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

[Hugo]

As far as I know, there is a difference in different recitations of Quran and different dialects in which Quran was revealed. Quran was revealed in seven dialects, only one dialect survives: the Qureshi one. And this was done by Uthman (ra) to unite under the dialect of the Prophet himself. Different recitations that exist today have nothing to do with the dialects in which Quran was revealed. It seemed to me that Hugo is mixing the two.

I don't think so and you are right in that traditions say that over 20 companions attest that the Qu'ran was revealed in 7 dialects and it is supposed this was done to make it easier for those not familiar with Quraishi dialect. There were also cases where alternative wordings were available and one might cite the famous example in Sura al-fatiha where the 4th verses can be recited as malik (Owner) or malik (King) and both wording were taught it is said by the Prophet so in the Qu'ran there are, using Dr Al Azami's words, 'multiple readings' or of course you can say variant readings. (Sorry I cannot make on my keyboard an adequate transliteration here of both spellings of malik)

My point was that the actual compilation of the Qu'ran was not as simple and as straightforward as is often suggested and although one might argue it was well organised it was often a contentious affair.

 

[Khaldun]

Again, please refer to the book taqyeed al-ilm by Khateeb al Baghdaadi. If you really are honest about your questions and want an answer then you will be more then pleased.

 

[Abdul Qadir]

Again, please refer to the book taqyeed al-ilm by Khateeb al Baghdaadi. If you really are honest about your questions and want an answer then you will be more then pleased.

Where can i get this book?

 

[CosmicPathos]

I don't think so and you are right in that traditions say that over 20 companions attest that the Qu'ran was revealed in 7 dialects and it is supposed this was done to make it easier for those not familiar with Quraishi dialect. There were also cases where alternative wordings were available and one might cite the famous example in Sura al-fatiha where the 4th verses can be recited as malik (Owner) or malik (King) and both wording were taught it is said by the Prophet so in the Qu'ran there are, using Dr Al Azami's words, 'multiple readings' or of course you can say variant readings. (Sorry I cannot make on my keyboard an adequate transliteration here of both spellings of malik)

My point was that the actual compilation of the Qu'ran was not as simple and as straightforward as is often suggested and although one might argue it was well organised it was often a contentious affair.

I am not too sure how you came to that conclusion. The desire to meticulously work to preserve something does not mean it is hard to preserve it ... Secondly, whether it was a contentious affair or a rather simple one, that does not have a bearing on its preservation. Guess what, if someone is harder preserve, people will put in more effort to preserve. I can argue anyway I would like too

my biggest reason of believing in Quran's authenticity from a secular perspective is the chain of memorization. I have acquaintances whose ancestors and families been memorizing Quran generation after generation for centuries ... with written records, certificates.

God guides whom He wills.

 

[Hugo]

Again, please refer to the book taqyeed al-ilm by Khateeb al Baghdaadi. If you really are honest about your questions and want an answer then you will be more then pleased.

Thank you for the ref but if in this board all we do is tell someone the answer might be in a book then not much is going to happen is it. In this case can you be a bit more precise and give the ISBN number of an English translation that you are familiar with?

I don't quite know why you bring in this idea 'if you are honest..', are you accusing me of this heinous crime? But if there is any question over honesty it applies to every one, including you and nothing but an honest and practice outlook is acceptable is it? Can I ask you, do you think that every question about Islam can be answered in some absolute way because you may be confusing scepticism with dishonesty?

I wonder what you will do now if I suggest you read "The Origins of the Qu'ran' by Ibn Warraq (ISBN 9781573 92185) an excellent collection of essays by major Orientalist scholars because if you are really honest about wanting to know the truth then you will be more than pleased.

My practice is that if a book is recommended and I don't already have it then I try to get it and read it and so have at home books by authors and styles as diverse as Bernard Lewis and Ahmed ibn Naqib al-Misri. Is this you practice also?

 

[Hugo]

I cant believe that you think that anywhere the word AlKitab mentioned in the Quran it was referring to the Bible!! have you ever read Quran with its interpretations?? btw, you are just embarressing yourself by coming up with such pathetic refutations and keep insisting on them despite the explanations and corrections you received from people here. Not only that..but you are also embarrassing some knowledgeable Christian members here who know Quran more than you do.

