Competitor for the Holy Qur'an

[Abdul Fattah]

PurestAmbrosia, science does not recongnize these types of miracles. In my understanding of the verse, it shows either Mohammad's or a scribes belief in a myth that ants can speak. When you have to claim that it is a miracle, that is understandable, but miracles cannot be excluded from a critique by the scientific method.

I'm sorry but that's just being single-minded that is like saying supernatural stuff can't happen because it's not natural. Well of course it's not natural, that's why they call it supernatural.

Try this analogy:
There's a thin two-dimensional metal plate with 2 dimensional beings residing on it. Every few seconds, a person with a drill drills a hole in that plate. ow for the beings that looks like a small metal point that all of the sudden grows into a large metal circle and then shrinks to a point again and vanishes leaving air in the place it occupied.

Now if you would do that at a regular time interval in a regular pattern, and you little beings are somewhat intelligent, they might figure out the pattern and time-interval and give this a name like: "The theory of the holes". They might even predict the next hole you drill. Let's say for some reason all of the sudden for whatever reason the person decides just for once not to follow the same pattern and time interval as usual. The little beings notice this, some call it a freak occurrence, other call it supernatural and even others call it a miracle.

Now Imagen this person drilling holes sends a messages to the little beings that says: "Verily I am the one drilling the holes, and I drill them by a set pattern and time interval, safe when I desire to do different, remember 12 holes ago I abandoned my pattern?"
The beings call it the revelation of the holes. Then years pass, and some of the 2D beings are having a debate. One says: nothing that is in "the revelation of the holes" contradicts with science. Then the other being says: that isn't true, the revelation of the holes speaks of a hole that occurred of pattern, but according to the law of the holes it's impossible for holes to occur off-patern because they always occur in a certain pattern. So clearly the revelation has scientific errors.

Now obviously that story apart from being cute doesn't teach us a whole lot. But I hope you do understand now that if you claim the Qur'an has scientific inaccuracies based on the miracles that your argument is logically flawed. What we are dealing with here is a false dilemma.

Please read: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/falsedilemmas.html


Hi Islambard

The Republic - Plato
Discourses- Machievelli

Now....has anyone read any of these to compare the two?

I haven't read them so I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that they weren't poetical. that they weren't religious, that they aren't universal. (they suggest only political systems, but fail to advice people on personal lives).

So that's already a huge number of characteristics missing. So judging by this characteristics they do worse then divine comedy.

it makes an excellent arguement for communitarianism and republicanism without invoking a hell or heaven, it actually argues that using such arguements make the whole idea weaker!

Then we have the Discourses. This is Machievelli's masterpiece (and oddly enough) lesser known piece. It too follows the same line of general outline as the two former, but instead of using the line of reasoning "because if you dont Ill torture you" of the Qur'an, Machievelli insteads goes into real world consequences and alternatives which makes his cases much stronger.

Is it ok to steal when nobody will notice and the person who is stolen from will not even miss it or ever now that you stole it from him? Or to put it in more general terms, is it ok to do immoral acts when due to the circumstances there won't be any negative consequences in this life?

 

[Woodrow]

Okay. I'm no scholar of course, because I don't believe it, but I have read, and was sent to a school to memmorize verses aimlessly (sp?). Either way, woodrow, did your conversion to Islam prevent you from listening to classical music?

My partial deafness did that long before I reverted. Oddly about the only thing I can now hear clearly are Qur'anic recitations. They have completely filled me and made up for any loss i had by loosing the ability to hear Music.

 

[Isambard]

Hi Islambard


I haven't read them so I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that they weren't poetical. that they weren't religious, that they aren't universal. (they suggest only political systems, but fail to advice people on personal lives).

So that's already a huge number of characteristics missing. So judging by this characteristics they do worse then divine comedy.



Is it ok to steal when nobody will notice and the person who is stolen from will not even miss it or ever now that you stole it from him? Or to put it in more general terms, is it ok to do immoral acts when due to the circumstances there won't be any negative consequences in this life?

