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

[Hugo]

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

Firstly, I don't dismiss it I simply and repeatedly say it cannot be falsified so its a conjecture and will remain so and nothing more. If you cannot see this point then you know nothing of rational thinking or logic.

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

Well we might define rationalism is that of basing out thinking and logic on the facts and nothing but the facts so we we must exclude the supernatural because as soon as you bring that is then anything becomes possble none of which can be tested. The issue is that you have in your head a model called Islam and you fall into the logical trap of assuming that is the same as the messy existence we all live in so anything that doe not fit you dismiss.

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

The Biblical story of Lot as found in the Qu'ran and Bible differs. The Bible story is much more straightforward and since it is of greater antiquity it is likely to be the more correct and indeed in my view it is easy to see that the Qu'ranic version is a corruption of the original - how can it logically be otherwise?

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

My source is the divine Bible! Who were these lecherous men and what possible motive can they have had to add in such lurid details if it was not true, it was hardly likely to make the Bible more acceptable was it. It seem to me that Islam can only hold itself together by this absurd notion that all the prophets were absolutely virtuous and incorruptible and Biblically speaking and common sense says that is an absurd idea. As far as I can tell this is just something you are required to believe but without a shred of evidence to support such a foolish notion.

 

[جوري]

Firstly, I don't dismiss it I simply and repeatedly say it cannot be falsified so its a conjecture and will remain so and nothing more. If you cannot see this point then you know nothing of rational thinking or logic.

You are actually quite welcome to falsify it if you can!

Well we might define rationalism is that of basing out thinking and logic on the facts and nothing but the facts so we we must exclude the supernatural because as soon as you bring that is then anything becomes possble none of which can be tested. The issue is that you have in your head a model called Islam and you fall into the logical trap of assuming that is the same as the messy existence we all live in so anything that doe not fit you dismiss.

When you are dealing with the topic of religion something outside the bounds of physical reason will come into question. Be that as it may. The Quran is a physical object of divine origin-- The real problem is, you follow scriptures that aren't divine in origin and focus your attention on the alleged divinity of one man which you accept on faith. Whereas we accept the Quran's divinity based on physical evidence of the Quran itself and not the heresy of your forefathers! Thus dismissing what doesn't fall within logic is more concert with your beliefs not mine.

The Biblical story of Lot as found in the Qu'ran and Bible differs. The Bible story is much more straightforward and since it is of greater antiquity it is likely to be the more correct and indeed in my view it is easy to see that the Qu'ranic version is a corruption of the original - how can it logically be otherwise?

Antiquity is hardly a reason for veracity. At some point it was believed that to cure syphilis you were to introduce Malaria to the patient, logic being that spirochetes can't live under high temperature.. that was the scientific literature of greater antiquity but it is obviously not correct, certainly having a patient succumb to malaria as to not die of syphilis hardly seems scientific or logical! Now a simple logical approach is, why would God choose a messenger who speaks against deviant sins of the flesh by committing sins of the flesh and being drunk? I mean what logic do you employ exactly? and lastly, the bible isn't divine in origin as per Christians, Whereas the Quran is, now which is the more obvious choice? a dubious book with unfounded claims against messengers, written and edited often many centuries after the matter by nameless characters or the inerrant word of God?

My source is the divine Bible! Who were these lecherous men and what possible motive can they have had to add in such lurid details if it was not true, it was hardly likely to make the Bible more acceptable was it. It seem to me that Islam can only hold itself together by this absurd notion that all the prophets were absolutely virtuous and incorruptible and Biblically speaking and common sense says that is an absurd idea. As far as I can tell this is just something you are required to believe but without a shred of evidence to support such a foolish notion.

For the same reasons they killed messengers, crucified them and took cows to be holy and turned men into gods:

2:91 For when they are told, "Believe in what God has bestowed from on high," they reply, "We believe [only] in what has been bestowed on us" - and they deny the truth of everything else, although it be a truth confirming the one already in their possession. Say: "Why, then, did you slay God's prophets aforetime, if you were [truly] believers?"

92 And indeed, there came unto you Moses with all evidence of the truth - and thereupon, in his absence, you took to worshipping the [golden] calf, and acted wickedly.

93 And, lo, We accepted your solemn pledge, raising Mount Sinai high above you, [saying,] "Hold fast with [all your] strength unto what We have vouchsafed you, and hearken unto it!" [But] they say, "We have heard, but we disobey" - for their hearts are filled to overflowing with love of the [golden] calf because of their refusal to acknowledge the truth. Say: "Vile is what this [false] belief of yours enjoins upon you - if indeed you are believers!"


all the best!

 

[CosmicPathos]

Hugo talks about logic and supernatural yet his own beliefs in man-gods are anything but logical. Rational thinking and logic does not discount supernatural, you are wrong in saying so. Only scientific reasoning, which is based on observing natural phenomena, discounts supernatural. And that also under the assumption that whatever happens in nature, it has to be natural, no matter how rare. Of course, that might be true but the failure to repeatedly observe the same phenomenon makes it very unnatural. But then there would be assumptions made by those sitting in the Ivory Towers regarding this unique phenomenon they observed in order to discount any supernatural intervention. But those assumptions just remain that. Mere assumptions. Conjectures of disbelieving minds.

 

[Hugo]

You are actually quite welcome to falsify it if you can!

Sadly, this just shows that you do not understand at all what proof is so we have no basis on which we can communicate. In logic, if something cannot be falsified it means that no one can think of a way of doing it, no one can think how the conjecture can be tested. That means logically that what is said might be a true explanation but there is no way to be sure.

So from a logical point of view writing "When you are dealing with the topic of religion something outside the bounds of physical reason..." is quite correct but you then absurdly claim the "the Quran is a physical object of divine origin..". Now I cannot falsify that so its is outside logic and simply an unprovable conjecture in much the same ways as I might claim the Bible is the inspired word of God, you cannot falsify it either.