As usual insults are not arguments are they - but I offer here something I read the other day. But this is a somewhat disingenuous answer although one must acknowledge there is a clear difference between 'People of the Book' and the book itself. However, Muslims are convinced that the Quran is absolutely unique and unparalleled but it can be argued that Quran challenge has already been met because it asserts that the revelation given to Moses is similar and equal to the Quran.

Now that the Truth has come to them from Us, they are saying: "Why is he (Muhammad) not given the like of what was given to Musa?" Have they not rejected that which was given to Musa before? They claim: "These (Torah and Qur'an) are the two works of sorcery complementing each other!" And they say: "We believe in neither." Ask them: "Bring a Book from Allah which is a better guide THAN THESE TWO, I will follow it, if what you say be true!" S. 28:48-49 Malik​

Muhammad challenges the unbelievers to bring a book which is not only a better guide than the Quran, but also better than the book of Moses!

[There are variant reading in Sura 28:48. However, most translators render the passage similarly to the above quoted translation by F. Malik, and Ibn Kathir also bases his comments on this version.]

This verse presumes that the book of Moses was available during Muhammad’s time, and equal to the Quran in terms of guidance. The Quran goes on to state that the previous scriptures are similar to it, being just*like it. Note the structure of the argument: assuming the divine origin of the Torah, the author of the Quran argues that because the Quran is "like the Torah", therefore it is of divine origin as well. In this context at least, the Quran seeks to derive its authority from the authority of the Torah. However, the relation of "being like it" is symmetric, i.e. "the Quran being like the Torah" implies also "the Torah being like the Quran". Thus, based on the testimony of the Quran itself, the Torah*is like it, and therefore meets the above quoted challenge "to bring something like it".

It is evident from the above citations that the author of the Quran believed that the Holy Bible, or at least the books of Moses, met the Quran’s challenge to produce something*like it. Yet if, as Muslims often claim, the book of Moses had been tampered with then how can a corrupted text BE LIKE THE QURAN seeing that it is no longer purely divine in origin? How can human additions match the so-called divinely inspired Quranic text? Are we to assume that the author of the Quran was asserting that a corrupted text claiming to be the book of Moses was of equal value as the Quran? Obviously not, which logically means that:

1. The Quran presumes that the previous Scriptures existed in a pure form during Muhammad’s time. Furthermore, the Torah had to be readily available for comparison with the Quran and with those hypothetical competitors, should somebody take up the challenge "to bring a book better than these two". Neither the argument for the Quran based on its similarity to the Torah (S. 46:10) nor the challenge to bring a book better than the Torah (S. 28:49) would make any sense if the Torah is not available to actually perform the necessary comparison.

The Quran makes the statement that the Torah (as it was readily available at Muhammad's time) is equal to the Quran in value of guidance and "is like it". If Muslims want to maintain their charge that the Torah was corrupted, i.e. its text being "human" and uninspired, then this implies that the Quran is no better than a human product. This would be an absurd conclusion. Thus, the obvious assumption behind the formulations found in the Quran verses is that*the Torah is in its entirety of divine origin, and the Quran is as well. The Quran neither states that the Torah was corrupted before the time of Muhammad, nor does it contain any warning or prophecy that such a corruption would happen in the future. It assumes and endorses the authority of the Torah without any reservations.

Those Muslims who despite all the evidence to the contrary still insist that the Quran teaches the corruption of the earlier scriptures, will have to face another dilemma:

1. If you accept the Quran's verdict that the Torah is like it (S. 28:49, 46:10), then the challenge was met before it was issued. The assumption of a corrupted Torah would result in an internal*contradiction in the Quran: According to the above quoted passages, S. 2:24 and 17:88, the author of the Quran claims it is impossible for men (and jinn) to bring anything that is "like it". If, however, the Torah of Muhammad's time and ours is not the original divinely inspired text but the product of*human*efforts of change and corruption, and the Quran still says that "it is like it" (S. 46:10), then this becomes a plain contradiction.

2. If you reject this statement of the Qur'an regarding the Torah being like it. Why then would you believe the Qur'an to be from God if you reject what it says about anything as being wrong?

 

[جوري]

I don't quite know why you bring in this idea 'if you are honest..', are you accusing me of this heinous crime? But if there is any question over honesty it applies to every one, including you and nothing but an honest and practice outlook is acceptable is it? Can I ask you, do you think that every question about Islam can be answered in some absolute way because you may be confusing scepticism with dishonesty?