I never claimed they were poetic. I see the Qur'an as a poetic piece + political manifesto. The Divine Comedy was used to compare religious imagery and poety.

The other books are used to compare the latter. Im not sure what you mean by not universal, both books make great arguements as to why it should be universal and lays out how it works unlike the Qur'an where is merely says it works because God says so.

As per your last point, thats addressed exactly as you put it in the Republic and the parable of the Ring of Gygees (sp?). I wont spoil it for you to leave you a little mystery that will hopefully motivate you read texts outside of islamic literature

 

[Basirah]

I'm sorry but that's just being single-minded that is like saying supernatural stuff can't happen because it's not natural. Well of course it's not natural, that's why they call it supernatural.

Try this analogy:
There's a thin two-dimensional metal plate with 2 dimensional beings residing on it. Every few seconds, a person with a drill drills a hole in that plate. ow for the beings that looks like a small metal point that all of the sudden grows into a large metal circle and then shrinks to a point again and vanishes leaving air in the place it occupied.

Now if you would do that at a regular time interval in a regular pattern, and you little beings are somewhat intelligent, they might figure out the pattern and time-interval and give this a name like: "The theory of the holes". They might even predict the next hole you drill. Let's say for some reason all of the sudden for whatever reason the person decides just for once not to follow the same pattern and time interval as usual. The little beings notice this, some call it a freak occurrence, other call it supernatural and even others call it a miracle.

Now Imagen this person drilling holes sends a messages to the little beings that says: "Verily I am the one drilling the holes, and I drill them by a set pattern and time interval, safe when I desire to do different, remember 12 holes ago I abandoned my pattern?"
The beings call it the revelation of the holes. Then years pass, and some of the 2D beings are having a debate. One says: nothing that is in "the revelation of the holes" contradicts with science. Then the other being says: that isn't true, the revelation of the holes speaks of a hole that occurred of pattern, but according to the law of the holes it's impossible for holes to occur off-patern because they always occur in a certain pattern. So clearly the revelation has scientific errors.

Now obviously that story apart from being cute doesn't teach us a whole lot. But I hope you do understand now that if you claim the Qur'an has scientific inaccuracies based on the miracles that your argument is logically flawed. What we are dealing with here is a false dilemma.

Please read: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/falsedilemmas.html

Your basing your entire assumption based on the premise that there is a god that can control nature. Yet how about your prove it. Until you can establish such a premise than you cannot operate under the assumption that ants speaking to Soloman in the Quran is not contradictory to science, because your saying that a being like god which we cannot see, and you cannot prove exists is the cause. Since you failed to prove that your premise is a reality your entire argument is in shambles. Interestingly enough the link you posted has an example which I like:

(1) Either a Creator brought the universe into existence, or the universe came into existence out of nothing.
(2) The universe didn’t come into existence out of nothing (because nothing comes from nothing).
Therefore:
(3) A Creator brought the universe into existence.

The first premise of this argument presents a false dilemma; it might be thought that the universe neither was brought into existence by a Creator nor came into existence out of nothing, because it existed from eternity.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/falsedilemmas.html
​

Thanks for the post. Peace be upon you.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Islambard

I never claimed they were poetic. I see the Qur'an as a poetic piece + political manifesto. The Divine Comedy was used to compare religious imagery and poety.

Well that isn't really fair now is it. The Qur'an has a balance between several characteristics. and sometimes one characteristic hold another back. Making a book that stands out for only one or two of them is obviously a lot easier because you don't have to balance it and can completely ignore other fields. In fact what you're doing is comparing one book with a set of books.

Hi Basirah
Peace be upon you to

Your basing your entire assumption based on the premise that there is a god that can control nature. Yet how about your prove it. Until you can establish such a premise than you cannot operate under the assumption that ants speaking to Soloman in the Quran is not contradictory to science, because your saying that a being like god which we cannot see, and you cannot prove exists is the cause. Since you failed to prove that your premise is a reality your entire argument is in shambles.

