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

[Muhammad]

If you find the way I ask questions not to your liking that is a long long way from me being dishonest.

Indeed, but that's not what I said.

In the case you mentioned above I outlined in detail an argument which seems logical to me and it becomes a question for you. That is in the nature of the challenge that this thread deals with - the challenge in the Qu'ran ask that something be brought and that is what my post did, the challenge does not say 'ask what a verse means'? The opportunity is then for you to offer a response - why is that dishonest?

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. Where does the challenge of the Qur'an ask you to interpret its verses according to your own logic?

If you simply expect me to say 'what does this verse mean' and the accept whatever answer you give then to me that means we are not listening to each other. I have been as careful as I can and spent a lot of time outlining the various principles that at least I would use - no one commented on those as far as I know.

So would it be alright for me to pick up the Bible and tell you what it means, without knowing anything about how it is to be understood? And if you told me my interpretation was completely missing the point, I could do the same as you and say "I have been as careful as I can and spent a lot of time outlining the various principles that at least I would use".

Does it not occur to you that your responses are often peppered with personal comments about insincerity, untruthfulness, lack of understandinbg and so on but almost exclusivity to those who are sceptical.

I'm simply commenting on the standard of arguments I am seeing, like people such as yourself distorting the meaning of the Qur'an and then refusing to acknowledge the offence. When something as blatant as this occurs, it deserves to be pointed out and corrected.

One can see you point of course but but the message was not just given to scholars was it and what we seem to have here is almost an injunction not to study the Qu'ran on your own but always do it with an 'official' interpretation. It is interesting that the Roman Catholic church went through a similar phase when the clergy were simply afraid that the laity might get it wrong and even went so far as burning those who read the Bible and understood it for themselves - I am all for using a commentary but I will not subscribe to the kind of theological oppression you describe.

Again, ignoring answers. I did point out, "So anyone can understand the Qur'an so long as they invest the time to acquire knowledge of these two sources....." Have you studied Arabic grammar, morphology, rhetoric and eloquence for a start? Then it's obvious that you refer to someone who has studied these and all the other sciences of the Qur'an to get a proper understanding of the meaning. We're talking about applying a proper methodology here, not blind following the whims and desires of people. The science of explaining the Qur'an is one which is based upon well-grounded, systematic principles derived from the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the statements of the Companions. It isn't a matter of everybody intterpreting it as they like and following whatever they want to believe.

Did I say I was successful

You didn't have to - it was obvious from the clear misunderstanding you posted. If you had bothered to research what the scholars of Qur'anic exegesis said about the verses, you wouldn't have made such a terrible mistake.

In the case of the preserved tablet in post 289 you simply said I had it wrong but did not as far as I can see go any further to answer my question as to what exactly it was; real or an analogy or perhaps something else?

Is that really all I said?

Why is it so hard for you to be even handed, do you not see that I can make negative assumptions about the way you act. In terms of Billal-A paper he published it in the thread and I have responded to it here - was that wrong?

Why is it so hard for you to first admit that you misinterpreted the Qur'an?

I cannot fathom this, I and other have presented arguments but I must ask you if you really have the intent to deal with them or cannot face them.

I'd like to spend my time dealing with serious arguments. Making up your own interpretation to suit your wishes, for one, is not actually an argument. It's a fallacy. And instead of wasting more time by diverting attention to other things and refusing to accept simple facts like the need for knowledge, it would be fitting for any honest, sincere person to admit an error has been made.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Hugo,

But I think my point was that just because Dr Azami reaches a conclusion does not make it beyond question, irrefutable...

Of course. Anyone who wishes to question it can do so. And that is exactly what makes it strange that you refuse to let go of a statement (or rather a certain understanding of that statement) he made in the preface as though it is irrefutable.

I have read Azami's book cover to cover, the reason the preface was mentioned was that he made a statement about "the most accurate Qu'ran in the world" and I asked you what were the implications. It really makes no difference if its in the preface or anywhere else the words are unmistakable and either what he says is a fact or he not me is distorting them.

I actually came across the book today in the library and skimmed through. If you've read it from cover to cover, I assume you are familiar with the conclusion on page 260. I think this is sufficient to put an end to this whole debate on what Dr Al Azami means in one line in the preface. The implications you understand are clearly rejected after reading that page, which states in no unclear terms that the Qur'an does not have different versions.

No this is not correct, the thread asks "is it possible.." and so the truthfulness or otherwise of the prophet is irrelevant logically in establishing the 'truth' of the Qu'ran, since if such logic works it must work for anyone who is truthful must it not and Prophet Mohammed need not be thought a liar because he says he had a revelation but like all revelations they are hearsay.

I think we are getting confused with topics here. We were talking specifically about the belief in the Preserved Tablet. Incidentally, why do you think it is irrelevant to appreciate the truthfulness of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)? Surely this is important to verify if the Qur'an is to be taken as a revelation from God.

But can you see the dilemma, a man claims he had a revelation and seeks to prove it as you do here by saying he is mentioned in the revelation - it is circular. You mentioned three possibilities: truth, lying or delusion so which of these would you cite as removing this dilemma.

Where did I use such an argument? I think there has been a misunderstanding. As for the three possibilities - if one examines the issue, the only logical conclusion is that he was truthful.

I agree that any story can be transformed into teaching and one presumes that was the ultimate purpose of any revelation. But take another case that of the Zayd in 33:37 who divorced his wife so we get the eternal teaching (and here there is no doubt as to what it is) that one can wed the wives of adopted sons? Does this not strike you as very odd to say nothing of the fact that we can barely understand this verses unless we have the hadith which tells us about the incident so we seem driven to the inescapable conclusion that God engineered this situation to teach this obscure not to say bizarre point of law?

So you've changed your line of argument... though it's not clear to what. Where is the problem of needing hadeeth to explain the Qur'an? What is so "bizarre" about the law you mention?

I see your point but if I make an analogy on abrogation and ask you is it abrogation if I decide to have Beef this week and Lamb the next and so on. My point I suppose is that one cannot perhaps assume that God acts as we do so the analogy my not be a good one but there remains this nagging doubt about these temporal things such a Zayd above and also I find it very hard to accept that God, the God who made everything should act in such a piecemeal fashion, that if you like God could not think of a better way of doing it.

What is "very hard" about the concept of revealing something gradually?

Does it not strike you as contradictory or at least a bit inconsistent that we have abrogation and then all of a sudden nothing can change?

If you'd read what I wrote, I made it very clear that, "Note that there are a number of conditions for abrogation to occur, such as the fact that its application was confined to the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)."

Let me give an example, a husband may not commit adultery, that is have relations with another man's wife BUT he can have relations with his slave girls who could at least be in principles married before they became slaves? Is this in YOUR view a superior law?

This is not an example. This is confounding the issue by throwing in a completely different point (which you've done a number of times) - we are talking about abrogation, not specific laws of sharee'ah. If you're interested in the topic of Islam and slavery, you can search for the relevant threads such as: http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/32353-slavery.html

Yes I agree that this is one of the accounts but my point was not why he did it so much as just to show that different versions existed - else why was consensus needed.

And I've already mentioned why differences arose and how they were dealt with... wasn't it explained in much more detail in Dr Al Azami's book which you've read cover to cover?

If the oral transmission was as faultless and secure as you say why bother to write it down? Surely, if God handed it down as an oral form (presumably he need not have done it like that) it should have been kept that way?

Wouldn't writing it down further help with its preservation? I don't see where the problem is there.

I think you are muddled here between languages, denomination and versions and it seems you further assume that a Bible say in Greek would have an entirely different message to one in French or that any two English versions would be again totally different - such an idea is an absurdity. Do you think say that Dawood's and Arberry's translations of the Qu'ran are so different that you could not reconcile them?

Please remember that they contain different number of books. It is not just a case of, "oh! those are different translations".

Regards.

 

[CosmicPathos]

So what would happen if a new book showed up, the book of Mormons for example. Many people believe this too. And somebody uses the logic you are using now. How would they ever come to the conclusion they were wrong? There are always new books around, how do you know you have found the right one? Why doesn't Allah then just send 1 uniform message to every human being, stick it on his forehead the moment he becomes adult and responsible?

This is my main issue now. I WANT to believe, I want most urgently to believe but... however can I understand this? What happens to a person that happened to be born in an area where the religion is non-islamic? How on earth is this person supposed to know not to follow his own new prophet, he should have followed Muhammad pbuh, but what a shame Muhammad pbuh was living 1400 years ago and brought a book in a completely foreign language? What if we brought a new book to the Muslim world in Dutch, and told them this is word of God, would they even consider it? No of course not, because muslims already convinced of one Prophet. But what if you accidentally meet and follow the wrong prophet? Is this the will of Allah for you to be misled? Are you supposed to be led by your fitrah then?

Who is brought up in a christian region believing in christianity thus committing shirk, but who never heard even of the word shirk? Then islam starts talking about fitrah, but why have prophets anyway then if you have fitrah? Is the general idea then, that all these people are bound to be lost if it wasnt for the message of tawheed that came to save them? But why then wait for 600 years and now leave the people without a Prophet for 1400 years? Isnt it massively disadvantegeous for people being born now then?

And even now I am born, I am born in western society where everything is 100% different than in society of Muhammad pbuh. What if my inner morals tell me with 100% security that it is WRONG to kill another person for any religion or reason, that it is WRONG to sleep with a female captive under any circumstance, that it is WRONG to condemn gays for being gay? This is the way I was brought up, this is environment that Allah has made me born in, and I am told always for 28 years in a row to believe this. Am I being deceived by the devil in this case? Can I in Islam, trust my own thinking in any way? Honestly it is making me paranoid, I don't even trust my own way of seeing the world in anything anymore. Will Allah punish me in hell for following my own human moral compass that tells me I am not supposed to use violence against anyone? I KNOW that I won't be able to kill a human being or hurt anyone for no reason. I am not even able to kill a fly without feeling guilty ;-).

We appreciate your desire to seek the truth. You would, however, do yourself much benefit if you start with no biases and are open to everything.
With all due respect to your rights to ask anything that you want, I feel your questions are loaded with emotions. I will still try to address some of them.

You mentioned about how you were born in a Western society. Hence, your inner morals nourished in the context of a Western society. The fact that your inner self tells you that gays should not be condemned cannot be attributed to your fitra as you are doing it. Fitrah gets corrupted if one grows in an evil environment. You cannot say that it is in your fitra to NOT condemn gays! Maybe it is in the corrupted fitra. But not in the pure one on which you were born.

Apply the same scenario to yourself. What if someone was born in a society where gays are condemned, his inner self would tell him to condemn gays. Why should I accept what your inner self tells you and not his? Maybe his inner self is right and yours is wrong? Who knows. Its subjective morality.

You gave an example of Mormonism. Have you ever read the Mormon bible?

