Greetings Eliphaz,
You will have to excuse yet another long post (see the note at the end).
It puzzles me how this thread is about whether the Qur’an is from God, and yet people are constantly mentioning the Bible and how it is so rubbish? What is that? A knee-jerk reaction of ‘well if you think the Qur’an is bad, you should check out your Bible… so there’?
I don't really know where the Qur'an vs Bible discussion popped out from... though there does seem to be a bit of that creeping into our dialogue after you made the allegation about the Qur'an being copied from the Bible.
As they say, ignorance is bliss. How I wish I could go back to not understanding it and purely enjoying it based on the sound of recitation. (By the way, the same could be said for recitations in any religion or culture from the chants of the Buddhists to those of the Hindus.)
Firstly, you've admitted that the beauty of the Qur'an's style can be appreciated by anyone, so that's that cleared up.
Regarding the point about other religious recitations, adherents of those religions probably do claim their recitations are peaceful etc. I've even heard a couple of them myself. But from what I know about the Qur'an and what I've seen from other religions, it is very clear that they are incomparable. Some religions use music to accompany the recital of their scripture, while others involve the repetition of just a few words over and over again. Yet the Qur'an does not need any such accompaniment as if it is some kind of entertainment, nor is it a meaningless melody that is repeated in some kind of mystical way. Rather it is a clear message of truth that is upright and captivating, free from any blemish or shortcoming.
The Qur'an is much more than mere chanting, rather there is a whole science dedicated to its correct recitation such that every letter has rights and dues of characteristics. As someone on a blog put it,
"the pronunciation of letters, the degrees in tones, nasalization and the different qualities are so well documented in Arabic that the script comes together as a well-defined, well-oiled machine." In this way, anyone who has studied the Qur'an will quickly see how profound and unique it is.
Moreover, speaking of the sound of the Qur’an, the effect that the Qur'an has on its listeners is another aspect of its miraculous nature. The effect it had on various unbelievers at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is sufficient to appreciate this fact - people such as Jubayr ibn Mut'im, al-Waleed ibn Mugheerah and others. Just by hearing the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) recite Surah At-Toor in the Maghrib Prayer, Jubayr became a Muslim! The Qur'an itself discusses the effect it has on its listeners, both disbelievers and believers. As for the believers, it increases them in faith as well as their fear of Allaah (swt), such that it is very common for a reciter of the Qur'an to become emotional and be reduced to tears.
Allah has sent down the Best Statement, a Book (this Qur'an), its parts resembling each other (in goodness and truth) (and) oft-repeated. The skins of those who fear their Lord shiver from it (when they recite it or hear it). Then their skin and their heart soften to the remembrance of Allah. That is the guidance of Allah. He Guides therewith whom He wills; and whomever Allah sends astray, for him there is no guide. [Az-Zumar: 23]
No other book has such a powerful effect on its listeners, and the Qur’anic recitation is far above any other.
Moving on to the third point - earlier you complained that the Qur'an is inaccessible yet now you openly prefer ignorance to knowledge. You also changed the subject from the language and style of the Qur'an to the actual message of the Qur'an (which you've attacked). But the issues you have with its message seem to have been mentioned later, so I will leave that for now.
I don’t see how the alternative attempt you quoted is any more sophisticated than the one about the elephant and the long trunk. I think Musaylimah is a convincing straw-man for the ‘can’t produce a single surah’ argument.
You are right that both of them were unsophisticated, which was the main point - I was only posting the full story of Musaylimah and pointing out his version. But far from being a straw-man, Musaylimah is an example of how anyone trying to imitate the Qur'an is guaranteed to be met with a wretched failure.
It was not a desperate attempt but a logical explanation of how the stories could have got there other than God planting them in Muhammad’s head.
The explanations you have given are very far from logical and I hope it will become apparent below that the only logical conclusion is that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) received revelation from Allaah (swt).
(Note that many of the points overlap, and therefore parts of some also apply to others etc.)
