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

[Hugo]

I will reply in a few posts otherwise the pages get two long.

No, according to you, what he actually said was, "...[thanks to] the people behind the Madina Mushaf for printing the most accurate Qu'ranic text in the world'. This is very different to saying, 'I have the most accurate Qur'an in the world'. I cannot believe how unscientific you are being with regards to this issue. Let's take a look at your argument. You believe that based upon the above sentence, "there must be millions of texts out, going back 1,400 years there that are not accurate."

I think you are drifting from the points and questions I asked. So I will restate them and hope once I get your answer we can move on. Dr Al Azami said he had received the 'most accurate Qu'ran'. Perhaps he is pointing out what Arthur Jeffery said in 1937 "It is an extraordinary thing that we still have no critical text of the Qur`an for common use'. However,
1. Logically, this must imply there are ones that are not as accurate which seems to puncture the notion that there has been faultless transmission from the Angel to the page.

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

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

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

Go any country and pick up a copy of the Qur'an and find it to be the exact same as anywhere else. How would all this be possible if so many different versions existed?

Perhaps I can point you to a book called "Which Koran?" by Ibn Warraq (Feb. 2008) a summary of its content:

There is no such thing as the Koran. There is no, and there never has been a, textus receptus ne varietur of the Holy Book of the Muslims. We have two kinds of evidence for this claim. One which comes from Muslims themselves. Many Classical Muslim scholars-Koranic commentators, collectors of hadith, lexica and Qirä’ät books, for example - have acknowledged not only that many verses revealed to Muhammad have been lost, and hence the Koran that we possess is incomplete, but also that the Koran assembled, whether by Abü Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Alï or ‘Uthmän, is capable of being read in different ways, in other words that variants exist. There are a number of hadiths that recount “the loss, withdrawal, or forgetting of this or that ‘verse’ said to have been revealed to the Prophet but not figuring”[2] in the Koran as it now exists. The other comes from extant Koranic manuscripts, inscriptions and coins.

When performing any research, it makes sense to read all the information and not "cherry pick" (to use your own term) the data which supports your particular stance. So I said you should read the rest of the book to seek clarification on this issue, yet you argued against this saying, "the preface cannot be regarded as unimportant in this case because the author sets out his principles and motivation there."

It is general is impossible to read 'all' the information but in this case I have carefully read the whole book so no cherry picking was involved and made notes but one cannot cover every point in a single post. It may be cherry picking to highlight some things but given the purpose of the book it does seem to be a pertinent to speak of 'accuracy' and that is why I used it. But again I say if you want to go further then we need another thread don't you think?

And simply from a common sense perspective, how could somebody writing a book to defend the Qur'an believe that there are different versions of the Qur'an as there are with the Bible?

Here YOU seem to be totally unscientific - if Azami believed there were no different versions then it is hard to see what evidence he can use since there would be nothing to find and nothing to defend. In any case he assumes there are versions and then deals with them - can you see the point that you are unscientific but Azami was not though that does not of itself validate his claims but at least he understood the issues but you I think do not?

 

[Hugo]

I hope that now, instead of repeating this absurd argument that has no basis whatsoever, you will put the issue to rest. Please read the conclusion which I referred you to - I believe it is at the end of the chapter about Ibn Masud's personal copy (which should be the last chapter before the discussion on the Bible, if I remember correctly).

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

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

2. Next we have a comment about the Bible which seem irrelevant to any discussion of Ibn Mas'ud Musah don't you think?

3. Then there is a kind of complaint about the production of the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an because he does not like those on the editorial board again what has that to do with then topic in hand?

4. Finally, we have a kind of rant because Jewish and Christian Scholars are the product of their environment as if Muslim ones are not and then we have a ramble which points out some errors he thinks Bible Scholars made about the Qu'ran.

5. If there is a conclusion it seem to be that he rejects or dismisses the hypothesis of Jeffery and Goldziher - that is it.

So What did he concluded as most of it is irrelevant to Ibn Mas'ud Musah

(O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم): "If Allah had so willed, I should not have recited it to you nor would He have made it known to you. Verily, I have stayed amongst you a life time before this. Have you then no sense?[10:16]. When Heraclius, the Roman king, asked Abu Sufyan and those who were in his company about the Prophet, he said: "Have you ever accused him of telling lies before his claim'' Abu Sufyan replied: "No.'' Abu Sufyan was then the head of the disbelievers and the leader of the idolaters, but he still admitted the truth. This is a clear and irrefutable testimony since it came from the enemy. Heraclius then said:"I wondered how a person who does not tell a lie about others could ever tell a lie about Allah...