If you give Muslims a book in dutch and say it is from God, Muslims wont accept it. You attribute the reason to the fact that "Muslims are already convinced that Muhammad pbuh is the last God." In the same way, arent you already convinced that homosexuals must not be condemned? Would you change that position? are there any traditional religions which claim that their Prophet was the last? You gave example of Mormonism, which is a relatively new religion. Lets talk about the majority fo religions. There is not a single author of these religious books. Adi Granth Sahib, OT/NT, Upanishads, Vedas, Smartas, Bhagvadgita etc. If they are not even written by single authors, how can one claim that their's Prophet was the last one since different authors "prophets/sages" wrote those books....

Read the story of Rabrindanath Tagore and other members of Brahmo Samaj. Some of them were born into families worshipping Shiva's phallus (linga). Read how they used rational logic to establish phallus is not god.

Regarding whether you are allowed to use your mind or if it is being misguided by the devil .... your actions are yours, not devil's.

 

[reema2009]

We appreciate your desire to seek the truth. You would, however, do yourself much benefit if you start with no biases and are open to everything.
With all due respect to your rights to ask anything that you want, I feel your questions are loaded with emotions. I will still try to address some of them.

Do you find it strange that one gets emotional if the muslim thought of afterlife comes up? I am in my turn amazed that so many muslims and also christians can not be emotional when they hear that anyone outside their faith will burn forever. Allah has blessed me with a heart and it is very much in distress hearing that my family and also myself will be having to make such a difficult and everlasting decision before I die, and who knows I would die tomorrow... I read in a magazine that there was a woman who already got stressed when furniture in her room was moved so who would blame me.

You mentioned about how you were born in a Western society. Hence, your inner morals nourished in the context of a Western society. The fact that your inner self tells you that gays should not be condemned cannot be attributed to your fitra as you are doing it. Fitrah gets corrupted if one grows in an evil environment. You cannot say that it is in your fitra to NOT condemn gays! Maybe it is in the corrupted fitra. But not in the pure one on which you were born.

So the western people are basically all adrift and when you have the bad luck that you are born here, you have to overcome so many inner feelings? Was it my choice to be born here? This is part of the test, but why then is the test so difficult for westerners, being born in this evil part of the world and having to rely on a text in a language that is not even theirs? If I can't trust my inner morals, how am I supposed to find out they are wrong? It would be a very nice discussion if it didnt have so farfetching consequences.

Apply the same scenario to yourself. What if someone was born in a society where gays are condemned, his inner self would tell him to condemn gays. Why should I accept what your inner self tells you and not his? Maybe his inner self is right and yours is wrong? Who knows. Its subjective morality.

See above. Why does Allah let 1 person be born in a society with completely different subjective morality then the fitrah then? Or is this a question I am not supposed to ask?

You gave an example of Mormonism. Have you ever read the Mormon bible?

No, I haven't.

If you give Muslims a book in dutch and say it is from God, Muslims wont accept it. You attribute the reason to the fact that "Muslims are already convinced that Muhammad pbuh is the last God." In the same way, arent you already convinced that homosexuals must not be condemned? Would you change that position? are there any traditional religions which claim that their Prophet was the last? You gave example of Mormonism, which is a relatively new religion. Lets talk about the majority fo religions. There is not a single author of these religious books. Adi Granth Sahib, OT/NT, Upanishads, Vedas, Smartas, Bhagvadgita etc. If they are not even written by single authors, how can one claim that their's Prophet was the last one since different authors "prophets/sages" wrote those books....

Ok, so maybe they wouldn't accept it just at first hand. But the question is, if I told them that it was a miracle, judged by the standards of dutch, would this make them even to consider it? I doubt it. The same way around happens with Dutch people, I think. I read in a dutch newspaper that 38% of dutch youth wants to block new moslims coming in. This is based on their sense of self-protection. They have never considered Qu'raan. Is this based on Allah's will to blind them? Or is it more logical that they don't want to consider it because it is completely alien to them, ages old and foreign language? Why would Allah make the gap to bridge almost unbridgeable?
I know that there are a lot of people in Holland who still believe in God, by the way.

Read the story of Rabrindanath Tagore and other members of Brahmo Samaj. Some of them were born into families worshipping Shiva's phallus (linga). Read how they used rational logic to establish phallus is not god.

Sure, that is what we would call fitrah. But they are still not muslim, or are they? They only don't commit shirk. I read all the time only muslims are going to paradise.

Regarding whether you are allowed to use your mind or if it is being misguided by the devil .... your actions are yours, not devil's.

I do actions based on thoughts. If I am born here, and my inner morals tell me not to kill a gay even if I catch him in the act so to say, how am I supposed to know it is wrong?

 

[CosmicPathos]

Do you find it strange that one gets emotional if the muslim thought of afterlife comes up? I am in my turn amazed that so many muslims and also christians can not be emotional when they hear that anyone outside their faith will burn forever. Allah has blessed me with a heart and it is very much in distress hearing that my family and also myself will be having to make such a difficult and everlasting decision before I die, and who knows I would die tomorrow... I read in a magazine that there was a woman who already got stressed when furniture in her room was moved so who would blame me.



So the western people are basically all adrift and when you have the bad luck that you are born here, you have to overcome so many inner feelings? Was it my choice to be born here? This is part of the test, but why then is the test so difficult for westerners, being born in this evil part of the world and having to rely on a text in a language that is not even theirs? If I can't trust my inner morals, how am I supposed to find out they are wrong? It would be a very nice discussion if it didnt have so farfetching consequences.

See above. Why does Allah let 1 person be born in a society with completely different subjective morality then the fitrah then? Or is this a question I am not supposed to ask?

No, I haven't.


Ok, so maybe they wouldn't accept it just at first hand. But the question is, if I told them that it was a miracle, judged by the standards of dutch, would this make them even to consider it? I doubt it. The same way around happens with Dutch people, I think. I read in a dutch newspaper that 38% of dutch youth wants to block new moslims coming in. This is based on their sense of self-protection. They have never considered Qu'raan. Is this based on Allah's will to blind them? Or is it more logical that they don't want to consider it because it is completely alien to them, ages old and foreign language? Why would Allah make the gap to bridge almost unbridgeable?
I know that there are a lot of people in Holland who still believe in God, by the way.

Sure, that is what we would call fitrah. But they are still not muslim, or are they? They only don't commit shirk. I read all the time only muslims are going to paradise.


I do actions based on thoughts. If I am born here, and my inner morals tell me not to kill a gay even if I catch him in the act so to say, how am I supposed to know it is wrong?

Why should I get emotional if a kaafir will burn in Hell forever? Allah is Most Just. Whatever He does, its Justified. That being said, a Muslim cannot know who will burn in hell and who will not so unlike Christians, we dont go around saying "you will go to hellfire." The max we can say is that "kaafirs will go to hell" as that is from the Quran. Today's kaafir might be tomorrow's Muslim, who knows, and hence a Muslim reserves that judgment unlike Christians.

So you want Allah to have given birth to you in a "morally correct" society? So by that train of logic, is Allah cruel for producing children to border-line poor parents?

Then if thats teh case then I mean Allah was also really unjust to His supposedly "beloved" Prophet Muhammad (saw) who was orphaned at 6? But if I remember, the Prophet pbuh never complained, yet you are complaining why God gave you birth into society where gays are accepted? Dont you think you have some responsibility to do some work and use logic to come to a conclusion that homosexuality is wrong or do you want Allah to come down and spoon feed it to you?

Rest of your questions were irrelevant, to me at least, hope you find answers to them.

Good luck!

 

[reema2009]

Why should I get emotional if a kaafir will burn in Hell forever? Allah is Most Just. Whatever He does, its Justified. That being said, a Muslim cannot know who will burn in hell and who will not so unlike Christians, we dont go around saying "you will go to hellfire." The max we can say is that "kaafirs will go to hell" as that is from the Quran. Today's kaafir might be tomorrow's Muslim, who knows, and hence a Muslim reserves that judgment unlike Christians.

Yes, come to think of it, why should you get emotional. You are in fact right.
Maybe I am still too emotional and I should ask Allah to take away my emotions. I read in the bible that it is much better to cut your eye out or cut your hand of then to sin with that eye or hand, better to be with part of your body when you die then to take all your body to hell. Well, following this reasoning then I will have to cut my heart and my brains out because I am committing the sin of doubting out of emotions and thinking. But well to you it is irrelevant, and you are probably right. It's take it or leave it for me.

So you want Allah to have given birth to you in a "morally correct" society? So by that train of logic, is Allah cruel for producing children to border-line poor parents?

You misunderstand my point. My point is that there is a test for all of us, and we should be able to be strong when bad things happen yes. But actually what to do if you have the very strong feeling that you ARE living in a morally rather correct society, but you have somehow to come to the conclusion that all the while you have been sinning, but this is written in an arab book of 1400 years ago? I lived very happily for 26 years not knowing I was committing sins. So if I had died, I would have gone to hell?

What I mean to say is, once you have the right conviction and on the right path yes you can pass any test, but how do you get on that path? How does a dutch woman come to the conclusion that she is not?

Then if thats teh case then I mean Allah was also really unjust to His supposedly "beloved" Prophet Muhammad (saw) who was orphaned at 6? But if I remember, the Prophet pbuh never complained, yet you are complaining why God gave you birth into society where gays are accepted? Dont you think you have some responsibility to do some work and use logic to come to a conclusion that homosexuality is wrong or do you want Allah to come down and spoon feed it to you?

See above, I am not complaining, simply trying to use my logic. When the majority of the western world uses their responsability and uses logic the best way they can, they come to the conclusion that homosexuality is NOT wrong.

Rest of your questions were irrelevant, to me at least, hope you find answers to them.

Good luck!

Thank you.

 

[Lynx]

Dont you think you have some responsibility to do some work and use logic to come to a conclusion that homosexuality is wrong

I hate to meddle in the discussion but I would love to hear your logical explanation of why homosexuality is wrong.

Reema:

In all religions, morality is derived from God. So even if your intuition says homosexuality is wrong the response any Muslim (should) give you is that God knows what is moral. If you want to delve into ethical theory I can recommend you some good literature discussing it.

 

[Uthman]

The discussion about homosexuality has been moved to this thread.

 

[reema2009]

I hate to meddle in the discussion but I would love to hear your logical explanation of why homosexuality is wrong.

Reema:

In all religions, morality is derived from God. So even if your intuition says homosexuality is wrong the response any Muslim (should) give you is that God knows what is moral. If you want to delve into ethical theory I can recommend you some good literature discussing it.

I understand it, the point is that first you have to believe in a God, second point is you have to believe in a God that dictates people what to do, third point is that you have to believe that the only valid message for now is Islam. Then once I believe this, studying the Qur'aan doesnt even tell me that BEING a gay person is wrong, only acting on it is wrong.

My point was that, once you grow up in a society that accepts all kinds of things, how will you make the step that it is unacceptable? For me this is a big gap for accepting Islam. Is this then the devil at work, would muslims say? Dirtying up my mind for accepting all kinds of wrong things as right?

I am very much interested in any literature that you recommend me, thank you very much in advance.

