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

[جوري]

Irrelevant, although the fact that Jesus' message has been translated into almost every language many times with little problem means that such obstructive language barriers do not exist in Christianity. Jesus never intended His message to be understood fully by a select few.

.
Quite relevant since the god you pray to is a west asian one who spoke one of the languages you find exclusive. The Quran likewise is translated to every language. One however can always go back to the source and make sure that men don't turn into gods by chinese whispers. And to the contrary Jesus meant that his message be understood by a select few:

New International Version (©1984)
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."New Living Translation (©2007)
Then Jesus said to the woman, "I was sent only to help God's lost sheep--the people of Israel."
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
International Standard Version (©2008)
But he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel."
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus responded, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel."
King James Bible
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
American King James Version
But he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
American Standard Version
But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Bible in Basic English
But he made answer and said, I was sent only to the wandering sheep of the house of Israel.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel.
Darby Bible Translation
But he answering said, I have not been sent save to the lost sheep of Israel's house.
English Revised Version
But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Webster's Bible Translation
But he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Weymouth New Testament
"I have only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," He replied.
World English Bible
But he answered, "I wasn't sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Young's Literal Translation
and he answering said, 'I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'
​

Not really. There may be one million admirers of Shakespeare worldwide, but Shakespeare was hardly very effective in modern terms if only around 5% of the people who admire his work actually understand his scripts in their original form, which is how most people agree they should be read. The other 95% would only admire him because they've seen good films of his work, or have read the synopsis of his work in modern language- not because they admire his original scripts.

This is a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it, we are not talking about Shakespeare we are talking about the religions that have influenced and continue to influence history .. try to focus on a topic even when at a loss of a cohesive response!

I'm a liberal Christian. I hate no one.

That is akin to saying, I am a shoe maker, I love all sandals.. another nonsequitur..

Incidentally, it is neither my wife nor mother posting lengthy articles on the off chance that someone may read them and hopefully back up their argument. You post the article, you explain the article.

The article has been explained in full, your indolence and ridiculous expectations from members doesn't exempt you from doing the bare minimum!
When you are assigned homework with the expectations of some formal discussion you are expected to read it before you show up for discussion!

Thanks for today's funnies as always relaxing and virtually appealing!

 

[Eliphaz]

Consider what the orientalist Philip DeTrazy writes:

Due to the power of the Qur'an, the Muslims have become a united nation in their language, religion, laws and politics. For the Qur'an has combined all the Arabs, and it is inconceivable that, were it not for the Qur'an, classical Arabic would have spread among them...​

Yes, I agree (to some extent) that the Qur'an has combined all the arabs but look outside of the Arabs or Arabic-speaking peoples or those whose ancestors lived under the former Islamic Empire and they have no means to access the Qur'anic message in its intended form, with ignorance of Islam and not speaking Arabic being their default position. To say these people will be 'judged differently' is to me a cop-out and immediately undermines the claim of a 'Message for all Humanity', which the Qur'an is supposed to be.

Be that as it may, it isn't true that a person simply cannot understand the Qur'an at all by reading a translation. They can gain a good understanding by reading a translation alongside a good, reliable commentary (such as that of Ibn Katheer or At-Tabari). The truth is that a person cannot fully understand and appreciate the depth of meaning behind what the Qur'an says without knowledge of the Arabic language. I myself do not know Arabic but I have read around the topic and have read an explanation of several verses from a linguistic point of view and I can honestly say that it is a fascinating area of study.

But do you not see that by invoking the need for commentary you are saying that God did not say all He had to say in the Qur'an and needed men to clarify his message?

Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, it isn't necessary to know the Arabic language to realise the miraculous nature of the Qur'an. The Qur'an as a literary miracle can still be appreciated by explanation and by looking at it from a historical perspective.

I disagree that the literary miracle can be appreciated by explanation and looking at it from a historical perspective. The challenge of the Qur'an is to produce a single verse like it, but if you cannot appreciate the literary beauty of the verse in the first place, then what use is such a challenge? No amount of people telling you 'this verse is really beautiful' can move you unless you know Arabic - and not just Arabic but Classical Arabic. The flaw of a book for all times and places being limited to knowledge of a single language and in the style of a particular time period is that it inherently cannot be appreciated beyond those constraints and the impact of any claim to it being a literary miracle is lost.

The other aspects of the Qur'an's miraculous nature (such as the fulfillment of specific prophecies) do not get lost in translation anyway. A person who is sincere, logical and open-minded can absolutely grasp that the Qur'an was not an invention by Prophet Muhammad saws - a cursory analysis of whose life and behaviour shows quite clearly that he had no motive to lie about such a thing, and that he was somehow 'mistaken' about receiving revelations is plainly an absurd suggestion - but a revelation from Allah.

The reason Prophet Muhammad did or did not invent the Qur'an is not relevant, if the message itself is not the word of God. It is similar to say that if any man could not have had a motive to do something he must have been acting on God's will.

Conclusion

The Arabic language has without doubt served as a very effective medium for the communication of the message of Islam, and as the Prophet's strongest argument against the challenges of his articulate and eloquent contemporaries. It has also served as a means for preserving the cultural and religious heritage of Arabic-speaking and Muslim peoples. In this sense, the language has been extremely useful to the religion. However, in its role as the language of the Qur'an, Arabic has benefited enormously. There is a clear legitimacy to the claim that Islam and the Qur'an have helped to preserve Arabic from decay and deterioration, for it was mainly due to the need to preserve the accuracy and pronunciation of the verses of the Qur'an that efforts were instigated towards refining the Arabic alphabet. Subsequently, the Qur'an was instrumental in the codification of Arabic grammar in the second the third Islamic centuries. Furthermore, the need for Muslims, whether native or non-native speakers of Arabic, to memorize and recite verses from the Qur'an in their daily worship has helped to keep the Arabic language alive. It was due to its association with Islam and the Qur'an that Arabic gained a good deal of prestige as the language of a young faith, a faith that was gaining more and more followers with each new day. The interest in the new faith this brought with it interest in the language of that faith. It was under the banner of Islam that Arabic spread beyond the borders of the Arabian Peninsula to far-off areas in Europe, south-east Asia, and Africa.

