Greetings Eliphaz,
Apologies for the delay in getting back.
No problem... it can be difficult keeping up with large discussions like this.
I agree wholeheartedly that we need to spit up the discussion into its respective topics. I think we really have four ‘proof’ areas: stories of the prophets, historic predictions, scientific agreement and irreproducibility of the Qur’an. If it is okay with you I think we can drop the issue of the Qur’an’s beautiful-sounding recitation, which is clearly a subjective argument and is neither here nor there as far as divine origin is concerned.
It is incorrect to say we have only "four proof areas" because earlier I gave a list of 13 miraculous facets of the Qur'an, none of which have been rebutted. If we are focusing on just a few for the sake of ease, that's different.
As for the euphonious quality of the Qur'an, it is also unacceptable to brush it aside as being merely subjective, because it is something very easy to appreciate even for non-Arabs and non-Muslims, as their accounts clearly illustrate. There are also the accounts of the tremendous effect on the community in which the Qur'an was revealed. Moreover, both you and Hugo are repeatedly making the mistake of singling one facet out as proof for divine origin, when in reality the miraculous nature of the Qur'an is not by any one of its unique facets only but rather all of them in combination, as I said at the outset.
As the last one is the only one the Qur’an itself proclaims as its own self-evidence, (which of course is a circular logic) but I just want to say something about that one first.
It isn't a matter of self-evidence, rather it is a challenge that has been unmet and therefore serves as a real evidence.
It seems that in relying on accounts from the 7th century we are forced to deal with such weak villains as Musalymah. But you have argued the he is not a straw-man before pretty much defining him as such, by saying that his ‘unsophisticated’ attempt is ‘example of how anyone trying to imitate the Qur'an is guaranteed to be met with a wretched failure.’
From Wikipedia:
I think it is pretty much conclusive that Musalymah is a straw man. His lyrics about elephants and wabrs are perfectly ridiculous enough to be knocked down by even the most simple-minded of people, and one can’t help but feel that was the reason they were recorded. If there is any definition of a straw-man then Musalymah fits it, as do many other Makkans fit typical two-dimensional roles in the story of the Prophet where they either miraculously convert or spectacularly shoot an intellectual own goal.
I'm afraid I still do not see how the example of Musaylimah is a strawman. If I understand correctly, for him to be a strawman, one would have to establish that he didn't exist. Or, from the definition you quoted from Wikipedia, I would have to misrepresent your argument or the original position, which I don't recall having done. But simply because Musaylimah's attempt looks ridiculous does not mean his example is an invalid one.
Furthermore, Musaylimah lived amongst the people who were the most proficient in language, therefore the time period should produce the strongest opponents. Although his lyrics might seem silly, looking at the Arabic might help to demonstrate what he was doing. His attempt was clearly modelled after the opening verses of
Sûrah al-Qâri`ah or
Sûrah al-Hâqqah. Yet, his superficial imitation was not even convincing to the idol worshipper of that time.
The fact of the matter is that if anyone succeeded in meeting the Qur'an's challenge, surely their attempt would have been publicised instantly, no? The Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) contemporaries were severe enemies who spared no effort in trying to stop him from completing his mission. Bearing this in mind, the argument that there was some kind of historical bias does not hold.
Lastly, let us not forget that Musaylimah is only an example being used here. Whether you accept him or not has little bearing on this issue. The fact that the Qur'an is inimitable is very evident for all to see.
The famous Arabist from University of Oxford, Hamilton Gibb was open upon about the style of the Qur'an. In his words:
...the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle, and with remarkable boldness and self confidence Mohammad appealed as a supreme confirmation of his mission to the Koran itself. Like all Arabs they were the connoisseurs of language and rhetoric. Well, then if the Koran were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not), then let them accept the Koran as an outstanding evident miracle.[8]
And in some other place, talking about the Prophet(P) and the Qur'an, he states:
Though, to be sure, the question of the literary merit is one not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of Arabic language; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep-toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammad did.[9]
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ijaz.html
Secondly, on to the more serious discussion of Prophetic stories and how they got there, I agree that the theories cannot all be true for a given case. But that does mean that none of them are true. It is simply a case of probability, as we have no records other than what the very limited information on the Prophet’s early life tells us. Point 2 was only intended for the ‘new’ stories of ‘Ad, Thamud and ‘Iram. I agree that it was more difficult for the stories of say, Moses to be made up.