 

[جوري]

So what would happen if a new book showed up, the book of Mormons for example. Many people believe this too. And somebody uses the logic you are using now. How would they ever come to the conclusion they were wrong? There are always new books around, how do you know you have found the right one? Why doesn't Allah then just send 1 uniform message to every human being, stick it on his forehead the moment he becomes adult and responsible?

To judge the quality of any book you must first read it? I don't know what logic or lack thereof you personally speak of, but really don't enjoy hypotheticals bearing on or connection with the subject at issue. What about the book of the Mormons, what about under-water basket weaving? is there a point to this? The book of the Mormons looks alot like the bible, so I am not sure what is the point you are trying to make?

This is my main issue now. I WANT to believe, I want most urgently to believe but... however can I understand this? What happens to a person that happened to be born in an area where the religion is non-islamic? How on earth is this person supposed to know not to follow his own new prophet, he should have followed Muhammad pbuh, but what a shame Muhammad pbuh was living 1400 years ago and brought a book in a completely foreign language? What if we brought a new book to the Muslim world in Dutch, and told them this is word of God, would they even consider it? No of course not, because muslims already convinced of one Prophet. But what if you accidentally meet and follow the wrong prophet? Is this the will of Allah for you to be misled? Are you supposed to be led by your fitrah then?

Anyone person who truly wants to believe has to but ask of God with sincere intent. Abraham (p) was an island, there were no books and everyone in his neck of the woods was an idolater... you must then question how a man with no access to modern technology, computers, books libraries, in a remote part of the world surrounded by ignorance and whose father was the patriarch for creating idols for worship managed to make a covenant with God and be the father of monotheism.

Who is brought up in a christian region believing in christianity thus committing shirk, but who never heard even of the word shirk? Then islam starts talking about fitrah, but why have prophets anyway then if you have fitrah? Is the general idea then, that all these people are bound to be lost if it wasnt for the message of tawheed that came to save them? But why then wait for 600 years and now leave the people without a Prophet for 1400 years? Isnt it massively disadvantegeous for people being born now then?

I'd have to say that if you made minimal effort familiarizing yourself with Islamic theology, or at least opened the Quran or even browsed Muhammad's post from the previous page, you'd have encountered verses telling you, that those who were left without a message wouldn't be punished and that their trials will actually start on the day of recompense!

And even now I am born, I am born in western society where everything is 100% different than in society of Muhammad pbuh. What if my inner morals tell me with 100% security that it is WRONG to kill another person for any religion or reason, that it is WRONG to sleep with a female captive under any circumstance, that it is WRONG to condemn gays for being gay? This is the way I was brought up, this is environment that Allah has made me born in, and I am told always for 28 years in a row to believe this. Am I being deceived by the devil in this case? Can I in Islam, trust my own thinking in any way? Honestly it is making me paranoid, I don't even trust my own way of seeing the world in anything anymore. Will Allah punish me in hell for following my own human moral compass that tells me I am not supposed to use violence against anyone? I KNOW that I won't be able to kill a human being or hurt anyone for no reason. I am not even able to kill a fly without feeling guilty ;-).

Morality doesn't change because of regions, rather people enjoy following whims.. indeed it is a known fact that when you are accustomed to a sin they feel that it is natural. before I gauge this topic with you to any extent, I'd urge you to familiarize yourself with the mere basics of Islam, or at least browse the pages here sufficiently so we are not repeating things already discussed. At the end of the day, you have the free will and choice to follow what you see as correct for you!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

really? All the links from bart Eherman on misquoting Jesus isn't enough to dent textual integrity?

I cannot quote see what possible logic brought you to say that the textual integrity of the NT has a bearing on that of the Qu'ran. But I guess this is just your way of deflecting the discussion and implies you have no idea how to measure textual integrity or for that matter any of the other criteria you suggested.

tell me how verse 49 requesting from the people to bring their own book alludes to your desired rendition? Go ahead and show me where 'Torah' is mentioned or that requesting that is people don't like what the prophet mohammed (p) brought to bring their own book, denotes that the previous verse was speaking about the torah?

Only one translator added (torah/Quran) the rest had no allusion whatsoever about 'books'. in fact, even if I accept 'two works' of magic, which the verse doesn't say, it easily denotes that Moses had his brand of magic splitting seas etc., while prophet Mohammed had written magic -- and that of both time folks didn't believe in what was brought to them..

Not only are you reading what you want to read (from a translation) but you are completely ignoring scholarly exegesis which far preceded modern translation. You keep losing battles, but I love your fighting spirit. Unfortunately when you go on a field it is better to be equipped with knowledge than psychobabble!

As usual you miss the point because you cannot face it. I have asked you repeatedly what does it mean in these verses when it speaks of 'scripture'? Even here you show how weak you are as you cannot or are afraid to mention this 'one' translator.

Dawood 28:48-49*And now that they have received the truth from Us, they ask: "why is he not given the like of what was given to Moses?" But do they not deny what was formerly given to Moses? They say: "Two works*of sorcery complementing one another!" And they declare: "We will believe in neither of them" Say bring down from God*a scripture that is a better guide than these*and I will follow it, if what you say be true .

Yusuf Ali 28:48-49 But (now), when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, "Why are not (Signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Do they not then reject (the Signs) which were formerly sent to Moses? They say: "Two kinds of sorcery, each assisting the other!" And they say: "For us, we reject all (such things)!" Say: "Then bring ye a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than either of them, that I may follow it! (do), if ye are truthful!"

Here are two translations and Yusuf Ali leans towards what you have said and Dawood to what I have said. But in both we seem to have the difficulty that they both start with 'truth' coming and its hard to see that a sign is a truth and in the second part we clearly have a book mentioned and 'these' books are said to be guides but how a sign can be a guide I cannot say.

By the way I don't discount scholarly exegeses but I do sometime question it - is that forbidden in Islam? In the end you, me, translators and any scholars only have the words as written from which to extract meaning.

 

[جوري]

I cannot quote see what possible logic brought you to say that the textual integrity of the NT has a bearing on that of the Qu'ran. But I guess this is just your way of deflecting the discussion and implies you have no idea how to measure textual integrity or for that matter any of the other criteria you suggested.

If you don't seek textual integrity in your own book, then you shouldn't really be questioning others on how textual integrity aids in the preservation of the message!
It isn't a deflection, it is a sincere query..What is your measuring stick coming into this discussions, when your own beliefs and own book fail so miserably? I can't meet you even a quarter of the way through for us to have any viable discussion or for you to deem it a deflection!

As usual you miss the point because you cannot face it. I have asked you repeatedly what does it mean in these verses when it speaks of 'scripture'? Even here you show how weak you are as you cannot or are afraid to mention this 'one' translator.

Dawood 28:48-49*And now that they have received the truth from Us, they ask: "why is he not given the like of what was given to Moses?" But do they not deny what was formerly given to Moses? They say: "Two works*of sorcery complementing one another!" And they declare: "We will believe in neither of them" Say bring down from God*a scripture that is a better guide than these*and I will follow it, if what you say be true .

I really don't know if you are purposefully dense or playing dumb?
1- I have translated word for word the verses
2- I have brought age old exegesis which takes precedents over any modern translation
3- I asked you to show me where in the verses it says two works
4- I asked you how you understood 'work' to denote books?
5- I asked you, why folks who were given a book as their miracle, also see previous post on what prophets were given which appropriate tool for their people, would want to replace their miracle 'work of a book' with another former 'book'

if you don't wish to address these points but hammer in your understanding of a translation then be my guest, but as stated prior, that would be better suited for like minded christians than on an Islamic board with folks who understand tafsir and proper Arabic.

Yusuf Ali 28:48-49 But (now), when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, "Why are not (Signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Do they not then reject (the Signs) which were formerly sent to Moses? They say: "Two kinds of sorcery, each assisting the other!" And they say: "For us, we reject all (such things)!" Say: "Then bring ye a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than either of them, that I may follow it! (do), if ye are truthful!"

I really don't know if you are purposefully dense or playing dumb?
1- I have translated word for word the verses
2- I have brought age old exegesis which takes precedents over any modern translation
3- I asked you to show me where in the verses it states that that the 'truth' equals the torah, or that 'signs' those that are given moses = torah
4- I asked you how you understood the 'truth' to denote books?
5- I asked you, why folks who were given a book as their miracle, also see previous post on what prophets were given which appropriate tool for their people, would want to replace their miracle 'work of a book' with another former 'book'

if you don't wish to address these points but hammer in your understanding of a translation then be my guest, but as stated prior, that would be better suited for like minded christians than on an Islamic board with folks who understand tafsir and proper Arabic.

Here are two translations and Yusuf Ali leans towards what you have said and Dawood to what I have said. But in both we seem to have the difficulty that they both start with 'truth' coming and its hard to see that a sign is a truth and in the second part we clearly have a book mentioned and 'these' books are said to be guides but how a sign can be a guide I cannot say.

I really don't know if you are purposefully dense or playing dumb?
1- I have translated word for word the verses
2- I have brought age old exegesis which takes precedents over any modern translation
3- I asked you to show me where in the verses it states that that the 'truth' equals the torah, or that 'signs' those that are given moses = torah
4- I asked you how you understood the 'truth' to denote books?
5- I asked you, why folks who were given a book as their miracle, also see previous post on what prophets were given which appropriate tool for their people, would want to replace their miracle 'work of a book' with another former 'book'

By the way I don't discount scholarly exegeses but I do sometime question it - is that forbidden in Islam? In the end you, me, translators and any scholars only have the words as written from which to extract meaning.

Ignorance and stupidity are indeed frowned upon in Islam. Seeking proper knowledge is a compulsion on every muslim!

 

[shahidr100]

Quran is word of God and the last Book to mankind. There is a very good debate on this by Dr.Zakir Naik. If you need any information google around for his debates. All the debates are with references.

Shahid
http://www.alrahmanpnp.com
http://alrahmanpnp.com/blog
http://islamicdepot.wordpress.com
http://voipdevices.wordpress.com

 

[Ramadhan]

if you don't seek textual integrity in your own book, then you shouldn't really be questioning others on how textual integrity aids in the preservation of the message!
It isn't a deflection, it is a sincere query..what is your measuring stick coming into this discussions, when your own beliefs and own book fail so miserably? I can't meet you even a quarter of the way through for us to have any viable discussion or for you to deem it a deflection!

word!

..

 

[Hugo]

If you don't seek textual integrity in your own book, then you shouldn't really be questioning others on how textual integrity aids in the preservation of the message! It isn't a deflection, it is a sincere query..What is your measuring stick coming into this discussions, when your own beliefs and own book fail so miserably? I can't meet you even a quarter of the way through for us to have any viable discussion or for you to deem it a deflection!

Of course it is deflection. YOU are the one who suggested criteria for the Qu'ran as a means of assessing its merits and you are the one who cannot provide and substance to any of your criteria. Define and then if you wish we can consider 'my' book with 'your' book and if you can't then let's end the discussion on criteria here.