Before going any further, let’s summarise the main arguments you have presented regarding the stories in the Qur’an:
1. The stories are so simple that they would be easy to copy without needing tuition
2. The stories are so simple that they would be easy to make up
3. Tuition was received from somewhere
4. Any differences between Qur’anic and Biblical narratives are because stories had to be modified to “fit” the Qur’anic message
Now, all of these cannot be true at the same time. For example, either the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was taught by Christians/Jews or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t, then no matter how simple a story might be, there is no way to explain how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to know of it without being able to access, let alone read, an Arabic Bible himself. (According to the research presented
here, there was no Arabic Gospel which existed at that time, and it was only until much later until it did!)
So you need to be very clear on what theory you believe and then it would be a lot easier to focus on that. At the moment, it seems you are throwing in random theories that contradict each other.
The other obvious issue that arises from looking at your list of arguments is, if some stories were made up, others somehow copied, others modified, over a long period of time, perhaps after seeking help from a number of different individuals scattered in different regions, the chance that someone could produce something as harmonious, consistent and eloquent as the Qur’an is very little. Rather it would have been incoherent, contradictory and inconsistent. And as we are not talking about a prized poet of Makkah but rather an illiterate man, the chances are even smaller. So again you need to think about your theories more carefully.
Moving on to some specific claims:
The stories of the Prophets, which are the main thing borrowed from the OT (I will be checking out the story of Yusuf in more depth) are so simple they could have been lifted, stripped down and modified without any need for tuition under a Christian or Jewish scholar.
To compile the stories of the Prophets would be nowhere near as simple as you claim - perhaps you are not very familiar with the Qur'an. These stories are repeated in different ways throughout the Qur'an, mentioned in varying levels of detail and would be revealed at different times.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said, commenting on the repetition of the story of Moosa and his people:
Allaah mentions this story in several places in the Qur'aan, and in every place He highlights a different idea and conclusion, just as Allaah, His Messenger and His Book are called by different names, each name indicating a meaning that is not indicated by another name. There is no repetition in that, rather it is a kind of diversity, like the names of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as he is called Muhammad, Ahmad, al-Haashir, al-‘Aaqib, al-Muqaffa, the Prophet of Mercy, the Prophet of Repentance, and each name points to a meaning that is not indicated by any other name; the person is the same but the attributes are numerous...
The same applies to sentences that are complete in meaning. The story is told in one way that highlights one point, then it is told in another way which highlights a different point. The story is the same story, but its details are numerous, and every sentence conveys a meaning that is not indicated by other sentences.
For someone to compile all of this in such a skilful and meaningful way, without any discrepancies between the different narratives that were revealed at different times, it would clearly require a lot of time and effort to say the least. It would have been difficult enough for a literate person, what then the case for one illiterate! So with neither tuition, nor the ability, nor even an Arabic Bible available, this first suggestion of yours has no legs to stand on. And even if one claims he did have tuition, then the above point about producing something so consistent and eloquent would still apply. But we shall focus on the issue of tuition later.
This was before he actually became a Prophet and Islam was revealed. Please don’t insult our knowledge of the history of the Prophet. Their regard for him was based on a ‘gut feeling’ and I’m pretty sure shortly after that one of them dies and either way neither figures in the biography of the Prophet much after that.
I am aware that Waraqah bin Nawfal and Bahira the monk met the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) either before he became a Prophet or, in the case of Waraqah, in the early stages of prophethood, yet the point I was making was that they did not teach him their scriptures. Waraqa's attitude toward the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when the latter received the first revelation is very noteworthy as being further evidence that the Qur'an could not have been copied from the Bible and that it was a revelation from God. And it wasn't only his reaction but that of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) himself and his wife Khadeejah. This point is mentioned in more detail in the following post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/194052-post32.html
The reasons the Qur’anic versions of the Biblical stories are different could be many reasons other than Divine Inspiration. They needed to be updated to ‘fit’ the Qur’anic message that all these Prophets are somehow connected: ergo, Jesus is lifted up before he gets crucified, no-one ever drinks, Isaac is changed to Ishmael, Lot never sleeps with his daughters. Have you ever wondered why the story of Moses is mentioned in so much depth and detail compared to any other Prophet? What about Jesus? We never learn little of him beyond the virgin birth in Surah Al Imran. To me there is a big inconsistency there.