This is a straw man argument please read: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/strawmanarguments.html

To explain your fallacy more in depth, here are the steps of your reasoning:
1. You (referring to me) claim that God definitely controls nature.
2. You haven't proven this.
3. Therefor you made a fallacy of building on unwarranted assumption.

However I made no such assumption. I didn't build any arguments on my belief that God controls nature. I only pointed out that you left out that possibility in a false dilemma. Pointing out something as a possibilities is not the same as building on it as assumption.
I guess that sets the score to 3-0 in my favor, seems your own website is working against you.

Interestingly enough the link you posted has an example which I like:

euhm... You're not considering to make the fallacist's fallacy, right?

 

[Basirah]

This is a straw man argument please read: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/strawmanarguments.html

To explain your fallacy more in depth, here are the steps of your reasoning:
1. You (referring to me) claim that God definitely controls nature.
2. You haven't proven this.
3. Therefor you made a fallacy of building on unwarranted assumption.

However I made no such assumption. I didn't build any arguments on my belief that God controls nature. I only pointed out that you left out that possibility in a false dilemma. Pointing out something as a possibilities is not the same as building on it as assumption.
I guess that sets the score to 3-0 in my favor, seems your own website is working against you.

I'm afraid your completley wrong. I will explain why: I did not write a straw man argument because I did not misrepresent your argument.

1. Your analogy uses a god like figure in it.
2. Your analogy assumes that a god like figure exists.
3. You did build on an unwarranted assumption.

a.) If you remove the god like figure who changed nature in your analogy then it doesn't work with the situation you need the analogy for, because then ants will never speak.
b.) Your premise in the analogy is that god or a god like figure exists controling nature, one that you did not prove but assume to be true so that is fallicious.

Oh, and about the 'fallacists fallacy', I am not rejecting your arguments because they are fallicious, I am telling you why they are fallicious and explaining why they are implausible because what science tells us about ants that people in arabia during Mohammads time did not know.

Now let us get to the fact that you did not prove anything by the analogy. Your assuming that some god like being controls nature and therefore can change it at anytime. Since you have offered zero proof for this claim, you cannot rest on the assumption that it is a 'miracle'. And since your claim is that an ant spoke to soloman, even though ants do not "speak" or use sounds at all when communicating but use chemicals and other means, this means that the only way you can form a logical argument against the scientific answer and conclusion that the passage is scientifically impossible is by claiming that some god came and bent nature and a miracle happend as purestambrosia said.

But the only way you can make that claim is if you prove that there is a god controling nature. Have you done so? No.

 

[Isambard]

Well, if you wanted a true comparison, then Buddhist Sutras or the Vedas would be more suitable. I simply doubted that many folks on the forums have read that sort of material. Lets not forget that some of these texts are simply massive (ie. Rig Veda) so it wouldnt really be fair to the modest size of the Qur'an. And as I said earlier, didnt want this to be a "my religion is better than your religion" type of thread.

Anyways, the Qur'an does delve into alot of different things, but I see it as a jack-of-all-trades master of none sort of deal though I still think it is still primarily a political text with poetry to make it easier to remember and religion to lesten the amount of questions and make it pretty.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Basirah
You have made the straw-man fallacy again.

b.) Your premise in the analogy is that god or a god like figure exists controling nature, one that you did not prove but assume to be true so that is fallicious.

No, that is not my premise.
My premise is:
1. There are three possible classifications for the (alleged) event: "talking ants".

a)It is an event that is scientifically accurate (that is to say it goes according to the laws of science).
b) It is an event that is scientifically inaccurate (that is to say it violates the laws of science).
c) It is an event that is not examined by science (that is to say, it is an event not described by any of the known laws of science we have, so we don't have any laws to check it by for posibility of violation).​

2. Your premise failed to consider that third option.
3. By not considering all options you made the fallacy of false dilemma.

I guess making this straw man fallacy again sets the score to 4-0 in my favor.

Oh, and about the 'fallacists fallacy', I am not rejecting your arguments because they are fallicious, I am telling you why they are fallicious and explaining why they are implausible because what science tells us about ants that people in arabia during Mohammads time did not know.