Your logic is backward not to say foolish. Your argument seems to be by analogy, I have a ford, ford is a poorly engineering car so your car (whatever it is) must be better. I really don't know if you are purposefully dense or playing dumb?

if you don't wish to address these points but hammer in your understanding of a translation then be my guest, but as stated prior, that would be better suited for like minded christians than on an Islamic board with folks who understand tafsir and proper Arabic. I asked you to show me where in the verses it states that that the 'truth' equals the torah, or that 'signs' those that are given moses = torah

I think if you could bother to look at my post you will see that I asked you what the words 'truth' and 'scripture' etc meant as invariably when I read a commentary on these verses they mention Torah and the Qu'ran.

Ignorance and stupidity are indeed frowned upon in Islam. Seeking proper knowledge is a compulsion on every muslim!

I am glad to hear it but my questions was are you allowed to think for yourself in Islam - obviously not as who knows what 'proper knowledge' is supposed to me and according to you every mode commentary is a waste of time

 

[جوري]

Of course it is deflection. YOU are the one who suggested criteria for the Qu'ran as a means of assessing its merits and you are the one who cannot provide and substance to any of your criteria. Define and then if you wish we can consider 'my' book with 'your' book and if you can't then let's end the discussion on criteria here.

Your logic is backward not to say foolish. Your argument seems to be by analogy, I have a ford, ford is a poorly engineering car so your car (whatever it is) must be better. I really don't know if you are purposefully dense or playing dumb?

Indeed you are on to something, if I have the best engineered car by consensus, and you out of multitudes of 'personal reasons' trying to find fault where none lie, I might indeed look at your car to question where the barrage of tastelessness is coming from. Seeing you in a beat up car is a good indicator as to why you are trying hard to find fault where none lie!

I think if you could bother to look at my post you will see that I asked you what the words 'truth' and 'scripture' etc meant as invariably when I read a commentary on these verses they mention Torah and the Qu'ran.

and I asked you to show me where the word 'scripture' was in the verse all together. Truth means conformity to reality or actuality, and with each respective prophet their 'truth'/'miracle' has died with them, except for the prophet Mohammed (p) for his truth is very much alive and well!

I am glad to hear it but my questions was are you allowed to think for yourself in Islam - obviously not as who knows what 'proper knowledge' is supposed to me and according to you every mode commentary is a waste of time

Proper knowledge, is what makes you able to distinguish between quackery and medicine, between sorcery and chemistry. between lie and laws of physics..

so don't flatter yourself so much that your questions have done more than waste time and repeatedly!

all the best
+

 

[Hugo]

Of course. Anyone who wishes to question it can do so. And that is exactly what makes it strange that you refuse to let go of a statement (or rather a certain understanding of that statement) he made in the preface as though it is irrefutable.

Let me be clear here, Dr Al Azami said he had 'the most accurate Qu'ran in the world' now to me that is not much of an issue to me but to you it is and that is why I asked what can he possibly mean and so far all you seem to have said is that he must have meant something else.

I actually came across the book today in the library and skimmed through. If you've read it from cover to cover, I assume you are familiar with the conclusion on page 260. I think this is sufficient to put an end to this whole debate on what Dr Al Azami means in one line in the preface. The implications you understand are clearly rejected after reading that page, which states in no unclear terms that the Qur'an does not have different versions.

I am not quite sure what this is as there is no conclusion on p260 unless you are speaking about Jacob and Esau? It my be it was a different version mine is ISBN 9781872 531656 and as far as I know it is the only one mentioned on the publisher's site.

I think we are getting confused with topics here. We were talking specifically about the belief in the Preserved Tablet. Incidentally, why do you think it is irrelevant to appreciate the truthfulness of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)? Surely this is important to verify if the Qur'an is to be taken as a revelation from God.

I or you may be confused and it only become important when we consider then Qu'ran as we have it today and that would make me at lest wonder why some things are in there. The reason truthfulness is irrelevant logically is because there were no witnesses to the words of the revelation so in that sense it can only be hearsay so I (or anyone) can choose not to believe it.

Where did I use such an argument? I think there has been a misunderstanding. As for the three possibilities - if one examines the issue, the only logical conclusion is that he was truthful.

See my earlier point and one can be truthful without telling the truth meaning that one can be absolutely sincere but what you say may never the less be worthless.

So you've changed your line of argument... though it's not clear to what. Where is the problem of needing hadeeth to explain the Qur'an? What is so "bizarre" about the law you mention?

This is back to the Qu'ran being supposedly eternal, so according to you God revealed the law that a man may marry his adopted sons ex wife? That does not seem a very important moral principle and why would Allah go to such extraordinary lengths as we find in the story of Zaynab to make it? I think any one outside of Islam would see that as a bit odd as a revelation that was written in eternity and then so conveniently revealed?

This is not an example. This is confounding the issue by throwing in a completely different point (which you've done a number of times) - we are talking about abrogation, not specific laws of sharee'ah. If you're interested in the topic of Islam and slavery, you can search for the relevant threads such as: http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/32353-slavery.html

No I am not - what I was saying that it seems a bit odd that verses in the Qu'ran, the very words of God can be abrogated but something in Sharia cannot. I have read the article you quoted but my point remains that one hopes no one today would regard slavery as legitimate or in any way good. As Abraham Lincoln once said "when I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally". Is this your view - or do you think slavery is permissible and such practices that go with it such as having sexual relations with ones slave girl?

Wouldn't writing it down further help with its preservation? I don't see where the problem is there. Please remember that they contain different number of books. It is not just a case of, "oh! those are different translations"

.
Yes of course and Dr Al Azami make the point that the probable reason for Uthman's recension was to ensure preservation of an agreed text.

 

[Eliphaz]

Greetings Eliphaz,

Apologies for the long delay in replying to your post.

As I said, I don’t mind focusing on particular aspects. However, this does not mean the others are to be disregarded because they too are unique for the Qur’an and most certainly cannot be claimed for “any book”.

Indeed the extent to which we can discuss this aspect is limited by our understanding of the Arabic language, which is what I said right at the beginning. Does that mean it is subjective? No, of course not. Your earlier answer was much more befitting a seeker of truth when you said, “I am resuming my Arabic studies next year so here’s hoping that I too may one day be able to recognise the beauty of the Qur’an”. I’m disappointed that now you’ve made up your mind without even doing the research.

As for the analogy – it is incorrect. Deaf people cannot hear any music regardless of how hard they try. Yet in the case of the Qur’an, the more a person exerts effort towards it - such as educating themselves in the Arabic language and all its sciences - the more they can appreciate the miracle of the Qur’an. This applies to both Arabs as well as non-Arabs.

What if they don’t want to learn Arabic and are therefore stuck with the awkward English translations. Does that make them worthy of eternal Hellfire? Just because you have taken upon yourself to learn Arabic does that mean that others have to? I hear lots of hot air about ‘thousands of English-speaking people converting’ but I don’t see them on the streets or coming out of the mosque. Does that mean that they are invisible?

I don’t know how the second statement relates to the first, but you have failed to show how Musaylimah (not Muawiyah!) is a strawman argument

Musaylimah, Muawiyah, whatever. Anyway I cannot possibly make it any clearer that Musaylimah is a definitive straw man, and just like every other pagan Arab who never converts in the end, only serves one purpose: to make Muhammad and Islam look good. Thank you Musaylimah, your purpose is well served.

Nevertheless, if you don’t want to accept him as a valid example simply because of how ridiculous he made himself look, let’s not waste any more time over it. Throughout the centuries, thinkers, poets, theologians and literary critics have attempted to take on the challenge of the Qur’an, yet both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars have agreed on their failure.

You mean Muslim and your cherry-picked non-Muslim scholars whom you only know about from reading Islamic books?

So there are many others in addition to Musaylimah – there was Ibn Al-Mukaffa, ‘Abu'l-'Ala Al-Marri, Yahya b. Al-Hakam al-Ghazal, Sayyid 'Ali Muhammad, Ibn al-Rawandi, Bassar bin Burd, Sahib Ibn 'Abbad, Abu'l - 'Atahiya and others. I hope you’re not going to come back and claim they were all strawmen too?

Do you live in medieval times? Do all your ‘proofs’ for the inimitability of the Qur’an come from medieval times or earlier? And no I didn’t trawl through all of your wonderful examples (how could anyone refute such a long list of Arab names, surely not!). I don’t fortunately require someone to tell me if the Qur’an is inimitable or not; therefore I do not need someone to tell me it isn’t because I can see with my own eyes that is isn’t.

Well, here is a slightly better example than Musaylimah of ‘producing a surah like it’:


Surat At-Tajassud ("The Incarnation")

(1) Glorified He who has created heavens for which He did not set a boundary.
(Subhanal lathi* khalakas samawatee falam yaj'al laha hadda.)
(2) He created earth, made it a globe part water and part solid.
(Wa khalakal arda wakaw-waraha waja'alaha ma'an wa jalada.)
(3) Say to those who have been deceived by the call of Satan:
your minds were blinded so you accused God falsely and became
supporters of Satan.
(Kol lilltheena* khoodi'oo bida'wateesh shaytani:
Ameeyat basa'irookom faftaraytumoo alal lahee kathiban* wakuntumoo
lish-shaytani sanada.)
(4) Satan has always been a fierce enemy of man.
(Innash shaytana kana lil'insani adoowan aladda)
(5) If your Lord wished, He would have made children for him out of stones,
as He who has said to the universe: Be, and so it was;
far is it removed from his transcendent majesty
that He should consult anybody in His decisions.
(La'w sha'a rabbukumoo lat-takhatha* minal hijaratee awladan
lahoo Ith* hoowal-lathee* kala lilkawnee kun fakana
wasubhanahoo an yastasheera fee amrihee ahada.)
(6) Far is it removed from his transcendent majesty
that He should take one from his creatures as a son.
(Subahanahoo rabbool allameena an yattakhitha* min khala'ikihee walada.)
(7) Say to those who doubt about what has been revealed before:
Christ is not a creature of God, as He was with God before the beginning
and He is with Him forever.
(Kol lil latheena* yam'taroona fima oonzila min kabloo
laysal masihoo khalikatal lahee Ith* kana ma'al lahee kablal bid'ee,
wahoowa ma'ahoo abada.)
(8) In Him and from Him He was, together with His Holy Spirit,
one God, eternal, one, and no more than one.
(Fihee wa minhoo kana ma'a roohee kudsihee
ilahan sarmadiyan wahidan ahada.)
(9) And as the Father sent Him to the people as He promised.
(Wa ith* ba'atha bihee lil'alameena kama wa'ada.)
(10) He descended as a Word into the womb of a virgin
from which He came out as a body.
(Halla fee batni Athra'a* kalimatan wakharaja minhoo jasada.)
(11) He associated with man, taught man, died as a sacrifice on behalf of man,
and like a man He went to rest.
(Asharal insana, allamal insana, mata anil insani fidan,
wakal'insani rakada.)
(12) And to His heavenly Father, after three days he ascended.
(Wa ila abeehees samawee ba'da thalathatee ayamen sa'ada.)
(13) Those who disbelieved His miracles and said terrible things about Him,
(Inal- latheena* kafaroo bi'ayateehee wakaloo kawlan idda,)
(14) God will not let them escape from his anger.
(Lan yaj'alal llahoo lahomoo min Amadihee boodda.)
(15) But those who believed in Him and His Messiah,
they shall have forgivness and paradise where they shall live forever.
(Ammal latheena* Amanoo billahee wa-Maseehee
falahom Maghfiratun wajannatun Khalideena fiha abada.)