I think again you are missing the point. Let me use an illustration, some years ago at University our professor was demonstrating the properties of light and to me he was wearing back gloves and I was certain of it. As soon as the demo was over and the lecture theatre lights came on every one could see that the gloves were in fact as white as white could be! So you don't have to be lying or deluded or insane to get it wrong even when you see it with your own eyes. There is a famous and as far as I can see irrefutable conjecture from Paine, it has been mentioned several times before and it sums up the sceptic position but accuses no one of lying or delusion or insanity.

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something has been revealed to a certain person (eg. Prophet Mohammed), and not revealed to any other person, [so] it is a revelation only to that person. [It follows it is] hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe.
​

As I said before, the mentioning of a specific event does not mean the Qur'an is not for all times and places, as lessons can be drawn from all such incidents regardless of the time or place. If you personally don't think a particular incident or ruling is very important, what does that prove? Does the Qur'an need to gain the approval of every individual as to which incidents it should contain? I hope you will realise that your argument here is very far from being objective evidence against the Qur'an, as anyone can adopt this approach to prove or disprove whatever they wish about anything.

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

In the case of Zanab and adopted sons I am not questioning the law though it does seem very obscure to me but why would Allah go through such a rigmarole to say something that is essentially very very simple.

If you really read the article, you would have noted the kind treatment towards slaves in Islam, as well as its great emphasis on their emancipation.

Yes this is 'good' to know if you are a slave so we cover up one injustice with what looks like positive humanity. The point I was making is that if the qu'ran can be abrogated why is there so much insistence of on an unchanged sharia?

This is one of the basic principles of Islam. When the question is asked: why does Islam permit slavery? We reply emphatically and without shame that slavery is permitted in Islam, but we should examine the matter with fairness and with the aim of seeking the truth, and we should examine the details of the rulings on slavery in Islam, with regard to the sources and reasons for it, and how to deal with the slave and how his rights and duties are equal to those of the free man, and the ways in which he may earn his freedom, of which there are many in sharee’ah, whilst also taking into consideration the new types of slavery in this world which is pretending to be civilized, modern and progressive.

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

 

[Hugo]

This is my third post on Billal-As paper. The Linguistic Challenge. The linguistic challenge of the Qur’ān is thus given to those who doubt the origins of the Book itself. It is to produce something similar to it, thus highlighting the poetic and semantic miraculous nature of the Book. Billal-A begins is a tendentious manner when he says he will deal some orientalist slanders against Prophet Muhammad and their refutations. This is a biased comment and therefore he is unable to see that these men might well have been honest scholars searching after truth. Again it shows how Muslim see any attempt to meet the challenge as an attack.

Many Christian missionaries state that Muhammad had copied his revelations from Biblical sources. Jeffery (1938) claims that*“even a cursory reading of the book makes it plain that Muhammad drew his inspiration not from the religious life and experiences of his own land and his own people, but from the great monotheistic religions which were pressing down into Arabia in his day”[A. Jeffery, “Foreign Vocabulary in the Qur’an, p. 1]. He was seen as a person who borrowed ideas from Judaism and Christianity which he incorporated into the Qur’ān “...in spite of traditions mentioning that the picture of Jesus was found on one of the pillars of the Ka’aba, there is no good evidence of any seats of Christianity in the Hijaz or in the neighbourhood of Makkah or even of Madinah.”*[Richard Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment, pg. 42]

There is no disagreement that the Bible and Qu'ran use the same base stories and I think it natural to suppose that the Bible is the source for then Qu'ran since it is many centuries older. If there were no differences between these two accounts then there would be no issues and little to argue about. The only way through this for Muslims is to claim more or less wholesale corruption of a whole range of Biblical texts but this seem to me a hopeless strategy if we look at its implications.
1. Muslims must believe in some 'original' Bible which no one has seen for at least 1,400 years and if no one has seen it there is no logical basis for comparison.
2. Muslims, must explain why or who made these corruption and how they managed to get 1,000s of manuscripts together in order to do it from all over the know world
3. Muslims, must explain why any one would add in stories about Abraham, Lot, Noah and David committing grievous sins?
4. The most obvious explanation is that then stories were copied in some way.