This is again a strawmen argument. My comment about the fallasist's fallacy were not in response to your rejections, but in response to your comment:

Interestingly enough the link you posted has an example which I like

But since this fallacy can easily be accounted for as a result of miscommunication I won't add this one to the score

Now let us get to the fact that you did not prove anything by the analogy.

Yes of course, that was never my intention either, the only reason I posted that whole analogy was to open your mind to this third possibility that you left out in your false dilemma. You could say it was sort of a warm-up. My actual refutation was nothing more then mentioning which fallacy you committed. I was assuming that since you gave me that site you would have been familiar enough with these fallacies to figure out your mistake by yourself after me mentioning the third possibility and mentioning the kind of fallacy.

Your assuming that some god like being controls nature and therefore can change it at anytime. Since you have offered zero proof for this claim, you cannot rest on the assumption that it is a 'miracle'.

I am not resting on the assumption. I'm enjoying the benefit of the doubt.

And since your claim is that an ant spoke to soloman, even though ants do not "speak" or use sounds at all when communicating but use chemicals and other means, this means that the only way you can form a logical argument against the scientific answer and conclusion that the passage is scientifically impossible is by claiming that some god came and bent nature and a miracle happend as purestambrosia said.

Yes true.

But the only way you can make that claim is if you prove that there is a god controling nature. Have you done so? No.

Well the thing is, I don't have to prove it for it to be an acceptable possibility. In fact it's the other way around. Since you are the one making false dilemma, you are the one who has to disprove in order to save your argument. Allow me to explain that:

1. You argued the following dilemma:

a) Either an event follows the law of science, or it breaks it.
b) The ants speaking is not possible under any law we know.
c) Therefor the Qur'an has scientific inaccuracies​

2. I replied:

a) You made a false dilemma by failing to consider that the event is supernatural (thus neither following known laws neither breaking them)
b) Therefor your alleged scientific inaccuracy is refuted​

3. The dilemma you presented is fallacious by a mere possibility, even if I don't prove it.
4. Unless you are willing to abandon your argument you have the burden of finding proof (or in this case disproof) if you want to repair your refuted argument.

 

[جوري]

that is a nice flowery speech but not an active comparison firstly built upon the false assumptions-- one of the most pathologically obvious-- this patronizing speech where you feign to know what members of the forum have read or have not read!

You drop various terms and then expose us to your gasconade-- that by itself isn't sufficient for a respectable debate! You assume the modest size of the Quran, in fact if we were to go by volumes alone then the compendium of Muslim text between the Quran and the Hadith is rather incomparable in size to any other religious or poetic text out there, but it was/is never of size but of content and in fact deals with every facet of life, from inheritance, to marriage to cleaning yourself to medicine to running a government and everything there is in between.
The book is transcendent and its wonders never cease in

Shakespeare's play, Henry the Fourth, some of the characters discuss bees and mention that the bees are soldiers and have a king. That is what people thought in Shakespeare's time - that the bees that one sees flying around are male bees and that they go home and answer to a king. However, that is not true at all. The fact is that they are females, and they answer to a queen. Yet it took modern scientific investigations in the last 300 years to discover that this is the case. http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=90

Already mentioned in the ancient Quran as God addresses the bee in the female form.. which is very significant because in Arabic the male form can be used to cover both sexes but to use the feminine is to exclude affirmatively the masculine .. this is of course just one of its many wonders and that is what is meant by transcendence. things that might not have been known then and people accepted anyhow are known to us now.. there was a time when people used to worship the Quran as an entity because they simply couldn't understand where such a text came from.. and again I mention somewhere in the middle of the 1800's a Dr. Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis couldn't make the connection between maternal mortality and washing your hands until his friend the pathologist died performing an autopsy and cutting himself with an infected fomite accidentally...I can't expect you to be able to put such things in perspective because well you are so very learned -- thank God for your presence here to put it all in perspective..
If it were a simple case of comparing the most beautiful of Anna Akhmatova's poems ( see I too can pull a braggadocio) to what you deem a jack of all trade and a master of none, the world wouldn't have seen the rise of some of the greatest empires under Muslim rule!
Prophet Mohammed didn't write a beautiful poem and then it became a memorable relic of history. It became history..
Therein lies the difference..