Source

Just an average guy defeating the Qur’an’s greatest challenge! It’s interesting to see how Muslims respond when people actually try to take up the challenge of the Qur’an:

"Is it possible to be digital and Islamic at the same time? The author informs us that while there are many orthodox Muslims who have adopted the use of the Internet, some have not. He gives the example of a 37-year old man in Sudan whose father threatened to beat him if he ever caught him using the web. This case is an exception, however; most Muslims of all shades recognize the Internet as a cost-effective communications medium that can help them in their duty to spread the message of Islam to the world.
Virtually Islamic discusses the widely available and diverse Islamic primary texts - the Qur'an, Hadith, and other basic teachings and their usage by Muslims as well as by non-Muslims. It also brings to light efforts by anti-Islamic groups to negatively portray Islam.
Special attention is paid to a website called "SurahLikeIt" which posts false Surahs and tries to pass them on as part of the Holy Qur'an. First hosted on AOL, it was shut down after protests from Muslims, but has since appeared on other sites."Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...ure/ACELayout&cid=1158658424566#ixzz0dfp5ITGr

Yes, rather typical I am afraid. This is why Muslims will never accept any serious attempt to meet the challenge by non-Muslims and will instead cry foul and protest, whilst remaining content that people like silly old Musaylimah and many others failed miserably.

The reason why you think it is “silly” is because you don’t understand the nature of the challenge and how the Qur’an is incomparable to any other work. The Qur'an, being neither prose nor poetry, is a literary genre of its own that is of the highest eloquence and of matchless stylistic perfection. For example, even though the challengers have had the same set of ‘tools’, which are the 28 letters, finite grammatical rules and the blue print of the challenge – which is the Qur’an itself; they have failed to:

• Replicate the Qur’ans literary form
• Match the unique linguistic genre of the Qur’an
• Select and arrange words like that of the Qur’an
• Select and arrange particles like that of the Qur’an
• Match the Qur’ans phonetic superiority
• Equal the frequency of rhetorical devices
• Match the level of informativity
• Equal the Qur’ans conciseness and flexibility

For further information, I would suggest you read some of the articles written on this topic which I've linked to earlier.

H A R Gibb. states:

“As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, havingneither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming theinimitability not only of its contents but also of its style….. and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose in whichall the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.”

​

Moreover, you’ve again committed the fallacy of homing in on one aspect of the Qur’an’s miraculous nature, thinking it alone proves the Qur’an is from Allaah (swt). As I said more than once, all the aspects are to be taken in totality.

I think you are mistaken brother. All the aspects were not always available in totality. For example the so-called scientific facts or the so-called agreement with scientific facts or whatever spin you want to try and put on it, were not available to early Muslims. The ONLY claim the Qur’an makes that it is from God is that it is inimitable. I’m not homing in on anything, your God “Allah” is. If this can be disproved (which it has, outside of your belief-affirming examples) and if there is no other reason for us to take this as God’s words (trust me there are many reasons for us not to) then we have no choice but to dismiss the Qur’an as a man’s work and something which should not be taken seriously.

You keep calling it a “self-declared miracle”, but I can’t understand how you came to that conclusion.

Sorry I can’t help you there more than I have done.

All that you have presented on this topic is mere conjecture that is unfeasible and contradictory. I presented many points showing this, yet you only quote one of the six questions posed by Jamal Badawi and seem to have forgotten not only the other five, but everything posted in addition. The fact that some people didn’t accept Islam has nothing to do with this, because it is well known that not everyone who comes to know of the truth accepts it.

Firstly, Islam is not the truth. Secondly, I apologise if I cannot respond to every single multi-paragraphed quote and question from every single “scholar” and “well known/famous Western* (*key word) scientist” who seemingly undeniably proves the Qur’an is from God.

How exactly does this misinformation support anything you’ve said?

What?

[/INDENT][/FONT] I’m glad you asked. One of the most important benefits from the stories in the Qur’an is that they demonstrate the manner in which one should call people to Allaah (swt) and what are the matters to be emphasised first – the primary message of all the prophets was Tawheed. In addition, these stories show that the true religion of mankind has always been one and the same (the religion of Tawheed) - there has been no evolution from polytheism to monotheism. Furthermore, through these stories, the believer realises that he is part of one great community that has existed throughout the centuries, whose sole purpose is the worship and pleasure of Allaah (swt). The Muslim is not alone in striving to follow the Straight Path, rather there have been many that have gone along that path in the past.

Another benefit from these stories is that they provide reassurance to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and all those following in his footsteps. Many of these stories show how the earlier prophets were treated by their people, showing how they had to face ridicule, scorn and denial etc. Thus, whoever faces such difficulties should realise that earlier prophets faced the same and that this is a trial from Allaah (swt) that all people following the same path may have to face. Moreover, their stories make it clear that Allaah (swt) gave them strength and supported them due to their patience.

Oh okay, so fear, control and inspiring Muslims to hate and kill homosexuals has nothing to do with it? It all boils down to hammering home the brilliant ‘monotheism’ that even the Christians couldn’t get right and providing a bit of useful ‘pep talk’ to Muhammad, as in “Don’t worry Muhammad, if it all goes pear-shaped, I, Allah, will just kill them all anyway and you’ll get off scot-free!” I’m afraid that if you see a benefit in these horrific stories, which are comparable to the horrific stories of the OT, then I do not see why I am trying to reason with you in any other way, shape or form.

These stories also demonstrate how greatly Allaah (swt) blesses His true and devoted servants. The reader can quickly recognise how much Allaah (swt) blessed, guided and aided the pious people and this will remind the reader that if he is working for the sake of Allaah (swt), Allaah (swt) will indeed help him, bless him and never allow his works to be lost in vain.

No, the reader realises that Allah has no problem wiping out entire populations for sport. By “never allow his works to be lost in vain” I suppose you mean wiping out entire populations for sport and then dumping them in Hell. Fantastic. What about the man who killed 101 people and was slightly closer to one city than another so he was magically forgiven and got to Heaven. What about the prostitute who fed a dog and got to Heaven? Do you not see any disproportion in how all these people are treated? Oh, wait, but, those people did not witness a Prophet, and of course, “Allah knows best” right? Right.

Through reading these stories of the earlier prophets, one also realises how Allaah (swt) is able to manifest His power over His creation. Nothing occurs except by His will. Furthermore, no matter how strong the forces of evil might seem, there will come a time when they will be brought down and removed.

These are some examples of the morals and teachings presented by the stories in the Qur’an. The impertinent comments you made towards Allaah (swt) demonstrate your need for a proper approach to the Qur’an. If you do not have a sincere heart in learning about Islam and the Qur’an, then discussions such as these are a complete waste of time.

I have a sincere heart in understanding God and the universe. Unfortunately Allah and Muhammad have nothing to do with either.

I mean all the points I mentioned regarding the borrowing theory. Let’s deal with what we have before adding in extra points for discussion.

Whichever decade it falls into is irrelevant – the main point is that it was given to occur within the next 3 to 9 years.

Well, I guess a “well done” is in order prophet Muhammad. Oh wait, no, he was out by three years.

Wherever the capital was, the east and the west were simply two regions of the same empire. As for it being “formidable”, see below.

At least try to pretend you are dismissing what I am saying with some credibility!

Even if the Romans defeated the Persians at this time, it doesn’t necessarily mean they were now in a “strategically stronger position” as the Romans and Persians had been fighting for centuries, with either side gaining victories or with long intermittent periods of peace between them. The situation was drastically different decades later when the Roman empire was at the brink of destruction. (According to Wikipedia, since 614, the emperor issued large quantities of silver coins with a new and desperate slogan on them: Deus adiuta Romanis - "God, help the Romans!")

Yes yes, and “God save the Queen”. Heard that one? Well don’t panic, because she is probably going to be around for awhile.

The renowned historian Edward Gibbon has commented:

“When this prophecy was made, no prediction could be more unbelievable because the initial twelve years of Heraclius were evidently declaring an end to the Roman Empire.” [Fall of the Roman Empire, v.5, p.73-74]

I guess I should respond to this quote from a “renowned historian” (he is western after all and so must be right, unless he’s disagreeing with Islam that is). Actually, I think that fact that he is calling a prediction including the words in “a few years” or “within ten years” a prophecy is just silly.

This is getting quite silly. Whether you believe the President or not is irrelevant, the fact is that from all the information available to you, you make a prediction on what seems most likely, which anyone can do. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) didn’t have access to the internet and news channels, neither did he have any “evidence” of the likely outcome. To the contrary, the prediction was made against all odds such that even the pagan Arabs confidently betted against it. I reiterate the underlying point again: no prediction made in the Qur’an has failed, but rather each (of the ones mentioned) came true consistently despite circumstances which made some, if not all of them, very unlikely.

I say again, Muhammad made a bet and got lucky. Oh wait, he didn’t because he was out by THREE YEARS. I’m glad I had a chance to research this otherwise I may have just taken your word for it. So thank you!

You forget that Heraclius launched his campaign throughout 622-627 CE. In 627/628 was the climactic Battle of Nineveh, yet the Romans had begun gaining victory well before this. Thus, what may be referred to is an earlier victory, which according to Dr. Laurence Brown, was the defeat of a major Persian force led by the famous general Shahr-Baraz.

Look, there is a big difference between ‘begun gaining victory’ and ‘being victorious’. That is what you call a very, very liberal interpretation. The prophecy is the Romans will be victorious, not that they will start winning the war.

We’re not talking about one or two attributes here, we’re talking about the Islamic belief as a whole. There is no other religion whose concept of monotheism is as pure and perfect as Islam. Allaah (swt) is described with qualities of complete perfection, and at the same time in a manner that is free of ascribing to Him any imperfection. This is in line with man’s natural disposition and ability to reason that God is perfect in every way and free from having any partners etc – there is no circular logic involved, as the beliefs in the Islamic creed distinctly stand out in their purity and appeal to human rationale. Looking at other religions, the flaws in their beliefs are very apparent where they ascribe partners to God and weaknesses like fatigue, sleep and hunger, and incompatible stories of gods fighting each other, engaging in inappropriate behaviour and so on.

I never said ‘other religions’ were right or better than Islam. This is a popular way for Muslims to affirm their own beliefs. ‘Look at Christianity, they worship THREE GODS LOL!” “Look at Hindus, they worship elephant gods!” It doesn’t make Islam look any more genuine to the non-religious outsider, trust me. Tell me, if Islam is all about “pure monotheism”, then why do you kiss a black stone which was kissed by the pagan Arabs, why is your God named after a God of the pagan Arabs? Why is monotheism so rational to you? Is it because many Gods would argue and there would be discord in the world? Wait, isn’t there already?