uhammad is a madman!” Rodwell (1909) insists that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had*“worked himself up into a belief that he had received a divine call – and that he was carried on by the force of circumstances, and by gradually increasing successes, to believe himself the accredited messenger of Heaven.”*[A.J. Arberry, The Koran Interoreted, p. 15] Along with this, Rodwell claims that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was also*“the victim of a certain amount of self-deception”*who would be*“peculiarly liable to morbid and fantastical hallucinations, and alternations of excitement and depression, which would win for him, in the eyes of his ignorant countrymen, the credit of being inspired.”*Hitti further suggested*“the Prophet experienced ecstatic seizures as he received the revelations, giving rise to the charge that he was epileptic.”*[H. Njozi, The Sources of the Qur’aan: A Critical Review of the Authorship Theories, p. 19.]

It has always been the case with all prophets that their people would class them as estranged and mentally ill in order to remove their honour and validity as messengers of Allāh and this was also the case of the people of Makkah

I think the point that Billal misses here is that any event can be interpreted in many ways to explain what happened. Muslims will say that it was an Angel passing on a message, others will say it was dreaming, other that it was a form of epilepsy and so on and there is no objective way to establish which is correct

Linguistic Miracle or not?
This is thought by Muslims to be true and they will speak of a new genre, style, rhythms and so on to illustrate the supposed perfection of the Qu'ran. But there are always other points of view and as I have said before Muslims in general cannot bring themselves emotionally to even contemplate them. I offer here a few objections as to its literary merit

1. The beauty of it does not carry over into other languages and if it was God work surely he would have made this possible?
2. The vocabulary use is relatively small with just 2,822 different words and 80% of the Qu'ran uses only 582 of them so this must limit what can be said.
3. It contains words where the meaning is not know with certainty
4. There is no logical arrangement to the Suras; its not chronological and its not be subject matter and the order we now have was decided until after the Prophets death. This we have oddities such as the first revelation is in Sura 98 and the last in Sura 110
5. The Sura names for the most past have little or nothing to do with their content
6. Copies/reproduces stories used elsewhere: 5:32 taken from Mishnah Sanhedrin, 18:9-26 an adaption of the Christian story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus etc
7. It is highly repetitive
8. No logical regard for sequence so laws, stories, warning are all mixed up
9. There are many refs to Mohammed life without providing key elements of the story as if it assumes everyone knows
10. No narrative unity in large parts and no context. I have given some examples of this in the thread
11. Abrogation so there is no logical consistency
12. The morality is describes is functional 4:3 men may relieve themselves with slave girls
13. Temporal nature of some stories: Zanab, number of wife for the Prophet, Aisah etc where Allah step in with a convenient revelation

 

[جوري]

Let me make a point by concentrating one just one point to let all your posts unravel for what they actually are!

2. The vocabulary use is relatively small with just 2,822 different words and 80% of the Qu'ran uses only 582 words so this must limit what can be said.

could there be anymore proof that you not only contradict yourself, but don't even bother with replies given you all together? Are we back to page one with you making more subtractions?

In terms of the eloquence we know the Qu'ran has a very small vocabulary with 80% of its covered by just 600 different words. One wonders what 'master' of language would say about a book with such a limited vocabulary?

to which Muhammad replied:
This is completely irrelevant and does not detract in any way from the status of the Qur'an. Who is to say what number of different words is sufficient? I am sure you will appreciate that the literary excellence of a work goes far beyond the number of different words used. Moreover, you forget that many linguists and orientalists have highlighted how the Qur'an exemplifies the peak of literary beauty. If your point had any weight whatsoever, I am sure the scholars of language would have pounced on it long ago. Furthermore:The failure of those at the peak of their trade - mastery of the Arabic language - to rival the Qur’an which challenged them should make one think. So too should the differing reactions the Qur’an received from those best placed to challenge its origin. Gibb states,

"Well then, if the Qur’an were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not) then let them accept the Qur’an as an outstanding evidential miracle."

Schact describes the nature of the Qur’anic style,

"The Koran was also a linguistic document of incomparable importance. It was viewed as a source of grammatical and lexicographical information. Its stylistic inimitability not-withstanding, it even came to be treated as a standard for theories of literary criticism."