The real problem is, you follow scriptures that aren't divine in origin and focus your attention on the alleged divinity of one man which you accept on faith. Whereas we accept the Quran's divinity based on physical evidence of the Quran itself and not the heresy of your forefathers! Thus dismissing what doesn't fall within logic is more concert with your beliefs not mine.

The real problem is that you cannot bring yourself to see that logic as soon as you introduce the supernatural must fail and you keep falling into the same logical fallacy.

Now a simple logical approach is, why would God choose a messenger who speaks against deviant sins of the flesh by committing sins of the flesh and being drunk? I mean what logic do you employ exactly? and lastly, the bible isn't divine in origin as per Christians, Whereas the Quran is, now which is the more obvious choice? a dubious book with unfounded claims against messengers, written and edited often many centuries after the matter by nameless characters or the inerrant word of God?

Giving a scientific example is a waste of time, we are not talking about something that can be tested today we are talking about an historical event and its veracity. You ask why would God use someone but I might say why not? Did these messengers become holy and then God used them or did God make them holy first and would it not then be possible to fall back into sin. As usual you making the fatal mistake of attributing to God actions and motive that come from your own small mind and worse that that you are assuming they are correct and the only possible explanation; that is foolishness or are you being disingenuous. Indeed there are numerous cases in the Bible were God used unbelievers to fulfil his purposes and what about the Muslim failures even in the Prophets time - was that God or did his prophet come short in some way?

 

[Hugo]

Hugo talks about logic and supernatural yet his own beliefs in man-gods are anything but logical. Rational thinking and logic does not discount supernatural, you are wrong in saying so. Only scientific reasoning, which is based on observing natural phenomena, discounts supernatural. And that also under the assumption that whatever happens in nature, it has to be natural, no matter how rare. Of course, that might be true but the failure to repeatedly observe the same phenomenon makes it very unnatural. But then there would be assumptions made by those sitting in the Ivory Towers regarding this unique phenomenon they observed in order to discount any supernatural intervention. But those assumptions just remain that. Mere assumptions. Conjectures of disbelieving minds.

Please show what man-made gods you are talking about here? If you say that rational thinking does not discount the supernatural then you have to show how any premise that is used in argument with a supernatural content can be shown to be true since it is obvious that if the premise cannot be established the argument must fail.

I don't think I said any where that everything that happens in nature is outside the supernatural but I do say that any such claim must necessarily be no more than conjecture not fact and that is not an assumption do you not agree - well I am sure you do otherwise your words 'might be true' are hollow.

So I might agree that God intervened in human nature on some occasion but that is a long way from me being able to prove it absolutely, simply because there are always competing explanations and no way to test supposed supernatural ones that I know of. If you know of methods then let us know what they are.

 

[جوري]

Sadly, this just shows that you do not understand at all what proof is so we have no basis on which we can communicate. In logic, if something cannot be falsified it means that no one can think of a way of doing it, no one can think how the conjecture can be tested. That means logically that what is said might be a true explanation but there is no way to be sure.

So from this I am to understand that 19 pages later, you simply asked a rhetorical question? Try applying the null hypothesis here! let's put it this way, the P value and confidence interval of the Quran make us fail to reject the null hypothesis, but you can always set out to prove some other truth in order to nullify this truth and I believe with the bible, neither your P value nor your confidence interval (given the variables) would prove a worthy contender!

So from a logical point of view writing "When you are dealing with the topic of religion something outside the bounds of physical reason..." is quite correct but you then absurdly claim the "the Quran is a physical object of divine origin..". Now I cannot falsify that so its is outside logic and simply an unprovable conjecture in much the same ways as I might claim the Bible is the inspired word of God, you cannot falsify it either.

See above paragraph!
we are not comparing the same things..
the divine object in question with you is a man that history for the most part fails to recognize as an existing figure, whereas the Quran and object with us is claimed to be of divine origin. Obviously with one object present and the other not, you don't have much of a case!

The real problem is that you cannot bring yourself to see that logic as soon as you introduce the supernatural must fail and you keep falling into the same logical fallacy.

I don't believe that God is 'supernatural' to begin with I don't know what natural is? Natural to me is an imaginary line or standard by which things are measured or compared and it is borne from the minds of men..

Giving a scientific example is a waste of time, we are not talking about something that can be tested today we are talking about an historical event and its veracity. You ask why would God use someone but I might say why not? Did these messengers become holy and then God used them or did God make them holy first and would it not then be possible to fall back into sin. As usual you making the fatal mistake of attributing to God actions and motive that come from your own small mind and worse that that you are assuming they are correct and the only possible explanation; that is foolishness or are you being disingenuous. Indeed there are numerous cases in the Bible were God used unbelievers to fulfil his purposes and what about the Muslim failures even in the Prophets time - was that God or did his prophet come short in some way?

Bringing an example from history(which is what I have done) is an excellent analogy for this, for it explains much of your biblical contents. a book that is from god doesn't need folks to convene every few centuries to edit it, make it with the time, or sentence those who oppose it to a painful death because what they know of the 'natural' world is at odds with said scriptures. Indeed there is a reason why a messenger is chosen for they have to be an example for their people. You can't really ask folks to quit smoking when you are a chain smoker dying of small cell ca. It makes you a hypocrite at best, and god lacking in judgment. And indeed I find the god of the torah and bible to be through and through lacking in judgment. So in the end it comes down to, what we believe and accept to be more in concert with divine nature, an ineffectual god with hypocritical messengers fails to prove himself worthy of worship, for he wrestles and loses, he prays yet dies, he deliberates but errs in his choice.. to me that is not the god of the heaven and earth!

all the best!