The reason Islam appeals to Christian and Jewish converts is because the five pillars, the show-room of Islam appears to be all about pure monotheism, which particularly Christianity lacks. If it was just about that, many more people would become Muslim and many fewer people would leave Islam. But of course, then where would be the ‘test’, the ‘exam’, the game-show where God is the host and you have to push the right button or the trap-door opens and you fall into Hell?

Moreover, Islam gives a sense of integrity and honour for the prophets as recipients of divine revelation, yet this is denied by the Christians and Jews who ascribe crimes such as murder, incest and drunkenness to them. It thus becomes clear that the concept of an existing being that possesses such complete ability, knowledge, and greatness; Who has subdued the creation; Who has encompassed everything in the universe, small or large; and Who possesses such perfect mercy – all of this must be from the true God and not the invention of any human being or philosopher. It is also worthy to note the context in which the Qur’an was revealed – amongst a people heavily engrossed in superstitious beliefs and strange practices, none of which adulterate the pristine teachings of Islam.

Unfortunately some of those superstitious beliefs continued into Islam. Nothing new, same thing happened with Christianity also. See: Jinns, kissing black stones, blowing into knots etc etc etc.

Perhaps the most obvious example is that during the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) himself. A society so steeped in evil practices such as tribal wars, murdering of children, drinking and gambling, prostitution and cruel treatment of women etc. was completely transformed. This transformation is something that many have marvelled at.

As there was no caliphate until after the Prophet’s life this does not count as an implementation of Shariah law. Please show me a time under a rightly guided or un-rightly guided (or maybe partially-guided) Caliph where there was not discord, fitnah, in-fighting, corruption or tyranny, and maybe then the whole shariah thing might gain some credibility beyond ‘Shariah-compliant banking’.

When Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) began preaching Islam, Durant notes,

`Arabia was a desert flotsam of idolatrous tribes; when he died it was a nation.’ W. Durant: The Age of Faith, Simon and Shuster, New York, 1950. Chapter VIII; p.174.
​

And the historian Michael S. Hart ranked the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) as the most influential figure in history.

And guess who placed in 39th place in that wonderful much-cited-by-Muslims list: Adolph Hitler! And why is that? Well because the list is “influential” people irrelevant of whether that impact was positive or negative. Okay, so Muhammad mobilised a flotsam of tribes. How do you measure whether his overall influence on society was positive or negative? You can’t. But can you show me that shariah works?

The sharee’ah continued to be studied and implemented throughout the Muslim lands, not being outdated over the passage of time or change of place. There are ample references to the tolerance and humane aspects of Muslim civilisation, and the nature of Muslim rule in various places. For example:

This prosperity and the Golden Age did not just end in the Middle Ages, rather this pattern continued for many centuries to come. In some places Jews were so comfortable with the Islamic system that they deliberately applied to Shari’ah courts for the purpose of attaining justice and arbitration, even when they had complete autonomy in their religious affairs [i.e. they had their own courts to refer to]. For instance, Amnon Cohen, another American Jewish historian, studied the 16th century documents stored in the archives of the Shari’ah religious court of Jerusalem (commonly known as sijill), whereby he found 1000 Jewish cases filed form the year 1530 to 1601 CE. Cohen published his research in 1994 and during his research he made some astonishing discoveries, as he himself states: ​

Jews were people of the book, “chosen people” even in Muslim’s eyes (although that view seems to have changed of late no?). They did what made sense to them in order to get by with the least problems. If they were idol worshippers, Hindus, then perhaps they would have been less enthusiastic to cling to Shariah.

"Cases concerning Jews cover a very wide spectrum of topics. If we bear in mind that the Jews of Jerusalem had their own separate courts, the number of cases brought to Muslim court (which actually meant putting themselves at the mercy of a judge outside the pale of their communal and religious identity) is quite impressive[21]…The Jews went to the Muslim court for a variety of reasons, but the overwhelming fact was their ongoing and almost permanent presence there. This indicates that they went there not only in search of justice, but did so hoping, or rather knowing, that more often than not they would attain redress when wronged…The Jews went to court to resolve much more than their conflicts with Muslim or Christian neighbours. They turned to Shari’a authorities to seek redress with respect to internal differences, and even in matters within their immediate family (intimate relations between husband and wife, nafaqa maintenance payments to divorcees, support of infants etc.)."
http://www.islam21c.com/index.php?o...al-perspective&catid=36&Itemid=80#notes#notes

​

Even today, the solutions for the problems of society lie in following the sharee’ah. To appreciate this, a proper study of the sharee’ah is required and many examples will then become apparent of how it is applied, the benefits it can bring, and so on. This is a topic in itself and if interested, you can read into it elsewhere. We may have some threads on the forum, such as this one: http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/4498-shariah-law.html

“To appreciate this, a proper study of sharee’ah is required”. Just like, “to appreciate the Qur’an a proper study of Arabic is required”, just like “to appreciate the science a heavy diet of Harun Yahya with complimentary rose-tinted classes is required”? Just show me one example where shariah was comprehensively applied by a caliph and it led to the betterment of that society, not just one group of people known as the Jews, who are granted certain rights over other non-Muslims as we all know.

There is no system of man-made laws that has remained unchanged or provided a perfect set of rules for the betterment of society.

I don’t think it’s that difficult, actually. Although these scientific references may be brief, the miraculous aspect appears in the fact that even in these limited descriptions, the Qur’an conforms exactly to modern science and that there was no way for people to know about such things during that time. Moreover, these descriptions are free from the retroactive ideas that would have been prevalent at that time. The comments you made earlier weren’t exactly refutations but mere opinions that don’t disprove anything. By the way, I didn’t mention anything about the Big Bang.

The verses pertaining to embryology are actually more than two – some mentioning other aspects of it. Regarding what you’ve quoted above, I don’t see where the contradiction is and there is no mention of muscles being formed before bones. Both authors agree that when the cartilage bones are differentiated, the embryonic connective tissue or mesenchyme around them is undifferentiated. If you quoted the rest of Dr. Abdel-Rahman’s words, the matter would have become clearer. He goes on to say, “…During the seventh week- the skeleton begins to spread throughout the body and the bones take their familiar shapes. The embryo then starts to acquire the human appearance. At the end of the seventh week and during the eighth week the muscles take their positions around the bone forms…”

Bones first or flesh first? There are muscles before there are calcified bones. You can try and say that muscles take their final positions around the bones etc but there is muscle before there is calcified bone - that is really the bottom line here. The surah says otherwise and nothing in what you have quoted proves the surah is correct.

I want to go back to something Sr. Skye posted awhile back from Gary Miller, describing the Qur’an “proving” female bees leave the hive, in agreement with science. I would go into something else you indirectly linked me to: sperm proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs, which is equally ridiculous, but let’s look at this example because I feel it is much clearer in showing the levity of the Qur’anic science:

“Your Lord revealed to the bees: "Build dwellings in the mountains and the trees, and also in the structures which men erect. Then eat from every kind of fruit and travel the paths of your Lord, which have been made easy for you to follow." From inside them comes a drink of varying colours, containing healing for mankind. There is certainly a Sign in that for people who reflect.” (Qur'an, 16:68-69)

I really just want to ask one simple question. If you answer only one thing from my post, then please answer this:

Do bees eat fruit? Does science tell us bees eat fruit? Yes or no?

And don’t try and say that the verse is telling humans to eat from fruit because that is a deliberate twisting of the meaning of this verse, in disagreement with what the most highly recognised scholars of Islam such as Ibn Kathir have discerned from this verse.

“What is meant by inspiration here is guidance. The bee is guided to make its home in the mountains, in trees and in structures erected by man. The bee's home is a solid structure, with its hexagonal shapes and interlocking forms there is no looseness in its combs. Then Allah decrees that the bee will have permission to eat from all fruits and to follow the ways which Allah has made easy for it, wherever it wants to go in the vast spaces of the wilderness, valleys and high mountains. Then each bee comes back to its hive without swerving to the right or left, it comes straight back to its home where its offspring and honey are. It makes wax from its wings, and regurgitates honey from its mouth, and lays eggs from its rear, then the next morning it goes out to the fields again.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

Different translators have used different wordings to interpret the same word.

An interesting point to note is, if you see the various stages of development of the embryo, one notices how strikingly similar the Qur’anic references are to particular stages: http://www.quranandscience.com/human/135-dr-keith-moore-confirms-embryology-in-quran.html

Oh okay so the traditional ‘clot’ used in most recognised printed translations of the Qur’an has nothing to do with the belief that humans came from congealed blood? Is it not strange that until Dr. Bucaille re-translated it as ‘clinging form’ it was generally thought to mean a ‘clot’?

Another aspect of the embryological references in the Qur’an is how the embryo is surrounded by three layers: the abdominal wall, the uterine wall, and the placenta with its choriono-amniotic membranes. These three layers are referred to in the verse,

…He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation in three veils of darkness… [39:6]

Okay that’s great. Three veils of darkness = three layers. Wonderful. If science had revealed four layers then I guess we would have kept quiet about that one like the bees, huh?

I didn’t say the corruption of the Torah and Bible in and of itself proves the Qur’an is true, rather the point is regarding the uniqueness of the Qur’an in its preservation. If you make an objective comparison between these scriptures, you will find a clear difference. No other book has been memorised as much as the Qur’an, and neither can it be traced back through such a large number of chains of narration going right back to the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), leaving no doubt of its authenticity. In fact, you said earlier, “I don’t deny that the Qur’an is the most authentic religious book…” (post #163)

.

Many things have been preserved, for example fossils. Whether those fossils can teach us how to live or whether we just study them for what they are: historical remains, and whether you can prove any chain of narration is sahih, hasan or daif (answer: you can’t without taking someone’s word for it, and in the best case scenario the chain just takes you back to the source) is another thing entirely.

This has nothing to do with the clarity of the Qur’an, because clarity is not negated by requisite knowledge. Knowing about the causes of revelation behind specific verses and whether verses were revealed in Makkah or Madeenah, together with the other sciences of the Qur'an, all aid in one’s understanding of the Qur’an. The fact that such minute details have been preserved till this day leaves one in awe of how meticulously Islamic knowledge has been preserved and further increase one's conviction in the truth of the Qur'an.

What difference does it make? Does that fact that the Qur’an has been studied and its sciences preserved inherently make it worth studying?

As for the issue of abrogation, you can read about it here:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=531&section=indepth&subsection=Glorious Quran

I know how abrogation works in the Qur’an and ahadith, and needless to say, my point stands. For it to take OVER TWENTY YEARS for that book to be completed (though still somehow not written down by anyone) and then STILL require further abrogation from ahadith is just mind-boggling.