As H. Abdul-Raof said,

"Scholars, linguists and Arabists need a sound linguistic competence in Classical Arabic but also an advanced
knowledge in Arabic syntax and rhetoric in order to appreciate the complex linguistic and rhetorical patterns of
Qur’anic structures. Most importantly he or she must refer to the major exegeses in order to derive and provide
the accurate underlying meaning of a Qur’anic expression, preposition or particle."

and again

2. I might say the vocabulary is tiny for a book of that size so it cannot be a masterpiece because the ideas it can convey must necessarily be limited.

to which Muhammad replied:

There may be some confusion behind the word 'vocabulary' here. The actual number of words used in the Qur'an surpasses 77,000. Irrespective of this, it is sufficient to consider the volumes upon volumes of exegesis of the Qur'an, leaving no doubt concerning the depth of its message.

__________________

Tell me why you repeatedly fail to read the replies given you? I shouldn't even be vested in the replies other members give you on this very thread, yet you can't be bothered to to go a few pages back see if some or all (most assuredly) have been addressed one by one.

is that you are unwilling or unable to read and comprehend?

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifi...8-possible-prove-quran-very-words-god-17.html


It is getting tedious really!

 

[Hugo]

could there be anymore proof that you not only contradict yourself, but don't even bother with replies given you all together? Are we back to page one with you making more subtractions?

Firstly, I was replying to Billal-A as I said I would, if that means I have to repeat some points I will do so and if you bother to look at my post it say I am summarising. Secondly, because you or Mohammed offered a comment the it is not in some way an irrefutable and absolute answer is it? This is just the typical arrogance that surrounds your attitude discussion.

Is it really a response to say as Mohammed did my post was irrelevant and it can't be important because no one noticed my point before?

Schact describes the nature of the Qur’anic style,

The Koran was also a linguistic document of incomparable importance. It was viewed as a source of grammatical and lexicographical information. Its stylistic inimitability not-withstanding, it even came to be treated as a standard for theories of literary criticism.

Gibbon said about the Qu'ran "[it was an] incoherent rhapsody of fable", Carlyle called it "insupportable stupidity", Reinach thought "From a literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic, and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries and that millions of men are still wasting their time absorbing it"​

The point I am making here is that YOU and others like you are disingenuous. When it suits you the Orientalist is a hater of Islam with no scholarly merit but when it props up you ideas they are suddenly enlightened and quoted as if theirs is the last word. This borders on dishonesty

I Posted "I might say the vocabulary is tiny for a book of that size so it cannot be a masterpiece because the ideas it can convey must necessarily be limited." To which Muhammad replied: There may be some confusion behind the word 'vocabulary' here. The actual number of words used in the Qur'an surpasses 77,000. Irrespective of this, it is sufficient to consider the volumes upon volumes of exegesis of the Qur'an, leaving no doubt concerning the depth of its message.

There was no confusion as it is clear I was speaking about the number of different words. His argument is weak, one can only extract meaning from the words that are there and if they are limited then any exegesis based on this is also limited unless one embroiders the text or claims that God was not very clear and it needed many many volumes to explain what he was saying.

 

[جوري]

Firstly, I was replying to Billal-A as I said I would, if that means I have to repeat some points I will do so and if you bother to look at my post it say I am summarising. Secondly, because you or Mohammed offered a comment the it is not in some way an irrefutable and absolute answer is it? This is just the typical arrogance that surrounds your attitude discussion.

Is it really a response to say as Mohammed did my post was irrelevant and it can't be important because no one noticed my point before?

Gibbon said about the Qu'ran "[it was an] incoherent rhapsody of fable", Carlyle called it "insupportable stupidity", Reinach thought "From a literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic, and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries and that millions of men are still wasting their time absorbing it"​

The point I am making here is that YOU and others like you are disingenuous. When it suits you the Orientalist is a hater of Islam with no scholarly merit but when it props up you ideas they are suddenly enlightened and quoted as if theirs is the last word. This borders on dishonesty

I Posted "I might say the vocabulary is tiny for a book of that size so it cannot be a masterpiece because the ideas it can convey must necessarily be limited." To which Muhammad replied: There may be some confusion behind the word 'vocabulary' here. The actual number of words used in the Qur'an surpasses 77,000. Irrespective of this, it is sufficient to consider the volumes upon volumes of exegesis of the Qur'an, leaving no doubt concerning the depth of its message.