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Well, if you wanted a true comparison, then Buddhist Sutras or the Vedas would be more suitable. I simply doubted that many folks on the forums have read that sort of material. Lets not forget that some of these texts are simply massive (ie. Rig Veda) so it wouldnt really be fair to the modest size of the Qur'an. And as I said earlier, didnt want this to be a "my religion is better than your religion" type of thread.

Anyways, the Qur'an does delve into alot of different things, but I see it as a jack-of-all-trades master of none sort of deal though I still think it is still primarily a political text with poetry to make it easier to remember and religion to lesten the amount of questions and make it pretty.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I geuss that all what's left then is to agree to disagree. For what it's worth I have enjoyed discussing this issue with you and have learned from it.

 

[Isambard]

Depends by what you mean PA.

The works of Homer where worshipped for thousands of yrs, and even today among literature scholars.

If you want to go the great-grand daddies of "miraculous texts" then I suggest the Rig Veda. Sitting at around 4000yrs old, being massive and well preserved, containing all sorts of insightful facts about the universe and still have a massive following after all these yrs is very impressive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAdiJ8ZMurA

Then of course...there is the God father of religion.

The Epic Gilgamesh. It is the origin of Gensis, in particular, creation of Adam and Eve, the flood, Cain and Abel.
Its incredibly ancient and if you think about it, the empires revolving around the Abrahamic religions owe alot to them, so the Qur'an may have been responsible for some empires..but how many exactly did the stories taken out of Gilgamesh inspire? Exactly

 

[Isambard]

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I geuss that all what's left then is to agree to disagree. For what it's worth I have enjoyed discussing this issue with you and have learned from it.

Ditto

If you have any questions about any of the books mentioned dont be afraid to ask.

On a side-note, was wondering if anyone could recommend some arabian literature (islamic or otherwise). As it stands, the books I have on this subject are few consisting only of the Qur'an, Book on Islamic History, Necronomicon....and some Rushdie..lol

So yeah, recommendations would be great

 

[Abdul Fattah]

On a side-note, was wondering if anyone could recommend some arabian literature (islamic or otherwise). As it stands, the books I have on this subject are few consisting only of the Qur'an, Book on Islamic History, Necronomicon....and some Rushdie..lol

So yeah, recommendations would be great

I take it you mean non-fiction right?
The first one that comes to mind is Tafsir ibn Kathir
www.tafsir.com
It's an explenation of the Qur'an, but not the writers interpretation, just explaining a general verse with a detailed verse, or explaining a verse with a hadeeth or with the event that happened right before it's revelation. I have it in hardcopy at home. It's about 7000 pages

Another good read (and a whole lot shorter) is the three fundamentals by Abdul-Wahab which explains the three things that every Muslim is obliged to know. For the rest, most of the books on my shelf are in dutch.

The books presented here are very good: http://www.darussalam.com/
But I expect some of them will be a bit to boring for non-Muslims by focusing on religious law (for example I doubt it you'd be interested in reading a 100 pages about exactly how prayer should be performed). So you'll probably enjoy reading the books that explain a bit of the history more.

 

[جوري]

Depends by what you mean PA.

The works of Homer where worshipped for thousands of yrs, and even today among literature scholars.

If you want to go the great-grand daddies of "miraculous texts" then I suggest the Rig Veda. Sitting at around 4000yrs old, being massive and well preserved, containing all sorts of insightful facts about the universe and still have a massive following after all these yrs is very impressive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAdiJ8ZMurA

Then of course...there is the God father of religion.