 

[Hugo]

So from this I am to understand that 19 pages later, you simply asked a rhetorical question? Try applying the null hypothesis here! let's put it this way, the P value and confidence interval of the Quran make us fail to reject the null hypothesis, but you can always set out to prove some other truth in order to nullify this truth and I believe with the bible, neither your P value nor your confidence interval (given the variables) would prove a worthy contender!

Again it seems to me you fail to really appreciate what it is you are saying. Even if we have a hypothesis we must one hopes have measurable variables otherwise we cannot collect data, establish limits or do any calculations. In this case I don't know what variables you have in mind or what scales we might use - at best such values as far as I can see would be nominal. So what variables do you have in mind? I might suggest for example a hypothesis about the degree of agreement with the Biblical record as that is not subjective or based on opinion and if the P value is significant we can say the Qu'ran faithfully records God universal and constant message - so what do you have in mind, what scales and what type of variable, set out your hypothesis?

we are not comparing the same things.. the divine object in question with you is a man that history for the most part fails to recognize as an existing figure, whereas the Quran and object with us is claimed to be of divine origin. Obviously with one object present and the other not, you don't have much of a case!

You are just stating an opinion and the I speak of a book which sets out God plan and though you seemed to have missed it, we call it a Bible and Jesus has arguably had much more impact for a much longer time that any Qu'ran. but your mental block will not allow even the possibility will it - do you do science in the same way, do you ever consider that you might just be wrong?

I don't believe that God is 'supernatural' to begin with I don't know what natural is? Natural to me is an imaginary line or standard by which things are measured or compared and it is borne from the minds of men..

Then for you words have no meaning or a flexible one that you can bend to your own purposes

Bringing an example from history(which is what I have done) is an excellent analogy for this, for it explains much of your biblical contents.

But the analogy was not sensible was it, one cannot compare how a disease was treated with a fixed historical event because it is obvious that the one can change over time but the other cannot

a book that is from god doesn't need folks to convene every few centuries to edit it, make it with the time, or sentence those who oppose it to a painful death because what they know of the 'natural' world is at odds with said scriptures.

If you are talking about the Bible then there was no meeting in history that set about editing it. Such a thing was impossible anyway as it would be impossible to get all existing manuscripts together to do it any fool knows that and Uthman did it for the Qu'ran did he not? Go and read Dr Al Azami's book Ch 11 called "causes of variant readings" and you will find words like "many errors", "scribal blunders" and so on - but of course he must be wrong must he?

Indeed there is a reason why a messenger is chosen for they have to be an example for their people. You can't really ask folks to quit smoking when you are a chain smoker dying of small cell ca. It makes you a hypocrite at best, and god lacking in judgment.

You are just making up the rules as you go along without any thought to any other possibility - if God chooses one way to send a message then who are you to say he lacks judgement or is God bound by your rules also?.

And indeed I find the god of the torah and bible to be through and through lacking in judgment. So in the end it comes down to, what we believe and accept to be more in concert with divine nature, an ineffectual god with hypocritical messengers fails to prove himself worthy of worship, for he wrestles and loses, he prays yet dies, he deliberates but errs in his choice.. to me that is not the god of the heaven and earth!

What can I say to this arrogant and self-righteous tirade? Why should I accept your God who demands men wear beards, or forces you to walk around a building a couple of times, or builds a bridge over hell, or whatever?

The very nature of orthodox Christian faith is that we never come to the end, it begs for more – more discussions more inquiry, more debate, more questions that is how we know God and our constant prayer is that in all our learning He may give us grace to bow ourselves before Him; as knowledge grows, we ask, Lord, keep us free from self-destructive vanity.

Blessings

 

[جوري]

Hugo, I start each post assuming that you know, I bear you no ill will, it is obvious we are not going to see eye to eye on these issues!

Again it seems to me you fail to really appreciate what it is you are saying. Even if we have a hypothesis we must one hopes have measurable variables otherwise we cannot collect data, establish limits or do any calculations. In this case I don't know what variables you have in mind or what scales we might use - at best such values as far as I can see would be nominal. So what variables do you have in mind? I might suggest for example a hypothesis about the degree of agreement with the Biblical record as that is not subjective or based on opinion and if the P value is significant we can say the Qu'ran faithfully records God universal and constant message - so what do you have in mind, what scales and what type of variable, set out your hypothesis?

As far as the Quran is concerned we have measurable variables!
1- Textual integrity
2-logical consistency
3- Miraculous features
4- numerical marvels
5- application to every day life and relations
6- application to spiritual life
7- application to political/economic/jurisprudence/inheritance/finance/education/ etc.
8- Rituals and observances that aren't only of benefit to the here after but absolutely integral for our physical/mental/emotional well being.
9- transcendence
10- beauty
11- the Divine promise!

Now, I realize it is a bit unfair to you but I'd use those for starters!

You are just stating an opinion and the I speak of a book which sets out God plan and though you seemed to have missed it, we call it a Bible and Jesus has arguably had much more impact for a much longer time that any Qu'ran. but your mental block will not allow even the possibility will it - do you do science in the same way, do you ever consider that you might just be wrong?

Actually Jesus (P) hasn't had as much impact, I couldn't find one christian on board who knows the bible cover to cove or able to discuss the more challenging aspects of it with some dexterity.. meanwhile I can round you about three people to reproduce the Quran anew so that if you burnt every last copy, it wouldn't affect the impact or longevity of the Quran, that is if we are merely to go by period of time, a book is only good if it is practiced not shelved!