I think what you stand accused of is repetition.. your posts have been answered in full and yet you keep posting the same queries/commentaries over though it has been fully addressed (not in the same ridiculous style as our dear new apple member) but tiresome after a while nonetheless. One can only assume dishonesty for a few reasons:
1- You don't actually bother read the responses given you either out of disinterest or merely dismissing them for your point of view.
2- You have read them but so in love with what you have to say even if it has no basis in reality that you want it to always be front and center merely as a comment of your making rather than exchange for an actual debate.. surely after 23 pages anyone with enduring stamina will get tired of repeating themselves and I assume it is the reason you merely cut and paste your previous efforts in hopes someone will come up with something new where you can trap them in a mistake.. Thing is you can't because even if individuals make mistakes, the Quran doesn't!
you are allowed to have skepticism, I assume it is the reason you remain christian in spite of the overwhelming challenges facing Christianity but you can surely understand where your skepticism has no value.. anymore than the novice apple when he clearly mistranslates verses so that they are in concert with his ideology!

all the best to you!

 

[Khaldun]

My bad Hugo the book is in arabic, I thought since you started a debate regarding the Qur'aan you actually had a grasp of the language it was revealed in? Or maybe you are just like Apple here? Sounding just like that youtube video. The book is in arabic and I would suggest you read it.

Apple, I have memorised the Qur'aan and know it word by word and have studied from cover to cover many times so please rest assured that my knowledge with regards to the Qur'aan is not "little"

All the scholars in Islaam are in agrement that the word alKitaab refers to the Qur'aan. There is not even a discussion concerning this fact.

This is a message to all non muslims on this board, if you come to muslims and are curious about Islaam you are more then welcome and ask and question. But what most people here do is the opposite, it is not about innocent questions anymore. Rather to them it is an aim to refute Islaam this is shown by the fact that they disregard posts and just repeat the same thing over and over again.

Discussion is more then welcomed but please do not waste our time or your own.

 

[Danah]

As usual insults are not arguments are they

Yeah they are not! where did I mention any insult in my post? I was just commenting not "arguing".....I am enjoying reading through this thread as I see how "some" people insist in contradicting and repeating themselves, hence wasting time.

- but I offer here something I read the other day. But this is a somewhat disingenuous answer although one must acknowledge there is a clear difference between 'People of the Book' and the book itself. However, Muslims are convinced that the Quran is absolutely unique and unparalleled but it can be argued that Quran challenge has already been met because it asserts that the revelation given to Moses is similar and equal to the Quran.

Now that the Truth has come to them from Us, they are saying: "Why is he (Muhammad) not given the like of what was given to Musa?" Have they not rejected that which was given to Musa before? They claim: "These (Torah and Qur'an) are the two works of sorcery complementing each other!" And they say: "We believe in neither." Ask them: "Bring a Book from Allah which is a better guide THAN THESE TWO, I will follow it, if what you say be true!" S. 28:48-49 Malik​

Muhammad challenges the unbelievers to bring a book which is not only a better guide than the Quran, but also better than the book of Moses!

[There are variant reading in Sura 28:48. However, most translators render the passage similarly to the above quoted translation by F. Malik, and Ibn Kathir also bases his comments on this version.]

This verse presumes that the book of Moses was available during Muhammad’s time, and equal to the Quran in terms of guidance. The Quran goes on to state that the previous scriptures are similar to it, being just*like it. Note the structure of the argument: assuming the divine origin of the Torah, the author of the Quran argues that because the Quran is "like the Torah", therefore it is of divine origin as well. In this context at least, the Quran seeks to derive its authority from the authority of the Torah. However, the relation of "being like it" is symmetric, i.e. "the Quran being like the Torah" implies also "the Torah being like the Quran". Thus, based on the testimony of the Quran itself, the Torah*is like it, and therefore meets the above quoted challenge "to bring something like it".