There was no confusion as it is clear I was speaking about the number of different words. His argument is weak, one can only extract meaning from the words that are there and if they are limited then any exegesis based on this is also limited unless one embroiders the text or claims that God was not very clear and it needed many many volumes to explain what he was saying.

so just because you are replying to bilal A, you ignore and in fact contradict (as I have shown) what you have written earlier? Are you surveying to see how many different answers you get if you can hang on one of them to make a solid argument even if an argument out of ignorance? I don't understand how his argument is weak? if you have come up with a number that is in fact not the correct number of verses or words. Whose argument is really weak here, the one who comes up with an incorrect number, later contradicts it, has more than one reply, and choosing deliberately to ignore it time and again or the one who is bringing evidence very matter of fact? It isn't particularly difficult.
I just wanted to give an example on why you wear people out. I'll leave it to Muhammad to deal with at this stage..

all the best

 

[reema2009]

How does it feel then to know that in spite of its linguistic marvels that Muslims who speak arabic only makeup about 20% of the Muslim population?
and is the fastest growing religion, soon to be if not actually the number one in the world?!
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL3068682420080330

see previous page for a more detailed account!

You should read well the complete article you posted, it actually says the following: 'Formenti said that while the number of Catholics as a proportion of the world's population was fairly stable, the percentage of Muslims was growing because of higher birth rates.' So I will be very happy to believe you if you can find evidence stating that there are actually more muslims converting for other reasons then as being born in a muslim family, automatically being counted as muslim. Officially, I am still a catholic ;-).

How does listing your laurelses help you here? would you like an applause filled ceremonial procession based entirely on blind trust of your word which as I have demonstrated on the previous page is discrepant to the facts? I think you'd have been better off as an unsettled spectator as I find it grievous indeed to have allegedly reached such a status and bring nothing exceptional to the table save the usual superficial quips to the topic!

You do that though, run a 'random double blind' study, if you know a 'thing or two' of statistics and epidemiology, then it should be clear that is the best you can offer, and then come back to us with your results when you are published!

until then, all the best

No need for applause from anybody, I simply react to the allegation that I don't know anything about science. It was another person on this forum who was making the allegation, not me. Is this the only reply you can give to my suggestion? Why does everybody keep shouting that the Qu'raan can stand any challenge, and then if I come up with a well-meant suggestion for a challenge I get answers like this, telling me not to proudly tell I am also a scientist? You answer me then what is wrong with such an experiment. Wouldn't it be great if we did it, and find so much additional proof for the Qur'aan being the word of Allah? Imagine the additional souls that could be saved! What can you offer instead of mocking replies like this? Only the words of other people you take as proof.

 

[CosmicPathos]

You should read well the complete article you posted, it actually says the following: 'Formenti said that while the number of Catholics as a proportion of the world's population was fairly stable, the percentage of Muslims was growing because of higher birth rates.' So I will be very happy to believe you if you can find evidence stating that there are actually more muslims converting for other reasons then as being born in a muslim family, automatically being counted as muslim. Officially, I am still a catholic ;-).



No need for applause from anybody, I simply react to the allegation that I don't know anything about science. It was another person on this forum who was making the allegation, not me. Is this the only reply you can give to my suggestion? Why does everybody keep shouting that the Qu'raan can stand any challenge, and then if I come up with a well-meant suggestion for a challenge I get answers like this, telling me not to proudly tell I am also a scientist? You answer me then what is wrong with such an experiment. Wouldn't it be great if we did it, and find so much additional proof for the Qur'aan being the word of Allah? Imagine the additional souls that could be saved! What can you offer instead of mocking replies like this? Only the words of other people you take as proof.

of course you know less science than I do. What did you do? Some experimental linguistic things or something? and ooh, also, Logics??

Well Ive been working as a student researcher in a virus lab for years and my majors were bio and chem too ... so yea.

As has been suggested, publish a paper on the relationship between one's faith and Quranic claim of inimitability then we can read about your conclusions, and also maybe praise (pun intended) you, as all scientists do to each other.

 

[thetruth2009]

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.



Surah 4


82. Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

 

[thetruth2009]

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.