Have I considered that I am wrong, of course, I didn't practice Islam until I was in my twenties which is really a handful of years, so if you are asking of my very personal stance, I have already been on the other side. With Islam, I don't have to spend so much time maligning messengers and occupying myself of the nature of God. I don't have to erect a thousand hateful islamophobic websites to discredit Christian or Jewish messengers so that my religion is correct. Go ahead compare the Islamic stance on Jesus to that of the Jewish one, and let me help you along:

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a *****: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

(astghfor Allah)

compare that with the Quranic stance on Jesus (p):

(3:45) Behold! the angels said: "O Maryam! Allah giveth Thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Al-Masih Jesus. The son of Maryam, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;

(5:82)-- and nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant

So there can be little doubt in my mind that I am mistaken to be Muslim, but I would have alot of doubt in both my heart and mind to be of the previous two!

But the analogy was not sensible was it, one cannot compare how a disease was treated with a fixed historical event because it is obvious that the one can change over time but the other cannot

No, the disease was always the same, a spirochete is a spirochete whether 300 hundred years ago or 10 years ago.. If we are to go purely by the works of men of antiquity (of ignorance) then we'd end up with alot of blood on our hands..

It is pretty applicable to religion, surely you can see a book that needs tweaking every couple of hundred years can't really be from god or even remotely inspired by him, and if it wasn't then how can I trust any of its contents?

If you are talking about the Bible then there was no meeting in history that set about editing it. Such a thing was impossible anyway as it would be impossible to get all existing manuscripts together to do it any fool knows that and Uthman did it for the Qu'ran did he not? Go and read Dr Al Azami's book Ch 11 called "causes of variant readings" and you will find words like "many errors", "scribal blunders" and so on - but of course he must be wrong must he?

Then I suggest you see this video:
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/faith_and_spirituality/watch/v1401540kmr5NmWT#

Gospel of John chapter 7
The story of Mary Magdalene for instance wasn't in the Gospel of John until 12c .. so pls don't come and tell me there are no addendum or subtractions, having been to a catholic school and:

Catholic & Protestant Bibles - Catholic Bible Study

The Second Book of Machabees, for example, contains the doctrine of purgatory, of prayers and sacrifices for the dead (12:39-46). The book of Tobias teaches the importance in the eyes of God of good works. The Protestants could not reject some without excluding all of the additional books. Hence, in drawing up their list of Old Testament books they went back to the first collection of Biblical books of the Palestinian Jews. They removed the additional books, which had been in the Bible up till 1517 and placed them at the end of the Bible in a special appendix. In addition, they labelled them as "apocryphal" (spurious, uninspired), a designation which helped to lower them in the estimation of Protestant readers.
The Lutheran and Anglican Bibles still carry these books in the appendix or give them at least a secondary place. But the other Protestant churches reject them entirely.
​

http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/cathprot.htm


Now, I don't even have to do a massive search to come up with these, so I wonder who are you fooling by denying the obvious?

I must now question, whether you've read chapter 11 at all or merely glanced at the title?
in other words did you read:
''In this chapter I will try to negate the idea that dotless Arabic paleography could have resulted in any kind of distortion or tampering within the Quran''? pg 151-152 further leafed to pg 154 to see that the Quran is revealed in seven dialects and it doesn't change one iota, all you need to do is youtube the same sura by different reciters to see what we are talking about and that it doesn't change the Quran...


The chapter in its entirety focuses on debunking the laughable claims of orientalists, and you may certainly bank on the fact that a few members may defend the book not having read it, question is, why do you try that with me?

You are just making up the rules as you go along without any thought to any other possibility - if God chooses one way to send a message then who are you to say he lacks judgement or is God bound by your rules also?.

You keep saying, who am I to choose this or choose that-- I think it is a psychological thing with you, I am certainly not here to choose for you, what your beliefs ought to be-- but I am a logical thinking human being who wishes to follow the right path. It is clear to me that if God didn't want to send people astray en masse to some eternal abode that he'd provide them wish a clear message, one that doesn't involve mythology, abrogations, charlatans and senseless tales. But one that befits his magistrate:

مَّا لَكُمْ لَا تَرْجُونَ لِلَّهِ وَقَارًا {13}
[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 71:13] What aileth you that ye hope not toward God for dignity

I close this with a verse from the Quran to show, that God isn't bound by my rules, but if I accept the Quran as God's book, then clearly the above verse speaks volumes!
[/SIZE]

What can I say to this arrogant and self-righteous tirade? Why should I accept your God who demands men wear beards, or forces you to walk around a building a couple of times, or builds a bridge over hell, or whatever?

Men aren't forced to wear beards it is sunnah! and I happen to like the look so it is a perk, nonetheless, I am not sure I am following the other two, you have a problem with rituals? I personally prefer to walk the path of Abraham around Makkah echoing his footsteps.. Than say:

[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Duwd5rhdO9s[/MEDIA]
​

seems very irreverent to me but whatever rocks your boat!

The very nature of orthodox Christian faith is that we never come to the end, it begs for more – more discussions more inquiry, more debate, more questions that is how we know God and our constant prayer is that in all our learning He may give us grace to bow ourselves before Him; as knowledge grows, we ask, Lord, keep us free from self-destructive vanity.

I can see this portion in agreement with Islamic principles, especially the constant prayer and freedom from vanity

Blessings

Peace be upon you!

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Hugo,

Well you must read it for yourself but I cannot quite see how you can speak about the 'rest of the book' if you have not seen the preface? But what he says there is echoed later in chapter 11 "Causes of variant Readings" where for example he speak of "genuine errors' and Chapter 13 "The So called Mushaf of Ibn Mas'ud and Alleged Variances we he talks of erroneous reading die to 'slips of memory'. So it seems to me you are ignoring the evidence. So the much vaunted claim of perfect transmission both orally and textually is refuted.

"Refuted" by misquoting a few words? I am surprised you call that a refutation, Hugo. While you highlight allegations discussed in the book, you fail to mention the conclusions Dr Al-Azami has made concerning them, which of course would be the author's main reason of mentioning them in the first place.