It is evident from the above citations that the author of the Quran believed that the Holy Bible, or at least the books of Moses, met the Quran’s challenge to produce something*like it. Yet if, as Muslims often claim, the book of Moses had been tampered with then how can a corrupted text BE LIKE THE QURAN seeing that it is no longer purely divine in origin? How can human additions match the so-called divinely inspired Quranic text? Are we to assume that the author of the Quran was asserting that a corrupted text claiming to be the book of Moses was of equal value as the Quran? Obviously not, which logically means that:

1. The Quran presumes that the previous Scriptures existed in a pure form during Muhammad’s time. Furthermore, the Torah had to be readily available for comparison with the Quran and with those hypothetical competitors, should somebody take up the challenge "to bring a book better than these two". Neither the argument for the Quran based on its similarity to the Torah (S. 46:10) nor the challenge to bring a book better than the Torah (S. 28:49) would make any sense if the Torah is not available to actually perform the necessary comparison.

The Quran makes the statement that the Torah (as it was readily available at Muhammad's time) is equal to the Quran in value of guidance and "is like it". If Muslims want to maintain their charge that the Torah was corrupted, i.e. its text being "human" and uninspired, then this implies that the Quran is no better than a human product. This would be an absurd conclusion. Thus, the obvious assumption behind the formulations found in the Quran verses is that*the Torah is in its entirety of divine origin, and the Quran is as well. The Quran neither states that the Torah was corrupted before the time of Muhammad, nor does it contain any warning or prophecy that such a corruption would happen in the future. It assumes and endorses the authority of the Torah without any reservations.

Those Muslims who despite all the evidence to the contrary still insist that the Quran teaches the corruption of the earlier scriptures, will have to face another dilemma:

1. If you accept the Quran's verdict that the Torah is like it (S. 28:49, 46:10), then the challenge was met before it was issued. The assumption of a corrupted Torah would result in an internal*contradiction in the Quran: According to the above quoted passages, S. 2:24 and 17:88, the author of the Quran claims it is impossible for men (and jinn) to bring anything that is "like it". If, however, the Torah of Muhammad's time and ours is not the original divinely inspired text but the product of*human*efforts of change and corruption, and the Quran still says that "it is like it" (S. 46:10), then this becomes a plain contradiction.

2. If you reject this statement of the Qur'an regarding the Torah being like it. Why then would you believe the Qur'an to be from God if you reject what it says about anything as being wrong?

If you did a little neutral search on that "something you read the other day" you will find that the exact arguments you copied and pasted here has been already refuted in full details and you will not waste time in posting it again:

"Is the Torah like the Qur'an, or is it not?"

So there is no need to repeat things and waste my time.

 

[Hugo]

1- The scale should be the measure of books of its nature. i.e books that claim to be 'divinely-inspired' and their objective is the spiritual and everyday living that leads man on the right path! obviously when we run trials we do them with items of the same nature to see which yields a better outcome.

This makes no real sense to me as if we take you definitions about their content then there are 1,000's of books that would qualify. The idea of a better outcome is perhaps useful if you can say what that might mean and how it can be measured. Of course such outcomes would have to look at the bad and the good don't you agree?

2- You need to be learned in the study (something I obviously can't claim that orientalists are capable of, given the fruits of their labor''

What does this mean in terms of what you suggested as outcome above as I cannot see any reason why one needs to be leaned to decide if something is good or bad. Perhaps you were speaking of critical features such as literary merit?

and understanding of the topic is imperative, you don't have lab techies with chemistry or biology degrees running the job of doctors. The person who knows how will always have a job it is true, but the one who knows why will always be his boss!

You may be right but what is you scale, how will you measure it so it can be tested so let us here what you scales are?
3- Miraculous feature is the super-natural linguistic style of the revelation with which it is written which isn't reproducible and hasn't been reproduced and is a unique feature of the Quran which amongst other things make it beyond modification/ introduction or subtraction..and the Divine promise are the things that unfold as per Quran and Sunnah which are signs for us of the fulfillment of God of his word!
Hardly the answer of an objective observer is it, you have already decided it is superior before you start; how can that be representative of and unbiased and objective observer?

 

[Hugo]

I am not too sure how you came to that conclusion. The desire to meticulously work to preserve something does not mean it is hard to preserve it ... Secondly, whether it was a contentious affair or a rather simple one, that does not have a bearing on its preservation. Guess what, if someone is harder preserve, people will put in more effort to preserve. I can argue anyway I would like too

my biggest reason of believing in Quran's authenticity from a secular perspective is the chain of memorization. I have acquaintances whose ancestors and families been memorizing Quran generation after generation for centuries ... with written records, certificates.

God guides whom He wills.

