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

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.

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.

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?"

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.c...uran.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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

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.

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

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.

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).

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

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.

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).

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

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).

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

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 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)

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

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.

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

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

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

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.

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

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).

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

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.

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

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.

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

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

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

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

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 () - is still observable to this day. The reason for this is that the message given to Prophet Muhammad () 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.

format_quote Originally Posted by Uthmān

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 () - is still observable to this day. The reason for this is that the message given to Prophet Muhammad () 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.

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.