While I have not read Dr Al-Azami's book, I have a reasonable idea of what it is about - I know that it refutes many western allegations against the Qur'an and I've read some small details in this regard from others who have read it. Thus, I don't need to have read the entire book to realise that an ambiguous statement in the preface does not reflect the detailed research and clear conclusions drawn in the main body of the book. I'm sure you must have read many a book to research a topic, yet I wonder for how many of them you concluded your research solely from the preface? I cannot understand why you so readily do this for a book about the Qur'an.

I cannot see how I have committed the strawman fallacy as all I asked was what exactly was this tablet in Islamic understanding?

I'm afraid you weren't asking anything at first, rather you were presenting a distortion of the facts. You said,

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

So there is the strawman fallacy - using an incorrect understanding about the Qur'an to discredit the Qur'an.

However, I see that in essence you agree that the revelation relies on the word of one man and so cannot be verified beyond that - its a matter of belief. Perhaps now you can see why this is from a strict logical perspective difficult because you have introduce another premise (and I mean no offence here but I don't know any other way of saying it) - that of the prophet speaking the truth and indeed you would I think go further and speak of all the prophets being as Dr Al Azami puts it 'purged and paragons of virtue and piety'

There is no new premise introduced - one only believes in the Preserved Tablet if he accepts the truthfulness of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which is more or less what the whole thread seeks to establish. So the first step is to establish the truth of the Qur'an (and Sunnah) and the belief in the unseen follows, not the other way round.

OK, but that mean no details as far as my research has gone. Indeed some Islamic scholars have said that it contains the Hebrew Bible, The NT and the Quran and they accept they are different and that is the end of the matter.

I haven't gone into any more detail as the Preserved Tablet is not the main discussion of this thread. But it is true that it contains a record of all things, big or small. Remember that Muslims do not consider the whole Bible as it stands today to be the preserved revelation given to Jesus (upon him be peace).

I think this goes too far but it is nevertheless circular as it is self-referential because he is claiming and in the Qu'ran claims the supernatural.

I'm not sure what made you think this. The Qur'an makes it very clear that,

Say (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم): "I am only a man like you... [18: 110]

In simple terms suppose I proclaim a message so am I lying, am I deluded or am I truthful? But of course logically this is a false dilemma as there are many more possibilities than just the three three you offered.

What is being referred to is a claim of prophethood. So with regards to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) all possibilities fall into those three categories. If you believe there are others, feel free to mention them.

But does it not strike you as odd that at eternal book does this - take the case of the false claims about the prophets wife and how he had to wait a month for a revelation and what eternal significance can that have had? You might be right but I remain unconvinced.

The Qur'an mentions many incidents and stories, all of which have a purpose and contain lessons and guidance - there is nothing odd about this. The fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had to wait a period of time until the verses were revealed is further evidence of his truthfulness because if he was making up the Qur'an, he would have cleared the name of his beloved wife immediately.

Well this is orthodox Islam but I fail to see how an eternal God, who created the heavens and the earth should in the space of 23 years change his mind so many times. I would be a little more disposed to accept your explanation if it extended to Sharia; that it can be updated since it was unquestionably created by man.

This was already explained. Abrogation does not imply any imperfection whatsoever on the part of God. It does not mean that God made a mistake or that he didn't foresee an event. Rather, God knew in advance, and intended to send temporary laws for the early Muslims that would later be abrogated once the Muslim society became established.

It is analogous to a Professor who asks his students to perform 30 minutes of studying everyday for the first week. During the second week, he 'abrogates' his initial command and asks his students to perform 1 hour of studying every day. The Professor did not make a mistake initially, nor did he react to an unforeseen event. Rather, he had always planned to give a lighter load the first week to his students, and then increase the workload the next week because he knew they would be ready for it. In fact, he had his plan for the entire course written down and recorded. So when he initially gave the order to perform 30 minutes of homework, he knew that he would later abrogate this command.
​

Similarly, Allah initially gave some rulings that were later abrogated, but He knew and intended.

As for your comments on the Shariah, it would be less convincing that the Shariah was a divine law if it was constantly changing to meet the needs of society. The fact that the law was perfected during the lifetime of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and has remained unchanged is evidence of its superiority over all other laws.

But why destroy written copies and produce an official one if it was just a matter of recitation? Surely, if there were no differences it was just a copy of what already existed - if I burnt a Qu'ran today you would be very angry would you not?

Because such copies were neither verified nor authorized under the consensus of the Companions and consequently they could be written according to a specific dialect which would lead to confusion and bickering, or they could even contain the odd scribal error which could also lead to confusion. So Uthman ordered that all parchments other than the official copy should be disposed of as a necessary step to preserve the unity of the Muslims on the proper recitation of the Qur'an.

Well you can say that of course but the fact remains you have no original manuscripts and so there is an unbridgeable gap but all we can do here is agree to disagree because there is no basis for discussion - nothing exists.

Yet you ignore the oral preservation of the Qur'an: it has reached us through chains of narration going back to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), where in each generation so many people narrated it that there is no question of its authenticity. It was not transmitted by a few persons in one generation to a few persons in the next. It was handed over by the entire generation to the next generation. The generation of the Companions witnessed the revelation and compilation of the Holy Qur'an during the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and then handed it over to the next generation and so on.

The very fact that hundreds of thousands of people today recite the Qur'an without a single difference is evidence of its profound preservation. Even orientalists have said the same:

A.T. Welch, a non-Muslim orientalist, writes:
​

“For Muslims the Quran is much more than scripture or sacred literature in the usual Western sense. Its primary significance for the vast majority through the centuries has been in its oral form, the form in which it first appeared, as the “recitation” chanted by Muhammad to his followers over a period of about twenty years…The revelations were memorized by some of Muhammad’s followers during his lifetime, and the oral tradition that was thus established has had a continuous history ever since, in some ways independent of, and superior to, the written Quran… Through the centuries the oral tradition of the entire Quran has been maintained by the professional reciters (qurraa). Until recently, the significance of the recited Quran has seldom been fully appreciated in the West.”