I am not sure I came to any conclusion as such I was simply stating what is true for the preservation of the Qu'ran and numerous books, in including the one by Dr Al Azami will confirm what I said. It is a matter for you of course what you believe about authenticity but that will not change the facts as we know them about the early compilation of the Qu'ran

 

[جوري]

This makes no real sense to me as if we take you definitions about their content then there are 1,000's of books that would qualify. The idea of a better outcome is perhaps useful if you can say what that might mean and how it can be measured. Of course such outcomes would have to look at the bad and the good don't you agree?

Not really not thousands of books would qualify, hardly even two if we are respectful of all aspects afore mentioned.

What does this mean in terms of what you suggested as outcome above as I cannot see any reason why one needs to be leaned to decide if something is good or bad. Perhaps you were speaking of critical features such as literary merit?

So we are not wasting time on such individuals as our dearly departed 'Apple' from yesterday. loaning his own exegesis to suret al-fajr or confusing terms like يطهره and يظهره, that is if you were intending a scholarly discussion in an academic circle.. you are always free to makeup bull**** for the anti-Islamic site of your choice and convince other indoctrinates of your brand of truth!

You may be right but what is you scale, how will you measure it so it can be tested so let us here what you scales are?
3- Miraculous feature is the super-natural linguistic style of the revelation with which it is written which isn't reproducible and hasn't been reproduced and is a unique feature of the Quran which amongst other things make it beyond modification/ introduction or subtraction..and the Divine promise are the things that unfold as per Quran and Sunnah which are signs for us of the fulfillment of God of his word!
Hardly the answer of an objective observer is it, you have already decided it is superior before you start; how can that be representative of and unbiased and objective observer?

I haven't decided that it is superior before I started and I have already so mentioned before, I didn't practice Islam until my twenties. I have no doubt that anyone who approaches this from an achromatic background will come up with the same conclusion.

all the best

 

[Hugo]

I think what you stand accused of is repetition.. your posts have been answered in full and yet you keep posting the same queries/commentaries over though it has been fully addressed (not in the same ridiculous style as our dear new apple member) but tiresome after a while nonetheless.

If its about repetition then I think we can safely assume I am not alone and there is a biog difference between repetition and honesty do you not agree. If my post are tiresome them don't read them and find something more productive to do.

One can only assume dishonesty for a few reasons:
1- You don't actually bother read the responses given you either out of disinterest or merely dismissing them for your point of view.

It is a very common response from you to charge members with all sort of things and often sadly in the most insulting and demeaning language, if you cannot deal with what is said you decide that I am being dishonest so commit the obvious fallacy of poisoning the well and even you cannot possibly think that I or anyone has to accept an answer just because YOU give it?

As it happens I do try to read all that is posted and sometimes, notably from you it can extended to several thousand of words and I would take I fair gamble that I am the only one who does read them

2- You have read them but so in love with what you have to say even if it has no basis in reality that you want it to always be front and center merely as a comment of your making rather than exchange for an actual debate.. surely after 23 pages anyone with enduring stamina will get tired of repeating themselves and I assume it is the reason you merely cut and paste your previous efforts in hopes someone will come up with something new where you can trap them in a mistake.. Thing is you can't because even if individuals make mistakes, the Quran doesn't!

We are all to a certain extent in love with what we say (including you) but at least my post have the merit of brevity. In honesty I think I have tried to move the discussion forward but if you think otherwise then that is a matter for you

you are allowed to have skepticism, I assume it is the reason you remain christian in spite of the overwhelming challenges facing Christianity but you can surely understand where your skepticism has no value.. anymore than the novice apple when he clearly mistranslates verses so that they are in concert with his ideology!

I remain a Christian because I am convinced of the message the Bible offers and the way I see that outworking in people lives. That I remain sceptical is just a part of life as absolute certainty is not possible and to lock my mind as you do about Islam with its answer to everything, with no possibly of freedom of thought to me is a nightmare. Someone once said God is not the answer He is the Question so I am not willing to confine Him to the measure of my own small mind and I suggest you do not either.

 

[جوري]

If its about repetition then I think we can safely assume I am not alone and there is a biog difference between repetition and honesty do you not agree. If my post are tiresome them don't read them and find something more productive to do.

It is natural when you post the same question to which you'd previously received an answer, that with the subsequent post you'll get the same answer?.. replying is just good manners and also a reminder in case you'd forgotten that you've already posted the same before!