A key concept that you have failed to understand is the Islamic belief that the original Gospel and Tawrah were also revelations from Allaah (swt), but they became corrupted by people over time. Therefore, the Qur'an came to correct the message that had been distorted, and is the most encompassing, glorious and perfect of them all, containing all of their good and more. This is important to understand because,
"similarity between any two compositions or books does not in itself constitute sufficient evidence that one was copied from the other, or the latter from the earlier one. Both of them could be based on a common third source. This is precisely the argument of the Qur'ân. There are certain portions of the Bible that might have remained intact and if God is the source of both revelations that should explain the existence of parallels."
So just because some stories are similar does not allow one to immediately force the conclusion that the Qur'an is the result of plagiarism. Otherwise, one can use this same fallacious argument against the Bible and say it borrowed from earlier sources wherever there are parallels.
The large number of differences between Qur'anic and Biblical narratives and how they were viewed by the people of that time all goes against the claim that stories were borrowed then modified. Besides the fact that there's no evidence presented for this claim, its error can also be seen from the following examples:
There are also major variations in the stories of Abraham, Ishmael and Issac, Lot, Moses and Jesus(P). The idea that the Qur'ân has largely borrowed from the Bible is certainly erroneous. Infact even those scholars who postulate the borrowing theory like Phillip Hitti hasten to add that:
...the resemblences do not warrant the conclusion of borrowing or quoting.
or that he was not a slavish imitator[23]. The implication is that Muhammad(P) had thoroughly grasped and internalised the Bible, excessively edited it and then recast it in his own words. Richard Bell, however, who is at pains to prove the direct dependence of Muhammad(P) on the Bible also insists that he was not working on any real acquaintance with the Bible itself.[24]
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBparallel.html
Variations in such famous stories would have been easy to refute by those well-versed in history if they had been made up, yet the truth was evident.
Another example is that the knowledgeable among the Jews and Christians learning of the Qur’an would have known whether some of its details were true or not because they had hid the truth from their own scriptures. Using the example of Isaac and Ishmael:
...Ibn Ishaq reported from Buraydah bin Sufyan bin Farwah Al-Aslami that Muhammad bin Ka`b Al-Qurazi told them that he mentioned that to `Umar bin `Abd Al-`Aziz, may Allah be pleased with him, when he was Khalifah, while he was with him in Syria. `Umar said to him, "This is something about which I have never given any thought, but I see that it is as you say.'' Then he sent for a man who was with him in Syria, a Jew who had become a Muslim and was committed to Islam, and he thought that he had been one of their scholars. `Umar bin `Abd Al-`Aziz, may Allah be pleased with him, asked him about that. Muhammad bin Ka`b said, "I was with `Umar bin `Abd Al-`Aziz. `Umar said to him, `Which of the two sons of Ibrahim was he commanded to sacrifice' He said, `Isma`il. By Allah, O Commander of the faithful, the Jews know this, but they were jealous of you Arabs because it was your father about whom Allah issued this command and the virtue that Allah mentioned was because of his patience in obeying the command. So they denied that and claimed that it was Ishaq, because he is their father.'''