The Encyclopedia of Islam, ‘The Quran in Muslim Life and Thought.’


The Quran is perhaps the only book, religious or secular, that has been memorized completely by millions of people. Leading orientalist Kenneth Cragg reflects that:

“…this phenomenon of Quranic recital means that the text has traversed the centuries in an unbroken living sequence of devotion. It cannot, therefore, be handled as an antiquarian thing, nor as a historical document out of a distant past. The fact of hifdh (Quranic memorization) has made the Quran a present possession through all the lapse of Muslim time and given it a human currency in every generation, never allowing its relegation to a bare authority for reference alone.”
Kenneth Cragg, The Mind of the Quran, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1973, p.26
​

It also important to note:

The Holy Qur'an constituted the life blood of the early Muslim community during the life of Holy Prophet. It was recited five times a day, people used to commit it to their hearts and used to study it with utmost care and concentration. People were graded and appreciated on the basis of their knowledge and the extent of the Qur'an that they had memorized. All affairs of the state as well as the social life of Arabia were governed in the light of the provisions of the Qur'an. All civil servants, military commanders and judges used to seek guidance from the Qur'an. During the Prophet's life time, when he used to send governors and judges to far off places, he used to instruct them that they have to govern and decide in the light of the Qur'an. These facts show that Qur'an was alive in that society not because of written manuscripts but as a necessity of faith and an inevitable source of guidance for social, political and legal affairs.
​

The Topkapi has about 1,600 Qu'ran's so which one are you talking about? There is supposed to be an Uthamn copy but as far as I know it has never been on display. The one in Taskent was I think lost and all that remains is a the equivalent of a photocopy. The ref to Dr Al Azami's book is incorrect and what you quote is on p151 and it is as he says "my estimate" but he offers nothing more, nothing; except in an earlier chapter we have a few pictures that illustrate early writing.

In light of the above, I guess this isn't of huge importance anyhow.

This disappoints me, no scholar will misuse a word like recension' and I think you must ask yourself are you torturing the data you yourself offered.

You are being unreasonable in taking parts of things I said or quoted and ignoring the rest. In short, it wouldn't make any difference whether you take those quotes out, hence there would be no need to "torture" it in the first place.

Well I dispute this, the Bible as we have it today is supported by perhaps as many as 6,000 manuscripts dated back in some case 400BCE

Which Bible are you referring to? Is it the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, Ethiopic, Coptic or the Syriac? Thus, how can you claim that the Bible is similar to the Qur'an in preservation, when so many different versions exist? We could get into a full-fledge discussion on this topic alone, though that would be getting way off-topic.

No I think you will find that others introduced the Bible element not me.

In the discussion between you and me, you keep making comparisons to the Bible, such as in the last post you compared the Qur'an's universality with that of the Bible and you also brought it up in the preservation aspect. It would be better for us to focus on the topic at hand.

Peace.

 

[Muhammad]

Note:

From glancing at the replies above, it appears this discussion is deteriorating into insults being thrown. Please refrain from posting such things as it does not help the discussion in any way. If we cannot hold a civilised discussion then the thread will have to be closed.

 

[Predator]

Why should I accept your God who demands men wear beards

So you mean you dont accept your God either .

Lev. 19:27

'You must not shave or cut the corners of the hairs of your head and you are not to trim (mar or clip off) the edge (corners) of your beard.'

'All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall pass over his head. He shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long.' (Num. 6:5)

Does it sound like double standards when you dont follow yours and then you expect others also to not follow theirs practices and acts of faith

And Muslims arent the only ones who grow beards as an act of faith, Other major religions follow the practice as well
Jewish Rabbie

A Hindu Priest - Sadhu

Sikh Priest - Sikhs are extemely strict and serious about growing beards in the religion and I cant count the number of incidents of discrimination against them because of their beard and turbans

 

[Hugo]

So you mean you dont accept your God either .
'You must not shave or cut the corners of the hairs of your head and you are not to trim (mar or clip off) the edge (corners) of your beard.''All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall pass over his head. He shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long.' (Num. 6:5)

s it sound like double standards when you dont follow yours and then you expect others also to not follow theirs practices and acts of faith

And Muslims arent the only ones who grow beards as an act of faith, Other major religions follow the practice as wel Jewish Rabbie.

It seems to me you have missed the point or not read the whole post. The comment about beards was not meant as a criticism and it is a matter for each person to decide. The points were offered as a contrast to what some posted as deriding in that case Christianity and simply sought to highlight that every religion has as part of its credo things that other might think ridiculous - don't you agreer and therefore see that such insults are unworthy and as Mohammed below has said, add nothing to the discussion?

 

[Predator]

The comment about beards was not meant as a criticism and it is a matter for each person to decide.

I just found the whole beard thing silly and ridiculous that you said our God demands that men wear a beard when there is no verse in the Quran that tells us to grow beards .
Growing beards is Sunnah - ( a practice) and not a command by God and so we arent going to be questioned by God on the day of Judgement about the lengths of the beard or whether we grew a beard or not .
So i couldnt quite understand what you were trying to prove by mentioning the beard.

 

[Hugo]

I just found the whole beard thing silly and ridiculous that you said our God demands that men wear a beard when there is no verse in the Quran that tells us to grow beards .
Growing beards is Sunnah - ( a practice) and not a command by God and so we arent going to be questioned by God on the day of Judgement about the lengths of the beard or whether we grew a beard or not .
So i couldnt quite understand what you were trying to prove by mentioning the beard.