What this (and much more of this essay) tells us more than anything is that Islam helped Arabic to spread, rather than Arabic helping Islam to spread.

Interest in the Qur'an, its language, and its exegesis gave rise to a number of related disciplines, which include philological, religious, and linguistic studies. There is no doubt that the Arabic language was extremely useful as a medium for the revelation of the Holy Qur'an and for communicating God's final message to the pre-Islamic Arabs of the seventh century.

Yes, of course, I think everyone here agrees with this. The Arabic format of the Qur'an was extremely useful for that particular group in that particular time, namely the pre-Islamic Arabs of the seventh century.

It is, however, the conclusion of this paper that the Arabic language underwent drastic changes in its structure, content, and status due to its association with Islam and the Qur'an, changes that the language would not have undergone had it not been for the new role it acquired in its bond with Islam and the Qur'an.

Again, this is telling us how Islam benefitted Arabic, not the other way around.​

 

[جوري]

What this (and much more of this essay) tells us more than anything is that Islam helped Arabic to spread, rather than Arabic helping Islam to spread.

Even if that were the natural conclusion, what is your point? Muslims around the world from china to the U.S indeed use the Arabic in the Quran to perform prayers reciting it as it was once recited millenniums ago 17 times a day. Whereas Hebrew and Aramaic are essentially dead or apply to a handful for non-religious rituals. Arabic is very much alive and well with us so long as there is Islam in the world!

Yes, of course, I think everyone here agrees with this. The Arabic format of the Qur'an was extremely useful for that particular group in that particular time, namely the pre-Islamic Arabs of the seventh century.

Only folks who have a vested interest in twisting facts to other than they actually are see the Quranic format of relevance to a particular group. The fact that the largest Muslim populations in the world don't happen to be in Arabic speaking countries paints a different picture.. hmm what is more weighty a statement of generality or actual facts? I don't think it is a difficult choice!

Again, this is telling us how Islam benefitted Arabic, not the other way around.

Again, a non-point (see previous paragraphs)

all the best

 

[Eliphaz]

Even if that were the natural conclusion, what is your point? Muslims around the world from china to the U.S indeed use the Arabic in the Quran to perform prayers reciting it as it was once recited millenniums ago 17 times a day. Whereas Hebrew and Aramaic are essentially dead or apply to a handful for non-religious rituals. Arabic is very much alive and well with us so long as there is Islam in the world!

I agree that Hebrew and Aramaic (or more to the point Greek) are essentially dead languages, but even if they weren't, the Bible also could not be the words of God because it is limited to knowledge of one particular language, as is the Qur'an.

Only folks who have a vested interest in twisting facts to other than they actually are see the Quranic format of relevance to a particular group. The fact that the largest Muslim populations in the world don't happen to be in Arabic speaking countries paints a different picture.. hmm what is more weighty a statement of generality or actual facts? I don't think it is a difficult choice!

The fact that the largest Muslim populations are not Arabic is similarly a non-point - as I said before, geographic circumstance with relation to the former Islamic Empire is also a factor in determining whether one is descended from Muslim ancestors or not. Even though Indonesia was not ruled under the Islamic Empire, it is still by token of its proximity to the Empire and its trade links with the Empire that it is today a Muslim country, and that most of those born there today are, by default Muslims.

Again, a non-point (see previous paragraphs)

If it is a non-point (and the only real conclusion of the entire essay), then why post the essay?

It is also an easy argument ot say that those who have a vested interest to twist facts see the limitations of the Qur'an, but I say it is equally twisting of the facts to use population sizes to argue the truth of a religion, for if we are to go by populations, is Christianity not the true religion?

 

[جوري]

I agree that Hebrew and Aramaic (or more to the point Greek) are essentially dead languages, but even if they weren't, the Bible also could not be the words of God because it is limited to knowledge of one particular language, as is the Qur'an.

There in no comparisons between the Quran or the Bible, I fail to understand your desire to hammer in a moot point-- anyone subjecting the Quran to some scrutiny by having a number of criteria afore hand with which they can deem a book authentic or not will arrive to the conclusion that it is divine in origin!.
folks like Dr. Gary Miller who wanted a sincere rebuttal to Quranic content from his christian perspective and after twenty years of research then presented us with his book, 'The Amazing Quran' -- I know it is a difficult feat, dedicating an X number of years to you life to a study, but again, in face of a statement of generality, which one would find more weighty? Someone stating the Quran is akin to the bible and failing to give us an objective comparison..or someone dedicating 20 years of his life to study?
Again, me thinkus that it isn't a difficult decision!

The fact that the largest Muslim populations are not Arabic is similarly a non-point - as I said before, geographic circumstance with relation to the former Islamic Empire is also a factor in determining whether one is descended from Muslim ancestors or not. Even though Indonesia was not ruled under the Islamic Empire, it is still by token of its proximity to the Empire and its trade links with the Empire that it is today a Muslim country, and that most of those born there today are, by default Muslims.

The point of opposition is trying to prove Arabic so insular as to be of relevance only to a select few in pre-Islamic Arabia, and we have proven that it isn't the case, regardless of whether their ancestors were Muslim or not. Islam is practiced as was intended and Arabic spoken by all they who practice even if in limited quantities!

If it is a non-point (and the only real conclusion of the entire essay), then why post the essay?

Just because you fail to arrive to the correct conclusion doesn't denote that the post is not of relevance to our purposes here..