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=37&tid=44305
Not only this, but in some cases they were better informed about certain stories and hence they used this to test the truth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as I have already mentioned in an earlier post:
Ibn `Abbas said: "The Quraysh sent An-Nadr bin Al-Harith and `Uqbah bin Abi Mu`it to the Jewish rabbis in Al-Madinah, and told them: `Ask them (the rabbis) about Muhammad, and describe him to them, and tell them what he is saying. They are the people of the first Book, and they have more knowledge of the Prophets than we do.' So they set out and when they reached Al-Madinah, they asked the Jewish rabbis about the Messenger of Allah . They described him to them and told them some of what he had said. They said, `You are the people of the Tawrah and we have come to you so that you can tell us about this companion of ours.' They (the rabbis) said, `Ask him about three things which we will tell you to ask, and if he answers them then he is a Prophet who has been sent (by Allah); if he does not, then he is saying things that are not true, in which case how you will deal with him will be up to you. Ask him about some young men in ancient times, what was their story For theirs is a strange and wondrous tale. Ask him about a man who travelled a great deal and reached the east and the west of the earth. What was his story And ask him about the Ruh (soul or spirit) -- what is it If he tells you about these things, then he is a Prophet, so follow him, but if he does not tell you, then he is a man who is making things up, so deal with him as you see fit.' So An-Nadr and `Uqbah left and came back to the Quraysh, and said: `O people of Quraysh, we have come to you with a decisive solution which will put an end to the problem between you and Muhammad. The Jewish rabbis told us to ask him about some matters,' and they told the Quraysh what they were. Then they came to the Messenger of Allah and said, `O Muhammad, tell us,' and they asked him about the things they had been told to ask. The Messenger of Allah said, (I will tell you tomorrow about what you have asked me.) but he did not say `If Allah wills.' So they went away, and the Messenger of Allah stayed for fifteen days without any revelation from Allah concerning that, and Jibril, peace be upon him, did not come to him either. The people of Makkah started to doubt him, and said, `Muhammad promised to tell us the next day, and now fifteen days have gone by and he has not told us anything in response to the questions we asked.' The Messenger of Allah felt sad because of the delay in revelation, and was grieved by what the people of Makkah were saying about him. Then Jibril came to him from Allah with the Surah about the companions of Al-Kahf, which also contained a rebuke for feeling sad about the idolators. The Surah also told him about the things they had asked him about, the young men and the traveler. The question about the Ruh was answered in the Ayah; (And they ask you concerning the Ruh (the spirit); say: "The Ruh...'') [17:85].
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=18&tid=29908
This is a very clear evidence that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was truthful, as he could not have known what questions were going to be asked of him and hence had no way of knowing about these stories prior to being asked.
So the truth presented in the Qur’an both in its narratives and the purity of its teachings (e.g. the itegrity of prophets) make it clear that it is indeed a revelation from Allaah (swt). Had it been derived from other scriptures, it would also have contained some of their mistakes and it would have been apparent that it was not a true revelation and Jews and Christians themselves would not have accepted its truth.
To finish with this point, you mentioned something about the stories of Moses and Jesus. The story of Moses is indeed mentioned in great detail - this in itself is an indication of the truth of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) for if he were to author the Qur'an himself, one would expect him to write more about his own life. Jesus' story is also mentioned in quite a bit of detail (more than just his virgin birth as you claimed) - it begins from before the birth of his mother and mentions her upbringing and dedication, Jesus' own birth and the miracles that he brought to his people, his conversations with his disciples as well as the story of the table from heaven, accusations raised by the Jews and how he was not crucified, etc. Your lack of knowledge about the Qur'an is becoming more evident, so I would advise you to read it properly before passing judgements on it.
The stories of ‘Ad and Thamud are so unremarkable, and are almost identical in composition that the fact that they were unheard of does not mean that they couldn’t be made up. Even a small child who was illiterate could invent such stories. It is simply a case of ‘Man comes to village, man warns village, no-one listens, man leaves village, God destroys village with stones/blast/earthquake/take your pick.’
I would think previous nations being destroyed by violent winds, strong earthquakes and overwhelming shouts are very remarkable stories indeed for anyone hearing about them. Moreover, the conciseness with which a story is told does not mean it is unremarkable, rather if someone can narrate a valuable lesson in few words, that itself is a remarkable thing. This is in contrast to other books that are filled with irrelevant historical details that are of no concern to anyone, such as the long lists of names and numbers of people listed in many chapters. Furthermore, as mentioned above, these stories are repeated in different ways, some of them going into much more detail and thus their composition varies greatly as anyone who has read the Qur'an would know.