I’ve browsed through the previous posts and it appears you stopped responding to these points. You cannot therefore conclude points 10, 12 and 13 are “purely subjective”, and doing so simply seems like a cop-out. You called number 11 a “self-fulfilling prophecy” – do you want to explain what exactly you mean by that?

Not really. The fact that they fall at the tail end of your list mean that they could only ever be secondary ‘proofs’. I hope that we can leave this aside and focus on the first points which are the only ones which anyone could take seriously in weighing up the Qur’an as being the words of God. In the interests of keeping posts under 10,000 words?

If the Qur’an was based upon “weak” theories, it should have been very easy for you to refute them. Instead, all I am finding in your posts is vague expressions like “purely subjective”, “simply irrelevant” and “personal opinions”, which don’t mean anything if not supported by evidence and explanation. It’s an easy way out of the discussion to disregard whole topics by labelling them with empty words instead of responding to individual points.

No, I only use these vague expressions to respond to the vague(r) excuses for the Qur’an being the words of God. I think an easy way to sidetrack the discussion is through demanding responses to the most trivial points made. I have gone over why the Qur’an is so oft-memorised, why the qira’aat is so unremarkable (I studied it for several years under a Saudi imam for heavens sake), why the statement “the reader never tires of reading the Qur’an” is just so outrageously fanciful I don’t know where to begin. Who is the “reader”? You? Me? If the latter then I stopped reading it awhile ago. So did the other millions of apostates who stopped reading the Qur’an. Not enough? All just “sealed hearts” through pursuing the vain desires of this world? Fair enough.

Point 14: so all those westerners who were constantly complaining about the “racket” of the Fajr prayers waking them up in Saudi Arabia were just immune to the “euphonious quality of the Qur’an” right? Okay.

Again, an over-simplification and misrepresentation of the facts. We’ve already discussed literary excellence and science above, so I’m not going to repeat that here. If you have real criticisms to make, you can present them in the appropriate place. As for your other comments, where has anyone used these arguments? I clearly listed 13 aspects of the Qur’an’s miraculous nature -not simply a one sentence reply, so if you really want to know the answer to your questions, it would help if you stopped repeating the same errors and actually accept the responses we’ve given.

Ah. Just “accept” your responses? Sorry, I can’t do that. To do so would be a crime against my God-given intellect. “What intellect?” you may say. Well then, let me just say I must live in a different world to you. One in which bees most certainly do not eat fruit.

Also, in the interests of keeping post-size down I have not responded to your quotes regarding why Muhammad did not author the Qur’an as I will respond to this separately. Hopefully though it is already clear to most open-minded people here that God did not author the Qur’an and so by process of elimination we can arrive at Muhammad.

 

[جوري]

Let me address a couple of points which you could have yourself merely using the search feature or a mere scientific article perhaps you could spare yourself the public humiliation, like those who preceded you, the guy who thought the sun stationary and the other who didn't understand the math behind moon years, ma3 3lyna..

if you know the bare minimal on anatomy and physiology, you'd have learned that your testicles start off above the kidney embryologically and journey down to the scrotum. So not only are you ignorant of the Quran, but you are also ignorant of modern science.

The verse in suret At'tariq Actually states:

7 issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman].3

[3 The plural noun tara'ib, rendered by me as "pelvic arch",
has also the meaning of "ribs" or "arch of bones"; according to most of the authorities who have specialized in the etymology of rare Qur'anic expressions, this term relates specifically to female anatomy (Taj al-'Arus).

http://communityquran.com/quran/translate/ASD/surah/86

as for the creation of man in stages, no ancient back is more scientifically accurate:

What was Man Created from?
By : Ansar Al-'Adl
The allegation is as follows:

What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]

The obvious explanation to this question is that these references describe different aspects or stages in man's creation. This has always been the understanding of such verses.

We will give a brief explanation of each verse, while presenting them in chronological order.

Most of the references refer to two different aspects of creation: Original creation and Embryological development.

Original creation
19:67 Does not man remember that We created him before, and he was nothing?
The phrase and he was nothing is the translation of the arabic wa lam yaku shay. Some confusion may have resulted because Yusuf Ali's translation renders it as out of nothing, which is not very accurate at all. The phrase literally means, and he was nothing.

Hence, this verse states that human beings were nothing, and Allah brought us into existence. This is a tremendous favour bestowed upon us, that we may be thankful to Allah swt.

This is allegedly in contradiction to the following verse:

52:35 Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d.1372CE) has explained this verse as follows in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim:

Allah asks them, were they created without a maker or did they create themselves Neither is true. Allah is the One Who created them and brought them into existence after they were nothing.(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 9, p. 297)​

Hence, this verse is not in contradiction to the previous verse at all, after closer examination. Even if we choose to translate verse 52:35 as "Were they created from nothing..." it would also be correct as Allah swt developed the human being from previously created substances.

20:55 Thereof (the earth) We created you, and into it We shall return you, and from it We shall bring you out once again

The original creation of Adam pbuh was from the dust of the earth.

30:20 Among His Signs is this, that He created you from dust; and then,- behold, ye are men scattered (far and wide)!

This dust was then mixed with water to produce what is mentioned in the following verse:
15:26 And indeed, We created man from dried (sounding) clay of altered mud [min hama’in masnoon]

An interesting commentary on these verses has been provided here:
http://harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_08.php#1

Sheikh Muhammad Mutwalli Ash-Sha`rawi also comments:

If we take dust and add water to it, it will be mud. If it is left for some time, it will turn into clay. These are simply the stages of the creation of man. Man thus comes from dust, turned into clay after the addition of water. If we scrutinize this issue, we will find out that man, in his daily life, needs earth and depends on it in so many aspects. It is this earthy soil where we grow the plants upon which we live. Thus, preserving the materials of man depends on the source from which these materials are created.


Scientists have analyzed the human body and found that it is composed of 16 substances including oxygen and manganese. These elements are no more than the elements of the earth?s crust. This experiment was not meant for proving the credibility of the Qur'an; rather, it was solely for scientific research purposes.


In addition, death itself serves as a proof of creation. When we try to demolish a building, we follow the reverse order of building it; we start with the last floor. By the same token, since we have not eye-witnessed the creation of man, then we shall see how death occurs. Actually, we witness several deaths everyday. When man dies, his soul leaves his body, then the decline starts; his body becomes dry (which is similar to the stage of clay) and then decays and turns finally into dust which was his original substance. Life is given to man through the soul that is blown into his body. When the soul departs, man dies and starts his way back to his original form going through the stages of his first creation. Thus, death stands as a living proof for creation (SOURCE)​

21:30...We made of water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
This verse explains that all living things are composed of water.

Dr. Zakir Naik has commented on the above verse by saying:

Only after advances have been made in science, do we now know that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell is made up of 80% water. Modern research has also revealed that most organisms consist of 50% to 90% water and that every living entity requires water for its existence. Was it possible 14 centuries ago for any human-being to guess that every living being was made of water? Moreover would such a guess be conceivable by a human being in the deserts of Arabia where there has always been scarcity of water? (SOURCE)​

The following link also comments on this:
http://www.miraclesof*************/scientific_58.html

Embryological development

16:4 He has created man from a nutfah; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer!

Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman has explained this as follow:

Nutfah (The drop)

Al-Nutfah in Arabic means a drop or a small part of fluid and Nutfah in general describes a stage where the beginnings of a human being are found in this fluid (Ref: 6A, 12/6; 17/118; 19/120: 13A, 3/436: 15A, 17/116: 1C, 2/121: 7B, 3/116: 4D, 9/235-6: 5D, 6/258: 4A, 30/234: 7A, 4/336: 10A, 13/9: 12A, 4/288). Its real meaning can only be deduced from the text of Qur'an; evidently it is a comprehensive term and includes male and female gametes and part of their natural environments of fluid. It also includes zygote, morula and blastocyst till implantation in the uterus. This is illustrated by the following citation:​

"was he not a drop or part of germinal fluid (Mani) emitted or programmed" (Surah Al- Qiyama, Ayah 37)

Here "Mani" means male or female germinal fluid (Ref: 1D, 5/276: 5D, 10/348:2D, 6/2497).

The Prophet's Hadith confirms the fact that the offspring is created from part of the germinal fluids.

"Not from all the fluid is the offspring created"

(Sahih. Muslim: Kitab Al-Nekah, Bab Al-Azl)

It is also known that not all parts of the ejaculate are equally potent in the fertilisation process. "In the first portion of the ejaculate are the spermatozoa, epididymal fluids, and the secretions from the Cowper and prostate gland fluids. In the last portions of the ejaculate are the secretions of the seminal vesicles. Most spermatozoa appear in the first part of the ejaculate, which is made primarily of prostatic secretions. Thus spermatozoa in the initial portion of the ejaculate have better motility and survival than those in the later portions, which are chiefly vesicular in origin". (SOURCE)​

And concerning the verse:
96:2 Created man, out of a (mere) clot of an Alaqah
Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman states:

The 'Alaqah stage

"Then (thumm) We made the drop into an 'Alaqah". (Surah Al-Mu 'minun, Ayah 14)

In Arabic the word ‘Alaqah in fact has several meanings;

• 
  [*]
  
  something which clings or a suspended thing (Ref: 7B, 5/440: 1D, 4/125: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267: 5D, 7/20)
  [*]a leech-like structure (Ref: 9A, 3/242: 20A, 2/281: 7B, 5/139: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267)

Amazingly each of these terms can be applied to the developing embryo with stunning precision. All of these terms encompassed by the word ‘Alaqah describe the appearance of the embryo as well as its relationship with the womb. From the discussion below it becomes clear that the embryo resembles a primitive multicellular organism which is attached to a host and feeding on its blood.

a) something which clings

Modern science informs us that once the egg has been fertilised in the Fallopian tube it undergoes successive divisions to form a ball like structure of 12-16 cells by the third day. This structure is called a blastocyst and it reaches the uterus in 4 to 5 days. The blastocyst then lies free in the uterine secretions for a further 2 days. About a week after fertilisation the blastocyst begins to attach and implant into the uterine wall. By the 11th to 12th day it is completely embedded in the uterine wall. At this stage chorionic villosities begin to develop like roots in the soil, these draw nourishment from the uterus necessary for the blastocyst's growth. These formations cover the whole blastocyst and make it literally cling to the uterus. By the end of the second week implantation is complete. Inside the blastocyst the embryo is anchored to the wall of the chorionic cavity by a connecting stalk. Hence, these different ways of clinging and attachment seem to represent the most dominant features from day 7 to 21, and are perfectly described in the Qur'anic description by the word ‘Alaqah. For greater detail see S. Hussain (1986) ‘Al-‘Alaq:the mystery explored, Ark Journal, London, pp. 31-36.

b) a suspended thing

The 3 week old embryo inside the blastocyst which is embedded in the uterine wall is seen to be suspended in the chorionic cavity by means of the connecting stalk and is surrounded by the amniotic cavity and the yolk sac. Therefore, the term ‘Alaqah accurately describes the suspended embryo after it has been implanted.

c) a leech-like structure

The word ‘Alaqah can also be translated as ‘leech like structure'. The leech is a elongated pear shaped creature which thrives on blood sucking. At this stage of development the embryo from top view does bear a resemblance to a leech. This resemblance is even more marked if the 24 day old embryo is seen from the side. It is also interesting to note that the embryo is now dependent on the maternal blood for its nutrition and behaves very much like a leech!. (For greater detail see Moore, KL. ‘A scientists interpretation of references to embryology in the Qur'an.' Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of US and Canada, 1986, 18:15, and Moore, KL. and Azzindani, AMA.: "The Developing Human, Clinically Orientated Embryology, With Islamic Additions". 3rd Ed., Dar Al-Qiblah and WB Saunders).