It is also an easy argument ot say that those who have a vested interest to twist facts see the limitations of the Qur'an, but I say it is equally twisting of the facts to use population sizes to argue the truth of a religion, for if we are to go by populations, is Christianity not the true religion?

Ah, but I never argued that population size is the truth of the religion, rather, the religion isn't restricted to a particular population because of language.. which has been the point of this ridiculous exercise!

It isn't difficult to dismiss what you write as having no credibility as you arrive to the wrong conclusion so often..

all the best

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

just to clarify, how does an "atheist" recognize the action of an all-knowing, all- powerful deity?

The clearest thing would be that it wouldn't have any obvious flaws. Unlike, for example, creating the world and putting some of the holiest sites of three major world religions right next to each other. Seriously bad planning, that.

i don't know Arabic.

HOWEVER

the "Message to humanity" that you claim that people cannot understand is:

No god is God, but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger.

it MAY be tough, but i think i get it!

You are right, of course - that is the central message of Islam. Are we supposed to just accept that and be quiet, though? Surely we have to have some convincing reasons to believe it? As soon as anyone starts to question the further details of the message of the Qur'an, we are told "learn Arabic then try asking your question again". It's the ultimate way of closing down an argument when you have no better answer.

if bird poop needs a cause and a beginning, what about the Universe?

It is certainly natural to assume that the universe had a cause. What that cause is remains unknown.

You do not address anything that I say rather you just push them aside. Whenever you dont find a good enough answer you claim what I say is irrelevant or that I do not understand the point, is this really how you debate?

With people who make irrelevant points and labour under blatant misunderstandings, what else should I do? If you'd rather not pursue the discussion, that is up to you. I am not the only one asking these questions, however.

So far, the most intelligent response to the question of why Allah would have decided to deliver his final message to humanity in one language only has been given by Osman:

Allah is all-knowledgeable and all-wise and, in his infinite wisdom, he decided to reveal this as an Arabic Qur'an. I can certainly see some wisdom in it, but due to my limitations, I cannot know the real reasons behind Allah's decision. Allah is also all-powerful and, had he wished, he could have revealed the Qur'an in all languages. So the answer to questions starting with "Why couldn't God have..." are that he could have but, in his infinite wisdom, decided not to. This answer may not satisfy some people, but I am completely confident and secure with providing this as an answer.

That sums up the situation very well.

Peace

 

[YusufNoor]

I don't mean to get involved in this debate, but why would God's perfect revelation seem weak in some languages? If the revelation is so powerful and strong, surely it would come across as such in every language, regardless of what that language is?

so in English, please explain the Trinity the way that Jesus did in Aramaic.

You are right, of course - that is the central message of Islam. Are we supposed to just accept that and be quiet, though? Surely we have to have some convincing reasons to believe it?

the signs are all around us, you don't need the Qur'an for that.

As soon as anyone starts to question the further details of the message of the Qur'an, we are told "learn Arabic then try asking your question again". It's the ultimate way of closing down an argument when you have no better answer.

you want to waste the time of folks who DO study Arabic. you seem to want to know "just enough" of the Qur'an so you can trash it. you should have more respect for those Muslims and take them up on their challenge. you shouldn't be so bitter about you refusal to recognize your Creator. actually, as you seem to believe that you are wiser and more intelligent than God, you have taken yourself as a god beside God. an odd thing for an atheist, eh?

It is certainly natural to assume that the universe had a cause. What that cause is remains unknown.

refusing to accept and declaring god unknown is not the same thing. Paul believed in the unknown god! are you part Christian?

cheers

 

[Ramadhan]

I disagree that the literary miracle can be appreciated by explanation and looking at it from a historical perspective. The challenge of the Qur'an is to produce a single verse like it, but if you cannot appreciate the literary beauty of the verse in the first place, then what use is such a challenge? No amount of people telling you 'this verse is really beautiful' can move you unless you know Arabic - and not just Arabic but Classical Arabic. The flaw of a book for all times and places being limited to knowledge of a single language and in the style of a particular time period is that it inherently cannot be appreciated beyond those constraints and the impact of any claim to it being a literary miracle is lost.

I understand very little arabic, but I am able to read/recite Al Qur'an. The beauty of reciting the verses (without knowing the meaning) moved me to tears so many times, and this is before i read the translation.

I've read so many books in several languages, so I am very confident to say that I am quite well-versed in literature, and I can say that Al Qur'an is so complex with so many layers both in meanings and styles that it is not like any other book ever written, and it is not possible that an illiterate man in a desert in Arab peninsula wrote it in 7th century.

I have also met countless people who acknowledge the beauty of the Qur'an, and they don't even know arabic.
The fact that non-arabic speaking people today appreciating the beauty of Qur'an defeats your assertion that the literary miracle of the Qur'an only applied to 7th century Arabia.

The Arabic format of the Qur'an was extremely useful for that particular group in that particular time, namely the pre-Islamic Arabs of the seventh century.

who is more qualified to say when and where Al Qur'an format is useful, you or a billion practicing muslims who live their life based on the Qur'an?

My question to you:
Have you try to read the Qur'an in Arabic?

It is very strange if you haven't and yet you are not shy in voicing such baseless opinions about the Qur'an.

 

[جوري]

I understand very little arabic, but I am able to read/recite Al Qur'an. The beauty of reciting the verses (without knowing the meaning) moved me to tears so many times, and this is before i read the translation.

Very true.. back in grad school my non-muslim roommate used to insist I insert a Quranic CD while I drive us to the hospital every morning....

these two suras were her favorite..

[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTnIK6e_rQo[/MEDIA]



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


:wa:
​

 

[Chuck]

Why can't God reveal his message in one language that suits the purpose.