Furthermore, there are many other things in the Qur’an that are not mentioned in the Bible:
... The borrowing theory is further weakened by the presence in the Qur'ân of stories or details which are absent in the Bible. The stories of the people of Ad and Thamud and their prophets Hud and Saleh(P) are not mentioned in the Bible. Some of the Qur'ânic details which have no parallels in the Bible include the dialogue which Prophet Noah(P) had with his son before the deluge, the dialogue between Abraham(P) and his father and between Abraham(P) and the tyrannical ruler (Nimrod). The miraculous escape of Abraham(P) from the fire and the miracle of resurrection he was shown from God when he brought back to life dead birds. Moses'(P) slaughter of the cow inorder to bring back to life a murdered man who revealed his killer, is absent from the Bible and so is the long dialogue betwen Moses(P) and the Israelites on what kind animal should be slaughtered. Also absent in the Bible are Jesus'(P) miraculous speech in the cradle and his fashioning out of clay a similitude of a bird and Mary's(P) miraculous sustenance from God.
If you don't believe in these stories, that's a different issue, but there's no need to resort to silly remarks to support your argument. As for the claim that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was a liar, see later. But one question that comes to mind here is, if he made up so many things, why did he have to resort to borrowing for the rest?
I didn’t comment on the earlier argument about the Jews because it was even less convincing.
Yet you offer no explanation as to what makes it so non-convincing. The fact that the Qur'an contains many verses which narrate the secrets of the knowledge that the Jews possessed - which they hid, and the stories of their earlier generations, and mentions the texts in the Books of the Jews that are known to only the rabbis and scholars, and the sections where they altered and distorted the rulings of the Tawrah... this is ample evidence of the truth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) as he had no way of knowing this information.
I have already discussed that he travelled extensively to the north as part of trade with his uncle Abu Talib since his teenage years, and that there were many Christian and Jewish tribes in these areas. Also, you already mentioned Bahira and Waraqah. He also visited Medina prior to Hijra, for example during the funeral of his mother at Abwa when he was six, and I’m pretty sure he would have gone there at least several more times between age six and Hijra.
Here we come to the specific issue of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) being taught by Jews/Christians. This mention of, “I’m pretty sure he would have gone there…” is mere conjecture and if you make a claim, the burden is upon you to back it up with concrete historical facts, or else anyone can say anything based upon what they’re “pretty sure” of.
There are many problems with this theory - some of which I've already mentioned and more below:
… The assertion of Judeo-Christian borrowing raises a number of questions. Jamal Badawi puts forward the following six questions:
1. Why is it in spite of the abundance of historical material on Muhammad(P)'s life, and in spite of the extensive research on his life for centuries by his severe critics, that it was not possible to discover the mysterious teacher(s) through whom Muhammad(P) might have learned all that?
2. It is known that Muhammad(P) was opposed, ridiculed and persecuted for nearly 13 years by his own contemporaries. With this magnitude of severe enemies, was it not possible for them to prove to the masses that Muhammad(P)'s claim of revelation was sheer fabrication? Was it not possible for them to reveal and name the person whom they alleged to be the human source or sources of his teachings? Even some of his adversaries who had made this assertion, changed their minds later on and accused him, instead, of magic or being possessed by evil... etc.
3. Muhammad(P) was raised among his people and every aspect of his life was exposed to them, especially by the openness that characterises tribal life in the desert. How could the multitudes of his contemporaries, including many of his close relatives who knew him so well, how could they believe in his truthfulness if they had any doubt that he was claiming credit for ideas taught to him by some other teachers without bothering to give them credit ?
4. What kind of teacher might have taught Muhammad(P) a coherent and complete religion that changed the face of history? Why didn't he or they (if any) speak against the alleged student who continued learning from them, while ignoring them and claiming some other divine source for his teachings?
5. How could many Jews and Christians amongst his contemporaries become Muslims and believe in his truthfulness if they knew he was copying from their scriptures or learning from their priests or rabbis?
6. It is known that some of the Qur'ânic revelations to Muhammad(P) in the presence of people. The Qur'ân was revealed over the span of 23 years, where then that was mysterious, perhaps invisible teacher of Muhammad(P)? How could he have hidden himself for so long? Or how could Muhammad(P) who was constantly surrounded by companions, how was he able to make frequent secret visits to that mysterious teacher or teachers for 23 years without even being caught once?