The Epic Gilgamesh. It is the origin of Gensis, in particular, creation of Adam and Eve, the flood, Cain and Abel.
Its incredibly ancient and if you think about it, the empires revolving around the Abrahamic religions owe alot to them, so the Qur'an may have been responsible for some empires..but how many exactly did the stories taken out of Gilgamesh inspire? Exactly

I don't believe such texts to be divinely inspired ( I obviousely don't expect that to have any sort of impact on you) if you find similarities in Abrahamic religions it is simply because they come from the same God!.. you can go read the ahura Mazda and it will be even more ancient than hindu texts.. and in it you'll see references to the coming of Christ and Mohammed PBUT..

you can see how this is the beginning, very early drawings have been made of the expulsion from heaven, and I am not talking neoclassicism or romanticism, I am talking cave paintings-- simply that even though Abraham is considered the father of monotheism, as he himself was an island, he wasn't the first Muslim.. and Yes he was Muslim because to be Muslim is to submit yourself to God and in that essence is the oldest religion.. before Abaraham were many others, starting with Adam the first prophet.. he might not have had texts or scrolls, but any compilation hence forth was a proliferation from that single basic idea... I have spend a great deal of my life in museums trying to piece this world together, and that is what I have concluded.. you can see a degeneracy of societies and from their midst comes a man to speak of the one true God, hence the prophets we know and those we don't-- people stray again they build their statues they make their own gods.. some have later compiled books, with some basic tenets that draw from or toward those divinely inspired -- a text that is untampered with is very easy to pick up on by a lingual and exegetical expert..

the simple difference between the Quran and the hadith is enough to be spotted by the naked eye.. if you were a but more discerning and this is really something that comes with experience you can and will pick up on how profound a text it is.. I can spend some time going over some suras just in show of exactly what that means-- it is clear that the suras no two are the same and very different from the written hadiths of the prophet PBUH.. further some suras are revealed practically 22 years apart and yet in style, rhythm, meaning and context there is an absolute flow, I have written a great deal of prose and poetry, in Arabic and English, you just can't come up with Quranic text, it is an impossibility whether or not you think the size of it is 'small' comparatively, the Quran is actually comprable to the bible volume wise and I believe I have written quite extensivly on that in a previous post.. ... its wonders truly never cease.. you just need to be able to navigate your way to understand exactly what that means, and if/when you do, it will do nothing short of make you shudder..

p.s
if you wanted some great Arabic literature, tell me which lines you are going for, poetry? novels? religious?


peace!

 

[Basirah]

Hi Basirah
You have made the straw-man fallacy again.

No I have not.

1. There are three possible classifications for the (alleged) event: "talking ants".
a)It is an event that is scientifically accurate (that is to say it goes according to the laws of science).

That is false since science proves otherwise.

c) It is an event that is not examined by science (that is to say, it is an event not described by any of the known laws of science we have, so we don't have any laws to check it by for posibility of violation).

We know how ants communicate. Your simply placing your hope on there being a scientific discovery that we do not know yet. That is basically ridiculous. You believe the Quran hoping that science comforms to it... Same as Bible pushers.

2. Your premise failed to consider that third option.

No it did not, because no one in any seriousness would say, the Quran is right and all the scientists are wrong, and they will wait for that day. It is idiotic I am afraid.

Such a method makes common sense for Muslims, because they have been trained to think that the Quran is faultless. Nevertheless, to use this method in a dispute is a completely diverse story. Muslims can’t anticipate that everyone will interpret Muhammad’s statements in the most sympathetic light conceivable when his dependability as a prophet is what is being investigated. The Muslim argument is intended to establish that Muhammad was a true prophet, but in order to prove their point, Muslims have to assume that Muhammad was a true prophet and that he consequently, couldn’t have made any errors. This makes the Muslim process of scriptural explanation a standard illustration of circular reasoning.

Use your mind, the Quran says that ants spoke and understood soloman. Stop being an apologetic and actually look at the ridiculous claim which disputes all scientific doscovery in regards to ants communication. Then judge for yourself.