Interesting thing is, message was suppose to come to the progeny of Ismael (pbuh) that God promised to Abraham (pbuh) and it was possible that Arabic could have never evolved into a language that could have been used objectively to assess whether the language is from a human or God at the time of the revelation fitting the overall theme finalization of revelations from God, yet it did. That sheds some interesting light regarding Omniscience.

 

[Eliphaz]

My question to you:
Have you try to read the Qur'an in Arabic?

It is very strange if you haven't and yet you are not shy in voicing such baseless opinions about the Qur'an.

I have read the Qur'an in Arabic and in English in several translations, although I only understand the translation and have found many discrepancies between each translation. I have also studied Arabic, both modern and more recently classical, part-time for about two years or so, having learned to recite the Arabic of the Qur'an (without understanding) as a child.

I do not disagree that the Qur'an sounds beautiful when recited in Arabic, but with having a life (studying, work) it is quite difficult for the average person to find time to learn enough Arabic to actually get beyond that. Many of my Arabic-speaking friends even tell me that they understand very little of the Qur'an when they hear it recited.

 

[Supreme]

Quite relevant since the god you pray to is a west asian one who spoke one of the languages you find exclusive. The Quran likewise is translated to every language. One however can always go back to the source and make sure that men don't turn into gods by chinese whispers. And to the contrary Jesus meant that his message be understood by a select few:

Yes, but Christians seldom claim that one can only understand the Bible in its original form. Therefore, the language barrier is very much non existence. Also, the quote of Jesus was during Jesus' ministry and His fulfillment of the Messiah of the Jews, where he was preaching to Jews in Jewish lands (unsurprisingly). The time after His ministry and the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ did not merely fulfill His purpose as the Messiah of the Jews, but the true son of God and also as the son of Man, sent to all mankind. Although this is getting rather off topic.

This is a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it, we are not talking about Shakespeare we are talking about the religions that have influenced and continue to influence history .. try to focus on a topic even when at a loss of a cohesive response!

It's called an analogy dear, Jesus used them in the form of parables to get His message across to those more arrogant/less intelligent.

That is akin to saying, I am a shoe maker, I love all sandals.. another nonsequitur..

No, it is akin to saying I am an open minded follower of a religion that preaches love and good deeds as one of its central tenets...

so in English, please explain the Trinity the way that Jesus did in Aramaic

Again, see the top of my post... no Christian claims Jesus' message and teachings are only fully understood in their native form. I am testament to this, I couldn't possibly imagine how my KJV Bible could sound or be interpreted better than I already find it!

do not disagree that the Qur'an sounds beautiful when recited in Arabic, but with having a life (studying, work) it is quite difficult for the average person to find time to learn enough Arabic to actually get beyond that. Many of my Arabic-speaking friends even tell me that they understand very little of the Qur'an when they hear it recited.

I second that, very soothing.

 

[جوري]

Yes, but Christians seldom claim that one can only understand the Bible in its original form. Therefore, the language barrier is very much non existence. Also, the quote of Jesus was during Jesus' ministry and His fulfillment of the Messiah of the Jews, where he was preaching to Jews in Jewish lands (unsurprisingly). The time after His ministry and the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ did not merely fulfill His purpose as the Messiah of the Jews, but the true son of God and also as the son of Man, sent to all mankind. Although this is getting rather off topic.

Arabic is crucial to the understanding one aspect of the Quran indeed which is its linguistics, however, people who don't speak Arabic or came to learn Arabic have produced the best scholars of Islam. Imam Bukhari who has given us the compendium of hadiths for instance was from Uzbekistan! Again, you are completely un-educated in Islamic studies you can't hold a conversation of reason on the topic!
A message that isn't well preserved leaves plenty of room for error!
As such, the rest of your statement is subjective. Later addendum to the bible doesn't change its purpose or reason as per bible itself and in contrast to the Abrahamic messages that have always been!

It's called an analogy dear, Jesus used them in the form of parables to get His message across to those more arrogant/less intelligent.

Perhaps you can demonstrate (as Jesus did) how Shakespeare fits into this topic?

No, it is akin to saying I am an open minded follower of a religion that preaches love and good deeds as one of its central tenets...

No it doesn't --it says that you are a liberal thus you hate no one! Does that mean conservative christians who are followers of this religion that allegedly 'preaches love and good deeds' hate everyone?


all the best

 

[Supreme]

Arabic is crucial to the understanding one aspect of the Quran indeed which is its linguistics, however, people who don't speak Arabic or came to learn Arabic have produced the best scholars of Islam. Imam Bukhari who has given us the compendium of hadiths for instance was from Uzbekistan! Again, you are completely un-educated in Islamic studies you can't hold a conversation of reason on the topic!
A message that isn't well preserved leaves plenty of room for error!
As such, the rest of your statement is subjective. Later addendum to the bible doesn't change its purpose or reason as per bible itself and in contrast to the Abrahamic messages that have always been!

I don't profess to be educated in Islamic studies; to learn was my reasoning for joining this forum. I am simply explaining how it seems to an outsider, how absurd learning an entire language just for one 'preserved' book is, especially if you are not a Muslim. If you care to further educate me, do so at your own leisure, but with less of the childish insult please!

Perhaps you can demonstrate (as Jesus did) how Shakespeare fits into this topic?

Sure:



There may be one million admirers of Shakespeare worldwide, but Shakespeare was hardly very effective in modern terms if only around 5% of the people who admire his work actually understand his scripts in their original form, which is how most people agree they should be read. The other 95% would only admire him because they've seen good films of his work, or have read the synopsis of his work in modern language- not because they admire his original scripts. This is similar to the Quran in that people would claim that only its original manuscripts in its original language is the most 'effective' way of learning it, despite the majority of its admirers (followers) not actually understanding its original form, instead relying on other sources and/or interpretations to appreciate the book.

