it seems there is not much there either. However, I can only read and search in English so I cannot be certain.

Just my own words and opinion here. My impression of the Qur'an is that Allaah(swt) had revealed to us what we need 3 times in the past, we botched it up all 3 times so Allaah(swt) gave it a fourth and final time in the Qur'an
Click to expand...

Not quite sure what you mean by three times in the past?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top