But the problem with your argument is that the probability becomes more and more insignificant the more we examine the facts. Regarding the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) early life, the following sums it up quite well (from my previous post):
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 ?
So once we consider all the aspects, such as the truthfulness and integrity of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) well known to the very people who later opposed him, together with the unfeasibility of the borrowing theory as expanded earlier, it becomes impossible to come to any other conclusion than the Qur'an was divine in origin.
Regarding the remarkableness of the ‘Ad and Thamud stories, I guess this is more a matter of personal conviction, as I am sure many would find these stories, far from being inspirational or remarkable, to be harrowing examples of mass-murder.
It is far beyond personal conviction. The problem seems to be the manner in which you are approaching the Qur'an. The historical information stated in the Qur'an is not meant to teach history but is meant for much more than that. The stories found in the Qur'an contain very important lessons and admonitions. The essential aspect is not searching for the missing facts that are not mentioned in the Qur'an - what the Qur'an contains is sufficient. The essential aspect is to study what the Qur'an states and to understand what the lessons and messages of those stories are.
When Allaah (swt) punishes people, that is through His justice and wisdom. And in the punishment of the evil people that preceded us is a great example, proof and reminder for the rest of mankind.
And indeed We have destroyed towns (populations) round about you, and We have (repeatedly) shown (them) the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in various ways that they might return (to the truth and believe in the Oneness of Allah ـ Islamic Monotheism). [46:27]
Regarding the video by Abdul Raheem Green, I haven't watched it myself and I'm not really in a position to comment on it. But there was one area that overlapped with something I mentioned in my previous post, which was details that could not have been known by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)/not mentioned in the Bible. None of that has been commented on.
What it comes down to is this: Muhammad probably couldn’t read or write, but he didn’t have to. He probably didn’t study the Bible or Torah directly, but he didn’t have to. Coming from a story-telling tradition and mingling with Christian and Jewish traders during more than thirty years of trade in the Hijaz and further (if you deny he encountered these peoples before the Qur’an came you are ignoring historical facts), Muhammad just had to edit out the parts which didn’t make sense to him. As Green himself says (paraphrasing) 'all the accounts we have do not give us any information (as to how Muhammad found this information)'. All I can repeat is that old saying by Churchill: 'History is written by the victors.'
By repeating this, you have ignored all the arguments against this in my previous post. Moreover, it is contradictory. How could Muhammad (peace and blessings of Alaah be upon him) "edit out" anything when he couldn't read and write? To edit something, you first need to read and understand it, and then you need to write the new version. Although the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went on trade journeys, that is nowhere near sufficient evidence of being taught by Jews and Christians. If we say there was a certain period in his life during which he went on trade journeys, that doesn't mean he was on trade journeys the whole time. And as for the actual journeys, it seems he was often doing business for other people, hence he wouldn't be making much profit if all he was doing was mingling with Jews and Christians.
This is only the tip of the icerberg. There are countless other unanswered questions.
From what I've seen in your posts, it appears that you are very quick in jumping from one weak theory to another. There is no solid argument against the ones that have been presented, only conjecture that keeps changing. I would advise that you re-consider your stance on the Qur'an and Islam and study it with the proper approach. The only logical conclusion that can be arrived at in the end is that Islam is the truth and the Qur'an is the Book of Allaah (swt).
Peace.
Thank you. I am glad someone is not lumping me into the usual 'munafiq' or 'mushriq' categories for I am neither a hypocrite or a polytheist, nor am I one of the 'ahl al kitab'.