Regarding the stories of the Qur’an and therefore its authorship in general, the main argument that you have presented is the borrowing theory. This implies that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was fabricating and plagiarizing material and thus deceived the people by claiming to have received divine inspiration. This is at the heart of the argument and deserves to be dealt with in detail.
In reality there are only three possibilities with regards to the authorship of the Qur'an: either the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was a liar, or he was deluded, or he was truthful in saying he received revelation from Allaah (swt). When we examine each of these, the only rational position is that he was indeed truthful. The argument you've chosen is that he was a liar, and you can read a previous discussion about this, showing many reasons why it could not be so:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/7938-problem-evil-temp-split-teog-thread-2.html (read the last couple of points in each post)
Another post here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/193795-post26.html
If you want more arguments against the theory of borrowing, please read the links here (I’ve already referred to some of them above):
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Bibindex.html#Imply
Another post here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/1541-borrowing-theories.html
It is not that it isn’t given to the exact moment, it is that it is not even given to the exact decade. Okay, for the sake of argument, I’m going to make a prediction right now: In between 3 and 9 years, America will withdraw from Iraq. If it comes true, then would I be a Prophet?
In saying this, you are ignoring a number of things. Firstly, it
is given to the exact decade as the prediction has a clear time limit of nine years. Secondly, you ignore the historical context where the victory of the Romans was very unlikely – clearly you did not read the link I gave you earlier:
…The history is remarkable, for the reason that by the time of Muhammad, Rome was an empire in decay. The period of 395-476 CE is described in scholastic works as the fall of the Western Empire. Alaric, chief of the Visigoths, led the army which sacked Rome in August, 410 CE. Gaiseric, king of the Vandals and the Alani, sacked Rome in the summer of 455 CE. Attila the Hun overran the area in the mid-400's, and the last emperor of the intact and undivided Roman empire was deposed in the late 5th century. So a prediction which surfaced nearly two centruies later, stating that the already disintegrating Roman empire would gain a victory over the huge and seemingly superior Persian army, would have seemed rash on a human level. And so it appears to have been judged by those who denied the revelation - men such as Ubay Ibn Khalf…
http://www.islamicboard.com/566482-post2.html
As for your so-called prediction, it can hardly be called such, considering President Obama’s promise of withdrawal in much less than nine years! Moreover, we are only dealing with one aspect of the Qur’an here – I never said that making a prediction about the future would be sufficient proof for prophethood.
Lastly, as you didn’t read the link, you probably missed another interesting point about the Qur’anic prediction:
An odd prediction in completion of the above prophecy is the final line, "And on that Day, the believers (i.e., Muslims) will rejoice." In the absence of microwave and satellite relays, radios, CNN, etc., news of such events took days to weeks, sometimes even months (if weather forbade travel) to achieve transmission. How, then, could the prediction that the Muslims would be rejoicing on the very day the Persians were defeated be made with such confidence? Yet, such was precisely the case, for the predicted defeat of the Persians occurred on the exact same day that the Muslims celebrated their own victory over the disbelievers at the Battle of Badr. Worldly coincidence or divine plan?
This is again a case of if it didn’t happen, then there would be no proof of the prediction having failed because the believers would not have survived the battle of Badr to have written the Qur’an down.
But that doesn’t take away from the fact that the prediction came true. Just as with the establishment of Islam as a ruling authority or the victory of the Romans – they could have gone wrong, but they didn’t. The fact is that each prediction came true consistently, despite the circumstances which made some, if not all of them very unlikely.
I am aware of Bucaille, but I wonder how many other western scientists have verified and written about the scientific miracles of the Qur’an. I will try to read the article when I get time, but again I feel that the ones we have dealt with are not ‘amazing’ enough to even warrant further investigation. The embryo, is, as I say, is the one thing warranting further research, but that is more a shortcoming of my own than anything else.
