I first wish to say I feel that some posters are writing responses of copy-pasted text which are unnecessarily long, almost as a tactic of smoke-screening the issue. If we are so confident a particular source defeats a particular argument surely we should be able to edit it down into a form which adequately deals with an argument, or better still, put it into our own words?
Muhammad said:
During the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), there was a pride that was prevalent among the Arabs in that tribes would compete with each other to produce the most skilled and eloquent poet. As the miracles that were given to each prophet were chosen so that they would have the greatest impact on that particular nation, the Qur'an was revealed in an Arabic that was so emotive and eloquent that the Arabs could clearly see it was a miracle from their Creator and were unable to meet the challenge of bringing forth something similar.
Dear Muhammad, I deeply appreciate that you have taken real time and effort to explain the literary miracle of the Qur’an to us non-Arabic speakers and the finer points of your post were not lost on me. I also appreciate that Orientalists who have made their living from studying Arabic and Arabic-speaking non-Muslims can also appreciate the linguistic superiority of the Qur’an. If anything, this makes me bitterer towards the God of the Qur’an for giving us something so sweet yet so inaccessible! But nonetheless, 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, if only from a linguistic perspective.
What you said does not make sense, because the Makkan disbelievers did not acknowledge that the Qur'an came from Allaah, hence to them there would be no blasphemy involved. Moreover, there is a famous incident in which the person known as Musaylimah the liar did try to make up his own verses to imitate the Qur'an, yet his own fellow disbeliever at that time could tell how pathetic the attempt was.
Musaylimah’s attempts comes across more as mockery than a serious attempt:
"The elephant. What is the elephant? And who shall tell you what is the elephant? He has a ropy tail and a long trunk. This is a [mere] trifle of our Lord's creations."
But again, not speaking Arabic maybe I am missing the point, although perhaps that is my point.
Yet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had no tutorage from a monk or other Christian or Jew to know of this history, whether by written or oral means.
We know that he took part in extensive trade journeys to Syria from 590-610 AD, which was ruled by the Romans and there would have been many Arabic-speaking Christians in Syria at the time. We also know that there were several Jewish tribes scattered across the Hijaz with whom the Makkans traded, particularly in Yathrib/Medina. If you ask me, the stories of the Prophets are so simple that a single telling of them would allow one to remember them, and we know that the Arabs had a strong oral tradition and as a result, a good memory.
Then there are the predictions related to worldly events, such as the outcome of a battle that would occur between the Romans and the Persians, the victory in the Battle of Badr, the eventual conquest of Makkah, and the establishment of Islam as the ruling authority in the land.
As for the scientific facts, these include the description of the formation of human life, formation of milk, the notion of orbits for the planets, and the description of the water cycle. It should be remembered though, that the Qur'an is not meant to be a book primarily devoted to science and therefore references to such subjects are typically brief. But even in these limited descriptions, the Qur'an conforms to modern science and imparts knowledge that was unknown during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
I feel that given that recognition of the literary miracle is a result of birthright and/or extended study, the predictions of worldly events would be the best shot any book has of being God’s word, and if they were not so ambiguous or subjective I would be far more likely to give them some credence.
Persians defeating the Romans: "Alif, Lam, Mim. The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will be victorious within three to nine years. The affair is Allah's from beginning to end." (Qur'an, 30:1-4) I think the fact that it is said ‘three to nine years’ speaks for itself. Why would God need an upper and lower bound on any prediction when He has written all that will happen on a divine tablet?
Victory at Badr: The Qur’an nowhere gives a prediction of victory at Badr, it simply reflects on the victory which has already taken place:
“Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your gratitude." (Qur'an, 3:123–125)
Establishment of Islam as ruling authority of the Land: This is simply a case of if it hadn’t happened; we wouldn’t be here discussing the prediction, so it is a moot point.
Formation of human life: I am aware that this is the foremost claim made by Muslims of the Qur’an’s scientific merit. However, I, like most people, have not studied embryology in enough depth to begin to try and talk about this. Therefore to do so I believe would not only be a disservice to that topic but also to this discussion.
Formation of milk: There is one ayah dealing with this, barely a line long, and for me to say ‘between blood and dung’ is not describing the formation of milk unless you really want it to.
Orbits of planets: There is no mention of planets orbiting, only the sun and moon. Is it not curious that the earth’s orbit, the very planet we live on is not important enough to mention? The fact that the orbits of the sun and moon are mentioned in conjunction and that the ‘do not overtake one another’ implies that they are travelling on the same orbit when they are not.
Description of water cycle: The Qur’an describes most but not of all the water cycle, and in terms that any farmer could discover. The most crucial process, evaporation, is ignored entirely.
The beliefs in the Islamic creed distinctly stand out in their purity and appeal to human rationale. For example, Islamic 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 - allegations which Islam vehemently denies.
In my opinion, it doesn’t ‘vehemently deny’ them, it just doesn’t mention them. If you think of the OT as the first draft and the Qur’an as the second, it makes sense to omit certain aspects which people might find objectionable or contradictory to the Qur’an, for example, it is important that there was no mention of any of the previous Prophets drinking, considering the Qur’an claims they were all sending the same message.
Only because they are ignorant of it. If one examines the laws of Islam, from the laws governing personal hygiene, familial life and societal roles to financial transactions and political dealings, the perfection and benefit is apparent.
Not really. Only the all-encompassing nature of it is apparent. But don’t you see the difficulty in implementing Shariah and forming a single Caliphate, not just 1400 years after the beginning of Islam, but a mere generation after the death of the Prophet, as an indication that it doesn’t work? It is fine to say that it was revolutionary the time, (babies were being buried, women were property etc) but look at what happened after the death of the Prophet and it is clear to me that Shariah doesn’t work.
No other religious book can claim to be anywhere near as authentic as the Qur'an. If one studies how it was preserved, this will become more and more apparent.
I don’t deny that the Qur’an is the most authentic religious book, but given my opinion of religious books that is not saying a lot.
So if the Bible had a reward for memorising it, do you think it would be memorised like the Qur'an is?
Yes. If there was an incentive to do so, a mirage-like promise of entering Heaven purely based on a sincere memorisation of a book which one may or may not fully comprehend, then yes, I believe so. If only there was a way of proving this, but alas.
One only has to look at the volumes of exegesis on the Qur'an to appreciate this and just a little bit of study will open one's eyes to how deep and profound the Words of Allaah are. Meanings can be extracted from the smallest of things like the particular order of words in a sentence, or particular forms chosen over others, and the examples are endless. As for never tiring to read - just the opening chapter of the Qur'an is recited at least seventeen times a day by Muslims in prayer. The Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would complete the entire Qur'an in a week, and some less than this. Some scholars have been known to complete the Qur'an in just three days, and some even less than this. During the month of Ramadan the Qur'an is recited in its entirety by countless Muslims across the world. The attachment that believers have with the Qur'an is undescribable. I am sure you will agree that no other book has this level of sanctity in the hearts of its followers.
Reading the Qur’an whilst fasting is rewarded by intercession by the Qur’an, almost like a ‘get-into-Paradise-free card’. Of course people will do this, it is simply a matter of having the right incentives. To me the arguments of ‘X people memorise the Qur’an’, ‘people read the Qur’an X times in a year’ are all missing the point. If the Qur’an did not claim to offer a reward for these activities, namely, intercession, then it would not be read nearly as much, and therefore I do not see this as a valid argument of the Qur’an coming from God, just as proof that if you convince people with the right incentives they will do anything.
And by the way, you didn't comment on aspects 9 and 13!
Because I felt they were not worth commenting on.
Peace