In conclusion, whichever of the above terms are used to translate the word ‘Alaqah they are all stunningly accurate descriptions of the embryo at this stage in it's development as confirmed by modern science.

There is a gap of a few days between the stages of implantation (Nutfah) and 'Alaqah and this period is clearly explained by the above Ayah:

The word "Thumm" in Arabic is a conjunction indicating a time lag and the Ayah will, therefore, mean that after some time we created the "Nutfah" into 'Alaqah. (SOURCE)​

These explanations make it evident that each verse is describing different stages in the creation of man.

​

Question and Answer Details Name of Questioner Adrian Title: Between the Ribs & the Backbone Date 07/Apr/2009 Question Hello. I left Islam because of verse 7 of Surat At-Tariq because it doesn't seem to fit science. Could anyone explain this verse to me from a linguistic and scientific point correctly? Thank you. Topic Qur'an & Scriptures Name of Counselor Nabil Haroun Answer Salam, questioner.

Thank you for your question.

To properly understand the wording of a verse in the light of proven science, one should take into consideration the literal meaning(s) of words in Arabic. Also, the context of the verse, in the light of preceding and following verses, together with the context of the whole chapter and the Quran at large should be considered.

Taking a word or a phrase out of context, quoting or misquoting uninformed or erratic outdated interpretations, or relying on conflicting or tampered English translations, would lead nowhere but to error end. Such practices and more tricks are typical of the writings of some missionaries, western Orientalists, secularists, and atheists, in their efforts to distort and hide the true Islam.

The linguistic and scientific interpretation of verse 7 of Surat At-Tariq which reads:
*{Going out between the loins (Or: backbone) and the ribs.}* could be viewed as follows.

The six verses (5-10) relating to the origin from which man is created had been subject to various interpretations before and after modern discoveries.

Ancient classic interpreters understood the term "from between the loin and ribs" to mean: "from between the man's loin and the woman's ribs", with no further detail. This description, due to their lack of modern knowledge, was not only ambiguous but also rather perplexing.

In the light of current knowledge, two authoritative interpretations of verse 7 have been put forward:

1. The most plausible interpretation, from the linguistic point of view, is that the pronoun referred to in the verse is 'man' and not the 'fluid'; as evidenced by the preceding verses (5 and 6), as well as those which follow, namely verses 8-10.

The verses most certainly refer to the full chain of events concerning the pronoun 'man', regarding his source of creation, his coming to life, and his return for Judgment in the Hereafter. The pronouns are highlighted as follows:

*{So let 'man' look into what 'he' was created from. 'He' was created from effusive water. Going out between the loins (Or: backbone) and the breastbones. Surely He (Allah) is indeed Determiner over 'his' return (to life). On the Day when secret thoughts and actions are tried. Then in no way will 'he' have any power or any vindicator.}* (At-Tariq 5-10)

​

​

If we could visualize the womb, we will realize that its upper pole touches the sternum (chest bones); and its lower pole and back touches the vertebral column and the bony pelvis. Therefore at birth, the babe issues forth from the space located between the chest and the pelvis. The pronoun in verse 7 should thus refer to the full baby at the moment of birth, and the verse should be understood to mean:

"He (man) issues forth at birth from the space between the bony pelvis and the breast-bone, the course that is normally negotiated."

2. An earlier interpretation used the emitted fluid as the unmentioned pronoun in the verse. In their opinion, verse 7 refers to is the embryonic stage when the primordial gonads are first formed.

Their analysis goes as follows: On impregnation of the female ovum by the male sperm, the product is a compound cell 'or zygote' (Arabic: notfah amshag, the precise term used in Quran Surat Al-Insan 76:2).

This compound cell begins to divide and re-divide as it travels in the Fallopian tube on its way to the womb. By this time, it will have become many cells surrounded by a wall forming a ball-like mass or cyst. These cells begin to acquire certain characteristics, each group having a certain function or duty to perform.

One of the first duties is to set aside a certain number of cells which will give rise to the next human generation. They segregate in the wall of the yolk sac which nourishes the embryo or babe in its very early stage. Then they assume an amoeboid form, and migrate towards the region to be known as the loin in the back of the developing or growing embryo.

The primordial gonads (testicles in males, and ovaries in females) form before the end of the second month of gestation, and are located in a position between the middle of the vertebra (loin region) and the breast bones (ribs). It is from these sex cells which emigrated from the front to the back that Allah brings forth the descendants or future generations.

Later, the testicles descend and enter the scrotum about eight weeks before birth, and the ovaries descend and enter the pelvis much earlier. As they descend, either testicles or ovaries are not detached from their original location.

Rather, both gonads on depend on supply from the same location: that is, blood supply from arteries branching from the aorta at the level of the kidneys, and nerves connected both to the aortic plexus and to the tenth inter-costal nerve originating from the spinal cord between the tenth and eleventh vertebrae.

Upon this basis, verse 7 could thus be understood to mean:

"Effusive water (sperms and ova) that goes out from (a source which, when primordial, occupies a position) between the loin (or backbone) and the breast-bones."

A corollary to this is that the pregnant mother, therefore, carries not only her child but a parent of her grandchild as well. The moment of fertilization, therefore, is the culmination and climax of events that have been pre-set in train twenty or more years previously. This is amazingly referred to in another verse:

*{And (remember) as your Lord took from the Seeds (Or. sons) of Adam, from their backs, their offspring, and made them bear witness concerning themselves, "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes indeed, we bear witness."}* (Al-A`raf 7:172)

Indeed it is wonderful that embryologists discovered that the testicles and ovaries originate between the backbones and ribs. But is it not more amazing to find the Quran, fourteen centuries ago, hinting in the above verse to what was described only recently by embryologists in the 1940's through their microscopic studies?
The verse definitely did not intend to state that the 'effusive water' comes or gushes out from between the backbones and the ribs; otherwise, it would have been very easy for anyone, even the early Arabs at the time, to put the verse into question.
The word (yakhruj), ('originating' or 'proceeding') — taking either of the two interpretations above — should be understood in the context of the whole chapter, which speaks of humans and how they were created and how their creation started and proceeded, and that they will be returned to account for their secret actions and deeds.

Thus 'yakhruj' refers to man's creation, which originated from the sperm formed in the testicles that proceeded from between the backbones and the ribs and finally born as a full baby.

In view of the plentiful authentic proofs of the scientific and intellectual precision of the Quran, and its inimitable divine style far beyond the knowledge and capability of the Prophet or any human at his time, if one finds difficulty in comprehending a word, phrase or verse, he or she should refer to authoritative Arabic sources or to honest English references derived thereof, rather than hectically swerve away from the wealth of clear-cut overwhelming evidence.

I hope this answers your question. Please keep in touch.

Salam.

​

​

Useful Links:​

​

​

​

The Role of Miracles in Islam

Reflecting on the Idea of Miracles

The Miracle of the Moon Splitting

Knowing God Through Science

Islam, Progress, and Science

All in Pairs: Glory of Creation

Imperfect Creation of the Perfect Creator

The Story of Creation

More on The Story of Creation

​

​

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]The Quran: Whose Word Is It?http://www.readingislam.com/servlet...sh-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE[/FONT]

Read more: http://www.readingislam.com/servlet...skAboutIslamE&cid=1237705943094#ixzz0dgvZfbl7
​

Read more: http://www.readingislam.com/servlet...skAboutIslamE&cid=1237705943094#ixzz0dgvZfbl7
​

you are so under-educated, I don't even know where to begin..

Let me ask you this:

if 'musylama's' elephant oh elephant with a long trunk and a short tail verse
or the 'bird sura' 'suret al isfoor' with the: 'simile of a clever bird is the simile of a clever bird seeing winter come decided to travel south is remotely comparable to anything but garbage, why his own friend made another parody stating By god I know that you know that I know you are lying?

any 'true prophet' should have at least have some following.. if nothing else being a successor in the earth is a sign of God safe-keeping his religion for millenniums.. how many musylamah followers do we have?

you must have very low standards to take that as 'defeat'!
and judging from your sophomoric style writing and very pedantic approach not just to verify what you read but to keep abreast modern science, I don't know why Muhammad bothered with a reply to you at all!


Good luck with all that..

all the best
​

 

[Hugo]

Indeed you are on to something, if I have the best engineered car by consensus, and you out of multitudes of 'personal reasons' trying to find fault where none lie, I might indeed look at your car to question where the barrage of tastelessness is coming from. Seeing you in a beat up car is a good indicator as to why you are trying hard to find fault where none lie!

Here we might indeed be getting somewhere. Let me summarise

1. Consensus - who was in your sample, was it a random selection, would it include say Robert Spenser or Ibn Warraq or some atheists, some Hindus and some Muslims - then again it could be argued that including Muslims is bound to bias the results because the Qu'ran challenge tells them they will go to hell if they don't agree? No I don't suppose so and so you show your ignorance on how to conduct a fair trial and it may not even be possible because the whole thing is totally subjective.

2. Consensus - on what basis, what criteria did you use, what scale of measurement - we are back to where you started.

3. Consensus - since when is consensus, popularity a measure of truth, even you ought to be aware of that fallacy - it can be shown that pornography is really top quality stuff and very good for you if you pick the right criteria and the right sample points.

and I asked you to show me where the word 'scripture' was in the verse all together. Truth means conformity to reality or actuality, and with each respective prophet their 'truth'/'miracle' has died with them, except for the prophet Mohammed (p) for his truth is very much alive and well!

The word scripture is often used throughout the Qu'ran and the commentaries and translations I look at almost exclusively say its the Gospels or Torah. Similarly, with the word truth, in the Qu'ran it is not understood in the all embracing way you portray it here. Truth is usually defined as something that can be established by facts - that the prophet of Islam had revelations cannot be so established because it was a private encounter, no one else saw or heard anything.

Proper knowledge, is what makes you able to distinguish between quackery and medicine, between sorcery and chemistry. between lie and laws of physics..

This is just silly, it is not so long ago that people talked about phlogiston or that the world was made up of 4 element or doctors routinely treated people by blood letting or used mercury and so on. There was a time that men thought Newtons laws said everything but they did not. So the very notion of 'proper' knowledge implies you are stuck in the past or the now with no hope of moving forward because why should you, you have 'proper' knowledge - this kind of closed mind nonsense is unworthy of you.