It is a very common response from you to charge members with all sort of things and often sadly in the most insulting and demeaning language, if you cannot deal with what is said you decide that I am being dishonest so commit the obvious fallacy of poisoning the well and even you cannot possibly think that I or anyone has to accept an answer just because YOU give it?

What you concede to be an insult is no more than property of behaving in a matter-of-fact manner. Why or what you choose to accept is a particular mindset which no one can help to your satisfaction... if two or three people point to you that this page is red but you are seeing it as green, how can you expect anyone to prove it to you? you are seeing what you are seeing.. perhaps you are justified in your convictions, maybe you are color blind (it certainly happens) but not the whole world is color blind with you, and the way you see the page colored isn't the truth of it!

As it happens I do try to read all that is posted and sometimes, notably from you it can extended to several thousand of words and I would take I fair gamble that I am the only one who does read them

I don't think they'd be of the benefit of anyone else.. certainly Muslims are made aware of my convictions as they share them so if this is about a gamble with you, would a mere congratulations suffice?

We are all to a certain extent in love with what we say (including you) but at least my post have the merit of brevity. In honesty I think I have tried to move the discussion forward but if you think otherwise then that is a matter for you

Where is the merit of brevity in 21 pages I ask?

I remain a Christian because I am convinced of the message the Bible offers and the way I see that outworking in people lives. That I remain sceptical is just a part of life as absolute certainty is not possible and to lock my mind as you do about Islam with its answer to everything, with no possibly of freedom of thought to me is a nightmare. Someone once said God is not the answer He is the Question so I am not willing to confine Him to the measure of my own small mind and I suggest you do not either.

I would indeed remain skeptical if I were a christian (my doubt when raised is answered immediately in Islam).. I don't think the measure of God from a small mind can be any smaller save to turn him into a man forsaken!


all the best

 

[Hugo]

My bad Hugo the book is in arabic, I thought since you started a debate regarding the Qur'aan you actually had a grasp of the language it was revealed in? Or maybe you are just like Apple here? Sounding just like that youtube video. The book is in arabic and I would suggest you read it.

I think if you take the trouble I have made it clear many times that I am not familiar with early Arabic. Let us be clear you did not give a clear reference did you and neither did you or take the trouble to see if there was an English translation. So I suppose now according to you that the only people qualified to discuss the transmission of the Qu'ran are Arabic speakers? That means Dr Al Azami's book is a waste of time and so by extension YOU nor he can discuss the Bible because neither of you speak Greek or Hebrew

Apple, I have memorised the Qur'aan and know it word by word and have studied from cover to cover many times so please rest assured that my knowledge with regards to the Qur'aan is not "little". All the scholars in Islaam are in agrement that the word alKitaab refers to the Qur'aan. There is not even a discussion concerning this fact.

I am glad to hear it but does that also mean you are lets say 'expert' on what it all means as well? One question just for clarification, does AlKitaab just mean Qu'ran and nothing else?

This is a message to all non muslims on this board, if you come to muslims and are curious about Islaam you are more then welcome and ask and question. But what most people here do is the opposite, it is not about innocent questions anymore. Rather to them it is an aim to refute Islaam this is shown by the fact that they disregard posts and just repeat the same thing over and over again. Discussion is more then welcomed but please do not waste our time or your own.

There are parts of this board that are for open discussion within the rules of the board. I find it hard to know what you mean by 'refute' Islam and why people like me come here and as far as I know we are welcome. What this threat does is question some Islamic claims and you here seem to be saying that once an answer is given that is the end of the matter - is that what you mean, is that the claustrophobic attitude you want to give to this thread because if that is so you are wasting out time since freedom of thought is then not possible?

 

[tango92]

I think if you take the trouble I have made it clear many times that I am not familiar with early Arabic. Let us be clear you did not give a clear reference did you and neither did you or take the trouble to see if there was an English translation. So I suppose now according to you that the only people qualified to discuss the transmission of the Qu'ran are Arabic speakers? That means Dr Al Azami's book is a waste of time and so by extension YOU nor he can discuss the Bible because neither of you speak Greek or Hebrew

i know this is not adressed to me but... this thread is talking about proving the quran as gods word ie is it a miralce?. the quran is in arabic and much of the miracle of the quran is within the arabic language . this is something that is lost with translation to english. eg: a joke is hilarious in one language but stale in another. the message remains relatively the same imo.

as for the bible you dont claim its the words of god, and its the message of the bible which is emphasised by you guys, so i dont think learning hebrew or greek is as necessary.