Surah 17



88. Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.

 

[جوري]

You should read well the complete article you posted, it actually says the following: 'Formenti said that while the number of Catholics as a proportion of the world's population was fairly stable, the percentage of Muslims was growing because of higher birth rates.' So I will be very happy to believe you if you can find evidence stating that there are actually more muslims converting for other reasons then as being born in a muslim family, automatically being counted as muslim. Officially, I am still a catholic ;-).

I have read the article indeed, it isn't the only one of its kind, I offered you a page full of articles in the previous page if you'd bothered all together?
:shade:

No need for applause from anybody, I simply react to the allegation that I don't know anything about science. It was another person on this forum who was making the allegation, not me. Is this the only reply you can give to my suggestion? Why does everybody keep shouting that the Qu'raan can stand any challenge, and then if I come up with a well-meant suggestion for a challenge I get answers like this, telling me not to proudly tell I am also a scientist? You answer me then what is wrong with such an experiment. Wouldn't it be great if we did it, and find so much additional proof for the Qur'aan being the word of Allah? Imagine the additional souls that could be saved! What can you offer instead of mocking replies like this? Only the words of other people you take as proof.

You are the one who suggested a listening experiment and I have given you the tools a random double blind is the best science has to offer, go and employ it and come back to us with the results. This is an Islamic forum, I am not sure whether or not you've noticed? If I wanted to prove anything to you, don't you think I'd be frequenting the 'Agnostics portals'? I couldn't give a fig what you believe or don't.. however don't come in here alleging accolades you don't possess or speaking of how read you are in the Quran when you are clearly not!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

so just because you are replying to bilal A, you ignore and in fact contradict (as I have shown) what you have written earlier? Are you surveying to see how many different answers you get if you can hang on one of them to make a solid argument even if an argument out of ignorance? I don't understand how his argument is weak? if you have come up with a number that is in fact not the correct number of verses or words. Whose argument is really weak here, the one who comes up with an incorrect number, later contradicts it, has more than one reply, and choosing deliberately to ignore it time and again or the one who is bringing evidence very matter of fact? It isn't particularly difficult.
I just wanted to give an example on why you wear people out. I'll leave it to Muhammad to deal with at this stage..

all the best

I don't follow this, I don't know what contradiction you are talking about even though I have read you post again and you go wandering off into a post that is almost a year old on a different subject. All you seem to be able to do by way of argument is to say you don't like it or its out of ignorance etc. I have stated why I think Mohammed argument is weak - you nor he has to agree with it and since it is all subjective we simply agree to at least acknowledge each other point of view.

The numbers I gave for the different words used in the Qu'ran are as far as I know correct - if you have different numbers and they are significantly different from mine then state them so we can see how near or far my figures are to yours - simply saying mine are not correct add zero to the discussion.

 

[Hugo]

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Surah 17

88. Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.

Interesting, what logic can there be in God's mind to offer a challenge but at the same time say it cannot be done - what value would if have, what could we learn from it?

PS It would be helpful if you stated what translation you are using

 

[thetruth2009]

Interesting, what logic can there be in God's mind to offer a challenge but at the same time say it cannot be done - what value would if have, what could we learn from it?

PS It would be helpful if you stated what translation you are using

1) Reply to the Title POST


2) I am using the Abdullah Yusufali Translation, Why ? do you have a better one ?

 

[جوري]

I don't follow this, I don't know what contradiction you are talking about even though I have read you post again and you go wandering off into a post that is almost a year old on a different subject. All you seem to be able to do by way of argument is to say you don't like it or its out of ignorance etc. I have stated why I think Mohammed argument is weak - you nor he has to agree with it and since it is all subjective we simply agree to at least acknowledge each other point of view.

go back and read what you have written and you'll find a discrepancy in your own allegations. Judging that you are un-read isn't unjustifiable and I have pointed it out to you at least three times on this forum. Given that I possess the same book I recommended you, I should know whether or not you got past the title, (say ch. 11) as an example. And I do get tired of repeating myself, genuinely, I fail to understand why you pose questions over and over. If you don't like the reply or deem it weak, well that is your own subjective judgment standing against the facts of the matter. There is nothing anyone can do to remedy that, even if you ask it a thousand times over!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

2) I am using the Abdullah Yusufali Translation, Why ? do you have a better one ?