No it doesn't --it says that you are a liberal thus you hate no one! Does that mean conservative christians who are followers of this religion that allegedly 'preaches love and good deeds' hate everyone?

Not necessarily, although conservatives are ten times out of ten less open minded, and conservative Christians are undoubtedly more ill aware and mindful of Jesus' moral teachings than liberals. That is a subjective, empirical observation, feel free to disagree.

 

[جوري]

I don't profess to be educated in Islamic studies; to learn was my reasoning for joining this forum. I am simply explaining how it seems to an outsider, how absurd learning an entire language just for one 'preserved' book is, especially if you are not a Muslim. If you care to further educate me, do so at your own leisure, but with less of the childish insult please!

So you are not educated and you don't reach the correct conclusion even after repeated attempts.. is that intellectual integrity? You can't possibly profess your reasons for joining as the desire to learn and miss the point entirely even after repeated accounts from more than one person. Again, the number of Muslims world wide of whom the best scholars emerged weren't Arabic speakers.. I can't possibly break it down to simpler terms.. is it that you don't understand or unwilling to? I don't see any insults so far, in fact I really believe that is an adequate assessment of your own approach!

Sure:



There may be one million admirers of Shakespeare worldwide, but Shakespeare was hardly very effective in modern terms if only around 5% of the people who admire his work actually understand his scripts in their original form, which is how most people agree they should be read. The other 95% would only admire him because they've seen good films of his work, or have read the synopsis of his work in modern language- not because they admire his original scripts. This is similar to the Quran in that people would claim that only its original manuscripts in its original language is the most 'effective' way of learning it, despite the majority of its admirers (followers) not actually understanding its original form, instead relying on other sources and/or interpretations to appreciate the book.

There is absolutely no contrast, aside from your incongruous simile your statistics are as well concocted, how do you expect anyone to loan any weightiness to what you write when you don't have the slightest integrity in your approach to the topic?

You are comparing literary work to divine work? entertainment to a spiritual message?

let's have a look as to why the Quran is regarded as divine:


Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
I'll try to give you a comprehensive answer as to why the Qur'an is regarded the way it is by so many people.

1. The Power of the Qur'anic Message:

-it is universal, unrestricted by time and applicable to any nation/culture. The Qur'an is by far the most widely followed and acted-upon book in the world. As for the Bible, most Christians follow the Church over the Bible, and each denomination has its own bible anyway. The fact that there is no other book in the world that forms the constitution of the lives of billions of followers is itself a sign.
-it is practical and logical, it can be established practically in society and is logically able to address the fundamental questions relating to all aspects of our universe.
-it is comprehensive, addressing all fundamental sectors of human life, be it spritual, physical, mental, social/societal, politcal, environmental, economic, etc.
-it is natural, in concordance with a person's nature and what they feel deep inside to be the truth.
-it is clear and consistent, free of the changes in worldview and understanding that dominate the works of human beings.
-it is deep, having provoked thousands upon thousands of volumes of exegesis, expounding upon its meaning and revealing fascinating details that many people otherwise miss in their reading of the Qur'an.​

2. The Power of the Qur'anic Style:

-it is Interactive, the text seems alive as it responds to the very questions that arise in one's mind at that moment. It speaks to the reader and delivers specific yet universal advice.
-it is Inerrant, free from contradictons and discrepancies, or other errors that would normally be found in the works of human beings.
-it is Memorizable; the Qur'an is the only book in the world which is continuously being memorized by millions of people and recited daily. No other book has been committed to memory by so many followers, as though it fits in one's mind as a key in a lock.
-its Language, the Qur'anic arabic is a stunning miracle in itself, its style is powerful and its recitation is melodious. More info: Here, Here, Here.​

3. The Power of the Qur'anic Text:

-it is Preserved, even after fourteen and a half centuries, the Qur'an is recited today exactly as it was first revealed. Thus it was free of the tampering that befell other religious scriptures.
-its other Remarkable features; many Muslims find a striking concordance between many Qur'anic statements and established scientific truths, which could not have been known by any normal human being 14 centuries ago. (see here). Many Muslims have also found the Qur'anic perfection extends even to various mathematical miracles within the text (see here for discussion of word repetitions). As well, there are the Qur'anic Prophecies.
-its Authorship; the context in which the Qur'an was revealed leaves the reader with no other conclusion than the fact that it could only be the word of God.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/13998-prove-quran-word-god.html

​

Now, you go ahead and demonstrate likeness to Shakespearean plays with the above and correct statistics!

Not necessarily, although conservatives are ten times out of ten less open minded, and conservative Christians are undoubtedly more ill aware and mindful of Jesus' moral teachings than liberals. That is a subjective, empirical observation, feel free to disagree.

I already have, when I made my first observation!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

The Quran is the word of God, written by scribes!

Hugo - in the context of this thread it is not a proof on any kind to make such a statement.

well, when you have christian folks thinking the earth was flat in the 12th c. it would indeed seem miraculous that an atom or smaller is mentioned 600AD.

Hugo - and this proves what in the context of the claim about the Qu'ran mentioning sub-atomic particles? The earliest references to atoms is from India 6BCE, later Democritus in 450 BCE coined the term atom (uncuttable) or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter" though it is obviously possible to imagine or say smaller that an atom. Your argument if that is what is is suuposed to be is a fallacious one of the kind known as Ad Hoc Rescue - look it up. (600AD - 600BCE = I leave you to work it out)

Mohsin Khan translation isn't a substitute for what is actually written in Arabic.. he providing his own rendition or his own interpretation in brackets doesn't make it a substitute for what God dictated and preserved!