 

[Hugo]

So we are not wasting time on such individuals as our dearly departed 'Apple' from yesterday. loaning his own exegesis to suret al-fajr or confusing terms like يطهره and يظهره, that is if you were intending a scholarly discussion in an academic circle.. you are always free to makeup bull**** for the anti-Islamic site of your choice and convince other indoctrinates of your brand of truth!

Why bother to answer him/her if it was a waste of time or better still explain the errors of there were any so we can all learn? I only visit two Islamic sites, this one and one other so unless this is an anti-Islamic site you comments are unfounded. Why is it that you think that anyone who questions anything about Islam is some kind of enemy and worse has no contraception of the truth - this is nothing but paranoia and that can only lead to intolerance.

I haven't decided that it is superior before I started and I have already so mentioned before, I didn't practice Islam until my twenties. I have no doubt that anyone who approaches this from an achromatic background will come up with the same conclusion.

Well, its simple really, are you able to honestly admit that the Qu'ran might not be all it claims for itself - that it might not be a literary miracle, its might not be from God etc?

 

[Hugo]

i know this is not adressed to me but... this thread is talking about proving the quran as gods word ie is it a miralce?. the quran is in arabic and much of the miracle of the quran is within the arabic language . this is something that is lost with translation to english. eg: a joke is hilarious in one language but stale in another. the message remains relatively the same imo.

as for the bible you dont claim its the words of god, and its the message of the bible which is emphasised by you guys, so i dont think learning hebrew or greek is as necessary.

This not quite correct, the thread is about asking the question "Is it possible to prove...". It is true that many have suggested proofs but many have offered counter arguments.

I am not quite sure where you get the notion about the Bible but Christians and Jews everywhere regard it as the word of God whether it is in Greek or Hebrew or English - its the message it contains that matters not the language itself.

 

[جوري]

Why bother to answer him/her if it was a waste of time or better still explain the errors of there were any so we can all learn? I only visit two Islamic sites, this one and one other so unless this is an anti-Islamic site you comments are unfounded. Why is it that you think that anyone who questions anything about Islam is some kind of enemy and worse has no contraception of the truth - this is nothing but paranoia and that can only lead to intolerance.

Sincerity is easily perceived--It is all in the presentation!

Well, its simple really, are you able to honestly admit that the Qu'ran might not be all it claims for itself - that it might not be a literary miracle, its might not be from God etc?

Again, your mindset has no interconnection with whether or not the Quran has a miraculous nature.. (see above example) on color blindness. Also from my understanding to deem something a literary miracle or from God requires that you actually spend sometime discussing the verses, chapters and history behind them not invent 21 pages of superficial measurements that are made to tailor your brand of convictions laboring over a third party preface or a title of a chapter without knowing what the chapter is about hardly qualifies as admirable merits!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

If you did a little neutral search on that "something you read the other day" you will find that the exact arguments you copied and pasted here has been already refuted in full details and you will not waste time in posting it again:

"Is the Torah like the Qur'an, or is it not?"

So there is no need to repeat things and waste my time.

I have read this so called rebuttal and one can see straight away that it is nothing of the sort for it begins:

As I mentioned in my previous rebuttal regarding the clarity of the Noble Quran's Text, and the Supernatural Eloquence, Style and Language of the Holy Book: It is only normal for the Noble Quran's Arabic Text not to be comprehended by anyone who speaks Arabic. It is a Miraculous Holy Book with Miraculous Language, Style, Text and Eloquence. It is definitely not for everyone to read, in a sense that they won't understand it. But yet, those who speak Arabic are almost always overwhelmingly impressed by Its Mysteries, Miraculous Language and Inspiration. The Noble Quran can not in anyway be imitated. Many have tried and failed. The following link from brother Saifullah's Islamic Awareness web site has tons of proofs and materials regarding this subject:
​

Is it a rebuttal just to state the kind of things that every Muslim says about the Quran - even here the author is not very careful is he - what can he mean by the lines I have shown in Bold? So here we have this wonderful book, hugely eloquent but no one can understand it - well is that what he is saying because there are so many double negatives it is very hard to be sure.

But then again, you have not read it through have you you just assumed it was THE answer?