It is all a matter of opinion but I typically use Dawood and Arberry. Dawood reads to me more naturally in English and Arberry so it is said reads more rhythmically and in that sense tries to mimic the qu'ranic style though the English itself often sounds a bit old fashioned. In the case of the verses you mentioned I think Dawood reads better but I don't see there is any differences in sense

 

[جوري]

1) Reply to the Title POST


2) I am using the Abdullah Yusufali Translation, Why ? do you have a better one ?

you should generally use at least four or five sources and be under the tutelage of a scholar, though it is certainly not a criteria a Muslim who is of advanced knowledge is better than a Muslim who is a worshiper.

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Seeking knowledge is one of the highest types of worship. The Prophet told his companions that "seeking knowledge is a (religious) duty on every Muslim." In another saying he said: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]"Seeking knowledge for one hour is better than praying for seventy years."

http://www.islam101.com/dawah/05_concept_worship.html




[/FONT]

 

[thetruth2009]

you should generally use at least four or five sources and be under the tutelage of a scholar, though it is certainly not a criteria a Muslim who is of advanced knowledge is better than a Muslim who is a worshiper.

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Seeking knowledge is one of the highest types of worship. The Prophet told his companions that "seeking knowledge is a (religious) duty on every Muslim." In another saying he said: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]"Seeking knowledge for one hour is better than praying for seventy years."

http://www.islam101.com/dawah/05_concept_worship.html




[/FONT]

Assalam aleykoum sister Gossamer Skye,



Thank you for advices, Jazak Allah.



Assalam aleykoum sister.

 

[Hugo]

go back and read what you have written and you'll find a discrepancy in your own allegations.

It is hard to know what you are talking about with so vague a description but it seem to be the following but I cannot see what is contradictory here. I made a tiny correction to '582 of them' as it might have been read as a total of 582 but that would have been in context a bizarre interpretation?

2. The vocabulary use is relatively small with just 2,822 different words and 80% of the Qu'ran uses only 582 of them so this must limit what can be said.​

Judging that you are un-read isn't unjustifiable and I have pointed it out to you at least three times on this forum.

I have no idea whether this is a complement or insult?

Given that I possess the same book I recommended you, I should know whether or not you got past the title, (say ch. 11) as an example. And I do get tired of repeating myself, genuinely, I fail to understand why you pose questions over and over. If you don't like the reply or deem it weak, well that is your own subjective judgment standing against the facts of the matter. There is nothing anyone can do to remedy that, even if you ask it a thousand times over!

Well did I get past the title? Of course its subjective judgement, no one, including you can, do more on the issues we have been discussing. I do not quite know what this is about but let look at ch 11 as a side issue.

1. Page 160 (the page does not actually record the number). Here he clearly says that there were errors in manuscripts of the Qu'ran though how he can know that is was a scribal error as opposed to a variant I cannot say though you may think he explains it in the rest of the chapter. Notice the biased way he argues, Biblical scribes can make all kind of errors accidental or otherwise but Muslim scribes can only make scibal errors although he does say that both lead to corruption.

2. In passing as it is pertinent here if you look at page 115 he defines palaeography incorrectly and his arguments in ch 11 are mostly about the supposed fact dotless writing could not have corrupted or distorted the text though he has a very odd way of saying this by giving several examples of how it can.

If you agree we might have a meaningful side discussion always keeping in mind the purpose of this thread.

 

[جوري]

It is hard to know what you are talking about with so vague a description but it seem to be the following but I cannot see what is contradictory here. I made a tiny correction to '582 of them' as it might have been read as a total of 582 but that would have been in context a bizarre interpretation?

2. The vocabulary use is relatively small with just 2,822 different words and 80% of the Qu'ran uses only 582 of them so this must limit what can be said.​

You didn't originally write 582 and I should have had enough sense to quote you seeing as you have edited your post, be that as it may Muhammad showed you that, that isn't the case at all (see previous page) at least when you re-write (your observations) you should have them reflect the correct opinion, so that one doesn't feel that all their efforts have been in vain and in turn it doesn't reflect poorly on you not only disregarding what is written, but failing to amend your views when proven wrong!


as for the rest you'll see that as previous all your points raised have been addressed, I really don't have enough hours in the day to re-write what I have written or even go back pages to re-quote myself!

all the best