Hugo - why is it then that literally hundreds of Muslim web sites use his or another translation to talk about the verse in question and yet again you use Ad hoc rescue.

the term used in the Quran is the same term used today by modern Muslim physicists and chemists who have gone on to win the Nobel prize:

Hugo - one could say the term as used by democritus - work out how many years before teh Qu'ran he coined the phrase. Here again you resort to Ad Hoc Rescue as its of no signifucance to the argument who uses the term. Since you are so keen to refer to Muslim scientists you might like to consider a biography called "Cosmic Anger Abdus Salam - The First Muslim Nobel Scientist" by Gordon Fraser (ISBN13: 9780199208463). This is a biography of Abdus Salam, the first Muslim to win a Nobel Prize for Science (Physics 1979), who was nevertheless excommunicated and branded as a heretic in his own country. Perhaps you will now do a little research and find out why he was excommunicated?

I don't understand the point you are making here.. mithqal zhara is a different weight from a mithqal khardal.. what is your point?

Hugo - the point was that the word atom and weight are used many times and alsmost always the meaning of the verse is clear and wild speculation about it being God hiding scientific secrets in the Qu'ran is to me nonsense.

Not at all, different examples are given all throughout the quran to address all levels of intellect. You can go as deep or as superficial.. That is why it is said that the wonders of the Quran never cease!

If this is the best you can do as proof regarding the point in question then we will never get far in this thread, you offer nothing but Ad Hoc Rescue areguments.

 

[Supreme]

let's have a look as to why the Quran is regarded as divine

...by Muslims. No other religion considers it divine.

You are comparing literary work to divine work? entertainment to a spiritual message?

No, I'm comparing what is (in my opinion) a piece of good literature to a another piece of good literature.

I'm sorry, but I'm yet to be conviced. The Quran is free of error, contradictions and relevant, as is Harry Potter. Just because a book contains such qualities, it does not mean that the only logical conclusion is that it is the work of God- merely that it is a good literary achievement.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

I've just had a quick skim of this thread and wanted to say:

It is important to understand at the very outset of the discussion that our life here on earth is merely a test. If Allaah (swt) wanted, He could have revealed Himself to us and caused everyone to believe, but of course that would defy the purpose of having a test. It is also important to understand what Br. Uthman mentioned earlier about the infinite Wisdom of Allaah (swt). If these concepts are understood, many questions become unneccesary such as, 'why isn't the Qur'an revealed in every language?'

Furthermore, Allaah (swt) has sent countless signs to mankind and still people turn away. This indicates that the barrier to accepting truth is in people's own hearts, not a shortcoming in the sign that is presented to them.

Regards.

 

[Hugo]

Re: Some common Mistakes

Having looked through these postings there is almost nowhere a serious attempt at proof so I thought I might post some things to think about if you are serious about the idea of proof. The ideas I give here are common in all kinds of research and can unquestionable be weaknesses of huge significance. Here I use the terms typical to the scientific community but they are of course not necessarily universal.

1. Cherry Picking - this occurs when you are selective or very selective about the data so you only choose examples that support your particular case or stance. I would feel almost 100% certain that any example you give here about scientific claims in the Qu'ran were copied from a website - in simple terms you did not do any research of your own, you took a short cut instead.

2. Torturing the Data - "torture the data and it will confess to anything", as they say at Guantanamo Bay. Once you get fixed in you brain that the Qu'ran contains scientific miracles then you start seeing them everywhere; every line, every word, - the Qu'ran mentions thunder in the heavens and it becomes the Big Bang, the Qu'ran mentions storms at sea it must be a miracle because Prophet Mohammed was a desert dweller etc

The fact seems to be, and I mean no disrespect, that if you are a Muslim and someone comes along with a claim of the sort we have been talking about you will automatically believe it - or do you subject it to searching test and trials; only you know the truth about your attitude.

3. Methodology - nowhere (well I have not found one so far) can you find a description of the methodology, the research method, the research plan used to extract these claims from the data (the Qu'ran). Be honest, would you trust a research study outcome if the study owners refused to tell you how they got their results? There are ways of assessing methodologies - for example, in medical research there are the so called Jadad scores

4. Authority - are you taken in by claims that the people who generate a claim are experts, well qualified so it must be right? Now of course we want to check on credentials but if we simply rely on those you will be making a big mistake. Sadly, the literature in almost every discipline it littered with well-qualified charlatans. By all means check on qualifications but don't fall into the trap of thinking that is enough for a result to be correct.

5. Journals and Review Sites - I don't know the answer to this but so far I have not found a single reputable journal that has published a definitive study into these kinds of supposed Qu'ranic miracles. If there are such articles I would be more than happy to read them. Since I used a medical example above, what I would like to see is a review site such as the Cohrane Collaboration.

6. Interpretation - in research it is often said that getting the data is easy, precessing its is hard and interpreting is where we give up and lie down in a dark room and hope the problem will go away. Finding meaning is always going to be hard work because the results may not be all that clear, they may be far too clear which should always make you think you have made a mistake (some thing are just too good to be true), if you look at any set of data long enough you will find patterns, it is all too easy to be biased or lazy and look for what we want to see - so finding meaning means you need to be really knowledgeable in your area and you have to be absolutely honest. Be very wary of statistics and always get an expert to help you decide what stats you want and how to make sense of them - sadly this is often not done.

Richard Feynman, undoubtedly one of the finest brains in the world started a lecture with a very salutatory story. If you cannot understand the point he is making here with respect to this thread and more generally to research then you really do need to do a lot of reading and thinking.

You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the licence plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of licence plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing....​

7. Over or Inappropriate Generalizations - this is just another way of making sure you understand the notion of not arguing from the particular to the Universal. That is you get one result and conclude it now applies everywhere and sadly it usually occurs when you are desperate to prove your point at any cost. A good example was created in this thread by skye and czgibson.