Look at some of the links I gave to Hugo:
Embryology:
http://www.islamicboard.com/443221-post70.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...ogy-quran.html (Embryology in the Qur'an)
http://www.quranicstudies.com/articl...mbryology.html
Ocean Phenomena:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...n-ocean-2.html (Qur'anic desciption of the Ocean)
Water Cycle:
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive...ng=E&id=134578
And there are others.
I admit, I don’t know enough about shariah because most Muslims never do have to know much about shariah considering it is mostly the declared domain of the scholars and jurists. I’m talking about how the khalifah descended into corruption, Muslim-on-Muslim violence - fitnah all over the place - and this was even before the four ‘rightly-guided’ caliphs were out of office. Muslims seem to think that having an Islamic State will get the world back on track, but one only needs to look at those tumultuous years, to see that shariah does not work. Furthermore, the issue of apostasy and the punishment thereafter, as discussed in other threads, is so loosely defined and flagrantly in contradiction of ‘no compulsion in religion’ it really takes away any level of credibility from shariah no matter what spin you put on it. Again, call me dumb but its all about mental gymnastics it seems.
Learning about Shariah is open to everyone who wants to. Muslims are actually encouraged to learn about Shariah as it is essentially learning about Islam. So the scholars and jurists are there to pass on this knowledge, not to conceal it.
Regarding the fitnah you mention, there will always be fitnah no matter what, yet the implementation of Shariah is not represented by the actions of some misguided Muslims. For example, if somebody commits murder, that does not mean that the law of the land is to blame, rather it is the individual who has not acted according to that law. What you’ve done is to judge the Shariah based upon people that don’t represent it, instead of actually studying it for yourself and looking at the people implementing it. You’ve overlooked all the success and goodness that the Muslims attained by applying the Shariah and diverted your attention to difficulties caused by other things. Moreover, you have not provided any example of how it does not work and of course you cannot until you've studied what Shariah actually is.
The issue of apostasy is very clear. As you admit that your knowledge of the Shariah is not sufficient, it’s not possible for you to make such conclusions about the “credibility” of Shariah. Here are some links to help you on the issue:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/4738-islam-apostasy.html
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=816§ion=wel_islam&subsection=Misconceptions
If by searching you mean performing mental gymnastics in order to convince oneself that something is from God, then yes.
It’s not about “mental gymnastics”. If you already have an opinion about something that prevents you from accepting its truth, then you need to go back and question your intentions.
I agree you cannot always carry out something just because there is an incentive – the incentive has to be good (I recommend you read Freakonomics if you haven’t already). I think that intercession is a strong enough incentive that one will do it. By memorising the Qur’an the parents can also brag that their son is a hafiz, and of course there is that weak hadith that family members can get fast-tracked to Heaven with their hafiz sons/daughters, so to me that is a pretty good incentive.
It doesn’t matter how good the incentive is, incentive only encourages people to do something, it doesn’t guarantee they will accomplish it. If this was solely about reward, I have already mentioned that there are ample ways in Islam to reap huge rewards. If the Qur’an was just like any other book, it wouldn’t be memorised so readily.
If the Church offered a good enough incentive to memorise the Bible cover to cover in its original language, or the Jews were to memorise their Torah for the same, do you really think many millions of them across the world could achieve this feat, including young children and the elderly? What about the people who wouldn’t really need a strong incentive like their scholars, priests and rabbis – how many of them have memorized the scriptures in the original language?
The fact is that no other nation was given the blessing of being able to memorise its holy scripture. Every Muslim knows by experience the ease with which the Qur’an is memorised. In contrast, an attempt to memorise a passage out of another work is very difficult – the meaning may be put to memory, but the actual words and sentences are far more harder to retain.
Perhaps you can try it for yourself and memorise a page of the Qur’an and a page of another book… you can come back and tell us the results!
Peace.
P.S. As some of our points have become quite detailed and the discussion is growing rapidly, I would suggest that we either focus on one issue at a time or we deal with them in separate posts, particularly the issue of the authorship of the Qur'an which spans several points.