I was NOT trying to PROVE anything as I have already said, my only point was that any religious practice, belief, command or obligation can look totally foolish and nonsensical to other people and that is why we need to be tolerant and appreciate that whilst it might be dumb to us it might be precious to them - do you agree?

This does not mean we cannot discuss practice, belief, command and obligation but it does mean we do it with respect because as soon as we resort to insults or ridicule then any argument is lost. Margaret Thatcher once said "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single [real] argument left'

 

[Hugo]

Hugo, I start each post assuming that you know, I bear you no ill will, it is obvious we are not going to see eye to eye on these issues!

It might be nice to get agreement but the real agreement one needs is to appreciate there are other points of view as valid as ones own and that would always be a step forward since that would at least mean we listen to each other. One might also add that it is disagreement that take us forward - lets face it of we all just agreed with everything said this would be a very boarding board with little if anything to learn form each other.

As far as the Quran is concerned we have measurable variables!
1- Textual integrity, 2-logical consistency, 3- Miraculous features, 4- numerical marvels, 5- application to every day life and relations, 6- application to spiritual life, 7- application to political, economic, jurisprudence, inheritance, finance, education etc.
8- Rituals and observances that aren't only of benefit to the here after but absolutely integral for our physical/mental/emotional well being. ,9- transcendence, 10- beauty, 11- the Divine promise!
Now, I realize it is a bit unfair to you but I'd use those for starters!

Interesting but I notice you left out my suggestion of looking for levels of agreement with the biblical text - why; that might imply you are biased before you have even began and have offered no rationale for exclusion or inclusion of any of these points. However, you have not said:

1. What you null or any hypothesis is (which by the way means that you will do your hardest to show these point to be false) since you are the one who suggested this approach, you must explain in detail you methods.

2. It would be necessary if these idea are of value that they be applicable to any book at all, we cannot single out the Qu'ran and say they just applies to that.

3. You have not in a single case stated what scale you would use to measure any of these let's call them criteria and more than that you have not been able to say what kind of data that scale might represent: ordinal, nominal,...

So this as it stands is just an idea, one might write an essay on some or all of these points but so far I cannot see any way that they can be measured. For example, what scale would you use to measure "Miraculous features" or "the Divine Promise"?

If I take 'logical consistency' that sounds like it might be objectively possible so I might say lets count abrogated verses as a measure or I might discount the whole idea straight away by stating the Sura order has no logical CONSISTENCY whatever, its not chronological and its not by content, it was not decided by the prophet and not established until after his death so we can only I suppose take the Islamic position that as far as order goes only Allah knows.

So if you want to take this idea further please take a few of your criteria, show them to be valid for any book, state your hypothesis, state a scale and say how we can measure using it to get data and how we might interpret any results objectively.

 

[Hugo]

Originally Posted by Wa7abiScientist
Hugo talks about logic and supernatural yet his own beliefs in man-gods are anything but logical. Rational thinking and logic does not discount supernatural, you are wrong in saying so.

I thought I just might make my position clear here.

1. I assume by 'man made Gods' you are talking about something like reason, logic or philosophy. Well its a point of view but equally I can regard them as part of God revelation and must also point out by the same token that it is possible to regard Islam as having a man made God because it can also be seen as just a another philosophy based on a book.

2. In terms of logic we have two elements: the premises and the form of argument used. Now it is possible to argue using unproven statements as happens in say Geometry where there are underlying axioms and these are typically regarded as 'obvious' so needing no proof. The trouble is that such a foundation is necessarily weak and indeed it can be shown that all such mathematical systems will rest on unproven elements and it is in fact worse that that in that we can never know which ones can or cannot be proven. The best we can do is to make sure these axioms are consistent with each other.

3. If we now come to using logic which includes premises about the supernatural, about God then one can regard them as axiomatic, unproven but obvious then one can build arguments where a truth can be established but always you have to be aware that the foundations are weak and some would say totally rotten.

In a way we want logic to somehow banish the twin devils of contradiction and paradox so it becomes like a machine that has the rules of proof and therefore can churn out the required proof for us for any question we have. The issue for me with supernatural explanations is that they are not testable. If you say an angel came to Prophet Mohammed then it cannot be disproved but by the same token if I say little green men came to me last night with a message and here is the message then there is no way you can show that to be false either.

I have faith, I believe in God and his work of redemption but I also have doubts and wonder about the idea of God. I don't think it is possible to have total certainty and I would go further and say that is the way that God made the world and us. From a learning or faith point of view as soon as you feel you have absolute certainty you stop moving and thinking, there would be no point because everything has been established - well I for one don't want a faith like that where I just have to look up the answer in a book, I want one were I have to search and can feel that I am free to find God for myself, I am free to argue with him and struggle with the scriptures and grow that way.

So in religious matters you can accept the tenets of you faith as axiomatic, obvious and go on from there to prove this or that. However, if you fail to see these are all unproven and at least some of them will always remain so then you are in danger of becoming a bigot or worse because what you think is truth becomes or can become a total intolerance of what others believe.

Finally, a little thought will show you that as soon as you allow the supernatural then almost anything can be proven and rationality itself is subjugated. I will write a longer note on this issue later as it may help with the kind of things discussed in this thread.

 

[جوري]

It might be nice to get agreement but the real agreement one needs is to appreciate there are other points of view as valid as ones own and that would always be a step forward since that would at least mean we listen to each other. One might also add that it is disagreement that take us forward - lets face it of we all just agreed with everything said this would be a very boarding board with little if anything to learn form each other.


Interesting but I notice you left out my suggestion of looking for levels of agreement with the biblical text - why; that might imply you are biased before you have even began and have offered no rationale for exclusion or inclusion of any of these points. However, you have not said:

1. What you null or any hypothesis is (which by the way means that you will do your hardest to show these point to be false) since you are the one who suggested this approach, you must explain in detail you methods.