3. By not considering all options you made the fallacy of false dilemma.

That is not an option when dealing with science and the Quran. If you want to be taken seriously in regards to speaking ants and soloman, when ants do not communicate using sounds, but instead things like chemicals, than to leave the option open that all the scientists are wrong is in itself naive.

I guess making this straw man fallacy again sets the score to 4-0 in my favor.

Not even worth my time.

Yes of course, that was never my intention either, the only reason I posted that whole analogy was to open your mind to this third possibility that you left out in your false dilemma. You could say it was sort of a warm-up. My actual refutation was nothing more then mentioning which fallacy you committed. I was assuming that since you gave me that site you would have been familiar enough with these fallacies to figure out your mistake by yourself after me mentioning the third possibility and mentioning the kind of fallacy.

In regards to this argument, you will have a very difficult time proving that any human can "hear" an ant.

Well the thing is, I don't have to prove it for it to be an acceptable possibility. In fact it's the other way around. Since you are the one making false dilemma, you are the one who has to disprove in order to save your argument. Allow me to explain that:

The burden of proof is on you. Science has already proven that the Qurans myth/tale of soloman hearing ants could not have occured without proving the existance of a god. We know how ants communicate. Hoping that some day science will be proven wrong is insane. Your not using any critical thinking and your letting your mind be controlled by a scripture and you let it define science and judge all of man discovery based on that book. I let myself go of such a thought process. Belive what you wish if it leads you to peace, but please do not tell me that the Quran is some scientific book and everything in it is from god, nor impose it on my family in places like Pakistan.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

...only thing I can now hear clearly are Qur'anic recitations.

woowww , MashaAllah

Surely this problems ...partial deafness is good for ur life hereafter

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

....

Seeing as noone has read the Divine Comedy, (or any epics Im assuming) *grumpy face* It may be useless to compare poetics

.....Now....has anyone read any of these to compare the two?

I find it amazing that Quran can be memorised by non-Arabs.

A person who does not know the language …just learnt how to pronounce the words / know Alphabets only … can recite Quran from memory verbatim.

Pl. bring a single person who memorised his/her holy book or other book that has more than 6 thousands sentences in a language s/he does not understand.


God has made Quran easy to memorise . So , u will find millions people memorised it …..from 5 yrs to 50 yrs …. Boys , girls , young women , old men etc…all over the world. Each year , Quran memorising competition held in different countries.


Pl. let me know which book has such unique characteristic & followers since last more than 1000 yrs ?

 

[Isambard]

Salaam/peace;



I find it amazing that Quran can be memorised by non-Arabs.

A person who does not know the language …just learnt how to pronounce the words / know Alphabets only … can recite Quran from memory verbatim.

Pl. bring a single person who memorised his/her holy book or other book that has more than 6 thousands sentences in a language s/he does not understand.


God has made Quran easy to memorise . So , u will find millions people memorised it …..from 5 yrs to 50 yrs …. Boys , girls , young women , old men etc…all over the world. Each year , Quran memorising competition held in different countries.


Pl. let me know which book has such unique characteristic & followers since last more than 1000 yrs ?

The Rig Veda
Most of the Bible
Gilgamesh
Buddhist Sutras
etc.

What you mentioned isnt impressive if you remember how tiny the literate populace was compared overall population. Pretty much ever book central to to a culture was memorized. Reading was done in public to crowds which is why in alot of ancient texts youll find repetition and some specialized form/poetry/pattern so its easier to remember for listeners.

The current folks who memorize the Qur'an are large because its part of the culture and pretty much every other culture's reliance on easily printable books and internet.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

The Rig Veda
Most of the Bible
Gilgamesh
Buddhist Sutras
etc.

What you mentioned isnt impressive .

Don’t make simple matter complicated pl.

Just tell me one name who memorised a book in a foreign language that has more than 6000 verses

 

[Isambard]

Salaam/peace;






Don’t make simple matter complicated pl.

Just tell me one name who memorised a book in a foreign language that has more than 6000 verses

You have entire cultures based around this. Basically any culture with bad literacy had to memorize. Just read up on some ancient culture.