Skye - Certainly the magnitude of work from that time speaks volume, if historians can claim we have wiped out banu quryza using Islamic primary sources, then by the same token, they can find the man or men who have dictated the Quran to the prophet in such an unparalleled style!

Czgibson - So because there is historical evidence for one event, there must be historical evidence for all events in the Prophet's (pbuh) life? Is that what you're saying?​

To give a more mundane example, this faulty logic would lead to you say after research: Ford cars have good brakes, therefore Honda cars must also have good brakes - this might be true but it does not logically follow. follow.

 

[جوري]

Hugo - in the context of this thread it is not a proof on any kind to make such a statement.

Ah, but the thread is stellated with methods with which you can subject it to the test by similar means of those used in the more esoteric branches of science such as psychiatry, sociology or anthropology!

when you have christian folks thinking the earth was flat in the 12th c. it would indeed seem miraculous that an atom or smaller is mentioned 600AD.

Hugo - and this proves what in the context of the claim about the Qu'ran mentioning sub-atomic particles? The earliest references to atoms is from India 6BCE, later Democritus in 450 BCE coined the term atom (uncuttable) or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter" though it is obviously possible to imagine or say smaller that an atom. Your argument if that is what is is suuposed to be is a fallacious one of the kind known as Ad Hoc Rescue - look it up. (600AD - 600BCE = I leave you to work it out)

You stated and please allow me to re-quote:

there is no miracle of any kind here.

to which indeed I have shown that in face of christian ignorance that continued centuries later that it is miraculous and very relevant today! Where was demacritus when the christian world was delighting in the blissful ignorance of the dark ages?.. and I have established for you in the thread as well that there is something smaller than an atom as an atom indeed is capable of splitting, that is what we call the transcendent nature of the Quran which the Quran itself mentions of its nature--that it is relevant for every century not just one century and that is exactly why you don't need a group of priests to convene every few years and throw parts of it out or add some in to make sense of it (unfortunately for the central tenet of christianity that is yet to evolve) .. nonetheless, something that might not have been relevant to someone in 7th century Arabia would make excellent sense to someone in 13th century and so on and so on..
miracles of the Quran, some have happened:

Prophecies Made in the Qur’an that Have Already Come True
​

By Living Shari`ah Staff
​

Site of the Battle of Badr
​

There are some things which Allah mentioned in the Qur’an which were yet to come, and which did in fact happen. These include the following: The defeat of the Persians by the Romans within a number of years
Allah said: “The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine), and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after (these events) is only with Allah, (before the defeat of the Romans by the Persians, and after the defeat of the Persians by the Romans). And on that day, the believers (i.e. Muslims) will rejoice (at the victory given by Allah to the Romans against the Persians).” [Ar-Rum: 2-4]
Imam Al-Shawkani said: The scholars of Tafseer said: the Persians defeated the Romans, and the disbelievers of Makkah rejoiced because of that and said, “Those who do not have a Book have defeated those who do have a Book,” and they gloated over the Muslims and said, “We will also defeat you as the Persians defeated the Romans.” The Muslims wanted the Romans to prevail over the Persians because they were People of the Book… “and they, after their defeat, will be victorious” means that the Romans, after having been defeated by the Persians, would defeat the people of Persia.
Al-Zajjaj said: This is one of the verses that prove that the Qur’an is from Allah, because it is foretelling something that was yet to come, and this is something which no one could know except Allah.
Fath al-Qadeer, 4/214
Enmity among the Christian sects until the Day of Resurrection
Allah said: “And from those who call themselves Christians, We took their covenant, but they have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. So We planted amongst them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection (when they discarded Allah’s Book, disobeyed Allah’s Messengers and His Orders and transgressed beyond bounds in Allah’s disobedience); and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.” [Al-Ma’idah: 14]
Ibn Katheer said: “So We planted amongst them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection” means, We sowed amongst them enmity and hatred of one another, and they will remain like that until the Hour begins. Hence the Christian groups, no matter what their types, will continue to hate one another and denounce one another as disbelievers and curse one another. So each group forbids the others to come to its place of worship, and the Byzantines denounced the Jacobites as disbelievers, and the Nestorians denounced the Arians, and so on. Each group denounces the others as disbelievers in this world and will do so on the Day of Judgment.
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 2/34
Allah promised His Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, that his religion would prevail over all others.
Allah said: “It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions” [At-Tawbah: 33]
Al-Qurtubi said: Allah indeed did that. Whenever Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) sent his armies out on a campaign, he would remind them of what Allah had promised them, that He would cause His religion to prevail, so that they would be confident of victory and certain of success. `Umar used to do likewise, and their conquests continued east and west, by land and sea.
Tafseer al-Qurtubi, 1/75
The Conquest of Makkah
Allah says: “Indeed Allah shall fulfill the true vision which He showed to His Messenger [i.e. the Prophet saw a dream that he has entered Makkah along with his Companions, having their (head) hair shaved and cut short] in very truth. Certainly, you shall enter Al?Masjid Al?Haram, if Allah wills, secure, (some) having your heads shaved, and (some) having your head hair cut short, having no fear. He knew what you knew not, and He granted besides that a near victory.” [Al-Fath: 27]
At-Tabari said: Allah says: Allah is confirming as true the vision which He showed to His Messenger Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), that he and his companions would enter the sacred House of Allah in very truth, not fearing the mushrikeen (polytheists), some of them having their heads shaved and some of them with their hair cut short.
The scholars of tafseer said something similar to that which we have said.
Tafseer At-Tabari, 26/107
The Battle of Badr
Allah said: “And (remember) when Allah promised you (Muslims) one of the two parties (of the enemy, i.e. either the army or the caravan) that it should be yours; you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours, but Allah willed to justify the truth by His Words and to cut off the roots of the disbelievers (i.e. in the battle of Badr).” [Al-Anfal: 7]
Ibn Al-Jawzi said: What this means is: Remember when Allah promised you one of the two parties. The two parties were: Abu Sufyan and the wealth that was with him, and Abu Jahl and the people of Quraysh who were with him. When Abu Sufyan went ahead with the wealth that was with him, he wrote to Quraysh saying, if you have already gone out to save your caravan, I have already saved it for you (i.e., so go back). Abu Jahl said, By Allah, we will not go back. Then the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) set out, heading for the people (i.e., to confront the disbelievers’ army), but his companions were not happy about that, wishing that they had caught up with the group from whom they could capture the booty without fighting. Hence Allah said, “you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours”.
Zad Al-Maseer, 3/324.
Sources:
​