2. It would be necessary if these idea are of value that they be applicable to any book at all, we cannot single out the Qu'ran and say they just applies to that.

3. You have not in a single case stated what scale you would use to measure any of these let's call them criteria and more than that you have not been able to say what kind of data that scale might represent: ordinal, nominal,...

So this as it stands is just an idea, one might write an essay on some or all of these points but so far I cannot see any way that they can be measured. For example, what scale would you use to measure "Miraculous features" or "the Divine Promise"?

If I take 'logical consistency' that sounds like it might be objectively possible so I might say lets count abrogated verses as a measure or I might discount the whole idea straight away by stating the Sura order has no logical CONSISTENCY whatever, its not chronological and its not by content, it was not decided by the prophet and not established until after his death so we can only I suppose take the Islamic position that as far as order goes only Allah knows.

So if you want to take this idea further please take a few of your criteria, show them to be valid for any book, state your hypothesis, state a scale and say how we can measure using it to get data and how we might interpret any results objectively.

Sry that I am pressed for time and under the weather, however to touch up on the important points from your thread.

1- The scale should be the measure of books of its nature. i.e books that claim to be 'divinely-inspired' and their objective is the spiritual and everyday living that leads man on the right path! obviously when we run trials we do them with items of the same nature to see which yields a better outcome.

2- You need to be learned in the study (something I obviously can't claim that orientalists are capable of, given the fruits of their labor''

you need to be able to distinguish as per verse:

Quran ( 3: 7) He it is who has bestowed upon thee from on high this divine writ, containing messages that are clear in and by themselves - and these are the essence of the divine writ- as well as others that are allegorical. Now those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ6 which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out [what is bound to create] confusion, and seeking [to arrive at] its final meaning [in an arbitrary manner]; but none save God knows its final meaning.8 Hence, those who are deeply rooted in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole [of the divine writ] is from our Sustainer - albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight.

and understanding of the topic is imperative, you don't have lab techies with chemistry or biology degrees running the job of doctors. The person who knows how will always have a job it is true, but the one who knows why will always be his boss!

3- Miraculous feature is the super-natural linguistic style of the revelation with which it is written which isn't reproducible and hasn't been reproduced and is a unique feature of the Quran which amongst other things make it beyond modification/ introduction or subtraction..

and the Divine promise are the things that unfold as per Quran and Sunnah which are signs for us of the fulfillment of God of his word!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

"Refuted" by misquoting a few words? I am surprised you call that a refutation, Hugo. While you highlight allegations discussed in the book, you fail to mention the conclusions Dr Al-Azami has made concerning them, which of course would be the author's main reason of mentioning them in the first place.

While I have not read Dr Al-Azami's book, I have a reasonable idea of what it is about - I know that it refutes many western allegations against the Qur'an and I've read some small details in this regard from others who have read it. Thus, I don't need to have read the entire book to realise that an ambiguous statement in the preface does not reflect the detailed research and clear conclusions drawn in the main body of the book. I'm sure you must have read many a book to research a topic, yet I wonder for how many of them you concluded your research solely from the preface? I cannot understand why you so readily do this for a book about the Qur'an.

Greetings, I will have to reply in bits as our posts are getting to long for comfort. It may be that we need a thread on this book but for what its worth as a Scholarly book it is in my view of poor quality and part of that is that it lacks careful editing and has many spelling or word errors and to my mind he cannot be expert in all the areas he claims as that would take several lifetimes and that lead him into errors and unfortunately for a book of this type he too often to my mind wanders into what can only be described as legend for proof or support - for example, he speaks of Arabic as being originated by Ishmael and Abraham but there can be no extant evidence other than legend for that.

It is true that he discusses Orientalist claims but never in any detail but he also discuses the various different and often incompatible history of the Qu'ran compilation and he is most often honest here and says things like "this seem the more correct to me..'. I suppose the difficulty he has, well its obvious, is that he cannot separate his research from his Islamic beliefs so he often calls on Islamic doctrine or appeals to Allah being all knowing or affirms that all the prophets were beyond reproach or some such device and of course no Orientalist would be able to do that because his work would then be subject to academic ridicule because such things cannot be verified.

However, if the book is a careful and detailed study then one cannot defend it by suggesting that it is ambiguous can you especially in the preface where he is essentially outlining his plan and methods since if they are flawed then the rest becomes worthless.

I quote from the preface as the remarks there are pertinent but I have read the rest so I think I can speak out of a details study. May I ask you to say what you think in terms of the transmission of the Qu'ran and then I will try to summarise what Dr Al Azami says - what I mean is:

1. Did a complete Qu'ran in any written form exist during the Prophets lifetime?
2. How many separate compilations occurred and how many differnet accounts of it are there?
3. What was the spur that prompted Uthman to begin a compilation?
4. Do you know how the compilation took place?
5. Are you aware that there were disputes about some verses
6. Is it true there were many private copies or partial copies in the hands of the companions and others
7. Do you think that all copies were identical, without a single error of any kind anywhere?

All these questions can be answered imperfectly as Dr Al Azami will say from the book but let us see what position you take on this?

 

[Khaldun]

All your questions are dealt with in the book Taqyeed al-'Ilm by Khateeb al-Baghdaadi, I would refer you back to this book Hugo.

 

[CosmicPathos]

As far as I know, there is a difference in different recitations of Quran and different dialects in which Quran was revealed. Quran was revealed in seven dialects, only one dialect survives: the Qureshi one. And this was done by Uthman (ra) to unite under the dialect of the Prophet himself. Different recitations that exist today have nothing to do with the dialects in which Quran was revealed. It seemed to me that Hugo is mixing the two.