• • The defeat of the Persians by the Romans within a number of years
  • Enmity among the Christian sects until the Day of Resurrection
  • Allah promised His Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, that his religion would prevail over all others
  • The Conquest of Makkah
  • The Battle of Badr

• • www.islam-qa.com

​

#AOLMsgPart_2_3736be34-47cb-491e-b99a-6e5f3b1e9736 td{color: black;} #AOLMsgPart_2_3736be34-47cb-491e-b99a-6e5f3b1e9736 .tipDiv{display:none;position:absolute;width:350px;border:1px solid #000000;padding:2px;text-align:justify;background-color:#FFFFF0;font-family:"verdana";font-size:8pt;color:#47473D;}#AOLMsgPart_2_3736be34-47cb-491e-b99a-6e5f3b1e9736 .tipLink{font-family:"verdana"; font-size:8pt; font-weight:normal; color:#000099;cursor: pointer;}

what is this?​

and some will continue to happen, thus not very difficult to imagine something smaller than an atom!

Mohsin Khan translation isn't a substitute for what is actually written in Arabic.. he providing his own rendition or his own interpretation in brackets doesn't make it a substitute for what God dictated and preserved!

Hugo - why is it then that literally hundreds of Muslim web sites use his or another translation to talk about the verse in question and yet again you use Ad hoc rescue.

Why not use them a translation ? Does using a translation preclude one from looking at the source, and in your mind are translators scholars of mere humans who can with their best sources give the best rendition. Not an ad hoc rescue, it is called common sense..

how many meaning do you have for a word such as--well
''Translation''?

1- A written communication in a second language having the same meaning as the written communication in a first language
2- A uniform movement without rotation
3-The act of changing in form or shape or appearance
4-mathematics) a transformation in which the origin of the coordinate system is moved to another position but the direction of each axis remains the same
5-(genetics) the process whereby genetic information coded in messenger RNA directs the formation of a specific protein at a ribosome in the cytoplasm
6-Rewording something in less technical terminology

etc etc.

words don't make scholars of linguists..
look at suret an-nazi'3at and (79) and how many different renditions to it by each translator!

Hugo - one could say the term as used by democritus - work out how many years before teh Qu'ran he coined the phrase. Here again you resort to Ad Hoc Rescue as its of no signifucance to the argument who uses the term. Since you are so keen to refer to Muslim scientists you might like to consider a biography called "Cosmic Anger Abdus Salam - The First Muslim Nobel Scientist" by Gordon Fraser (ISBN13: 9780199208463). This is a biography of Abdus Salam, the first Muslim to win a Nobel Prize for Science (Physics 1979), who was nevertheless excommunicated and branded as a heretic in his own country. Perhaps you will now do a little research and find out why he was excommunicated?

This is completely irrelevant to the topic, we've already discussed Demecritus in light of christianity, and one would think that christians had Greek ancestry and readily their work, rather you have no mention of their work during the dark ages as science is at odds with religion and the any opposition burnt as heretics.. So how can you make the comparison between Demetrius and Muslim scientists? Shouldn't the birth place of Demetrius continue on his traditions rather than be imitated and instilled in a book by Bedouins a desert and an ocean away?
Also although it is a complete digression on your part, Islamic science and scientists have existed long before Nobel prizes -- Prizes don't make scientists out of people .. there are a handful of Muslim Nobel winners for the same reasons there are a handful of Chinese scientists or are you also going to deny them achievement for politico/religious reasons? You want to talk nonsense, it is reaching in for your hat to conjure up completely unrelated topics to prove a moot point!

Hugo - the point was that the word atom and weight are used many times and alsmost always the meaning of the verse is clear and wild speculation about it being God hiding scientific secrets in the Qu'ran is to me nonsense.

Mithqal and zharra aren't the same word, zharra and khirdal aren't the same word, if it is nonsense to you, it is more a refusal to accept the obvious rather than the actuality of what is written and what it translates!

If this is the best you can do as proof regarding the point in question then we will never get far in this thread, you offer nothing but Ad Hoc Rescue areguments.

See paragraph one and the ones subsequent-- btw I really wish you'd stop inserting your responses into one huge quote, it has crashed my computer twice from the constant cuts and pastes and conforming the words in a non italicized manner which doesn't seem to straighten that I had to send this to myself in an email as to not lose content.. try putting quotes around the paragraphs you wish to reply to using this

...by Muslims. No other religion considers it divine.

What does this mean? that Muslims don't consider other religions divine, or that non-Muslims don't consider Islam to be divine in origin? and either circumstance what does it matter?

No, I'm comparing what is (in my opinion) a piece of good literature to a another piece of good literature.

We have set the criteria for you with which to compare literature based on content.. if you can't follow guidelines, then don't waste your time and mine!

I'm sorry, but I'm yet to be conviced. The Quran is free of error, contradictions and relevant, as is Harry Potter. Just because a book contains such qualities, it does not mean that the only logical conclusion is that it is the work of God- merely that it is a good literary achievement.

Go ahead then and point out the contradictions instead of concocting cockamamie analogies from which no one is amused apparently except you!

all the best