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

[islamunion]

It is sure, Kuran is God's words.

Of course it is possible to prove that it is Allah's words .There are really a lot of miracles in the Quran. Scientific, historical, mathematical and literal miracles..

www.miraclesof*************

In this web site , you can see most of the miracles in Quran.

 

[Billal-A]

A very well thought out question hugo may Allaah assist you in your quest for knowledge.

I have done a thesis on the challenges of the Qur'aan and its various miraculous principles and texts, if you so wish I can send or place it on here for you to read from in case it helps.

 

[Hugo]

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

As I said your mindset will not even allow you to say or even think that you might be wrong even in part about the Qu'ran so my point is made. So with such a mindset no growth is possible because there are questions you cannot honestly look in the face and prefer to feel some assurance because it is obvious everyone else has got it wrong.

If you are talking about Dr Al Azami's book then if the preface is not important what else is? You simply accept everything in that book without a single question so where is you mindset?

 

[Hugo]

A very well thought out question hugo may Allaah assist you in your quest for knowledge.

I have done a thesis on the challenges of the Qur'aan and its various miraculous principles and texts, if you so wish I can send or place it on here for you to read from in case it helps.

Yes, please do, I am not quite sure which question you mean - do you mean the question in the thread name?

 

[Billal-A]

LOL hugo,

I think you really jumped the bandwagon. Firstly, Islam is a way of Life and does not need us or anyone to privilege it by accepting it. It is the truth whether we agree or not. Secondly, all I suggested was that you may look at what I have PERSONALLY produced which was my own thesis and not based on or a copy of Al-Azamis book even though that is much more beneficial than my work. Thirdly, I would like to remind you that if you are sincere in your quest for knowledge then please satisfy that sincere thirst for the truth, but if you simply wish to antagonise Muslims by using your current method, it only shows complete insincerity on your part, insincerity I wont argue over.

I just want to remind everyone, as well as myself, that Allaah is in no need of us, but we are in need of Allaah, Islam doesnt need our defence, but we need its laws, the Qur'an doesnt need to revert the masses, but to make the call, the Prophets saws duty was not to take over the world, but to call the whole world to Islam. At the end of the day, we want Islam because it is logical, it is proven, it is authentic and all other ways of life are weak, inauthentics and illogical. We have made our choice to live by Islams shade and will inshaa'Allaah continue to do so till our last breath hugo.

I have decided to post it up anyway as an invitation to you to accept the clear truth. If you dont believe and reject, to you your way and to us our way and we have nothing to butt heads about anymore.

Billal

 

[Billal-A]

This is from my dissertation which was assessed academically by an educational institute in the UK.

What are the challenges of the Qur’ān?

Unlike any other religious scriptures, the Qur’an boldly asserts itself as a thorough and accurate Book to which is assigned the greatest and most profound miracle of proof:

“They say: ‘If only some signs were sent down to him from his Lord!’...And it is not enough for them that We have sent down to you the Book which is rehearsed to them?” [Surah al-‘Ankabūt: Q29: 50-51]

Even further, the Qur’ān mentions conditions and methods in disproving it! The themes around which these challenges are based are varied and when observed as a whole, deem it impossible to be maintained. In other words, any book which cannot be disproved via these methods must be accepted as a miracle and divine.

i. Challenge 1: The Linguistic Challenge
The linguistic challenge of the Qur’ān is thus given to those who doubt the origins of the Book itself. It is to produce something similar to it, thus highlighting the poetic and semantic miraculous nature of the Book:

“And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down [the Qur’ān] upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allāh, if you should be truthful.” [Surah āl-Imrān: Q2: 23-24]

ii. Challenge 2: The Accuracy Challenge
This challenge is given to show that the word of Allah does not have contradictions and it is “without any crookedness” [Surah az-Zumar: Q39: 28] as God does not err. Therefore the ones who deny it are told to find the crookedness that is certain within human beings in order to disprove the divine origin of the Book:

“Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’ān? If it had been from other than Allāh, they would have found within it much contradiction.” [Surah an-Nisā: Q4: 82.]

iii. Challenge 3: The Preservation Challenge
This is a promise given in the Qur’ān, as the promise of God is Omnipotent and hence is not subject to failure at the hands of creation. As the previous scriptures changed at the hands of people, Allāh thus vowed that the Qur’ān will remain unchanged:

“Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (the Qur’ān) and surely We will guard it (from corruption).” [Surah al-Hijr: Q15: 9.]

Thus the orientalists, as well as any who confront the Book presented, are to either prove the Book to be linguistically incorrect, historically changed, erroneous or have problems within its authenticity in order to refute it. [END OF SECTION]

More chapters proving the Qur'ans miraculous nature to follow inshaa'Allaah

 

[tango92]

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 guess this is going nowhere fast. if you really want to test the idea of the quranic arabic being divine, you need to understand the language. if you cant be bothered then consider the testimony of all arabic speaking countries being muslim, with quran being the cause of the revolution taking these countries into islam.

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.

now see its misleading calling the bible the "word of god". perhaps consider the phrase "word about god".
and that was my point - you said we claim understanding arabic is a prerequisite to discussing the "transmission of the quran" so by our logic we would need to understand greek to discuss bible.
but the need to understand arabic stems from the fact that the arabic of the quran are the literal words of god. so any discussion based on the english translation is not of much use. ie the quran infers specific meaning and translations thus changing meaning slightly, and style significantly means it is of no use when discussing wether the quran is the words of god.

whereas the bible retaining only the message means there is no use analysing individual words and phrases as can be done with the quran. hence we do not need to learn the orignial language of your book. and unforunately this makes the bible prone to interpretation as man pleases. i hope you understood what im trying to say.

 

[Billal-A]

The next chapter dealing with some orientalist slanders against Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him] and their refutations

Orientalist Criticisms 1 – Muhammad A Messenger?

As a predicate, orientalist thinkers knew they had a task upon their hands which only but reminds us of the statement Zayd ibn Thābit was known to have made when he was given the task of merely collecting the Qur’ān: “By Allah, if they had asked me to move a whole mountain from its place, it would have been easier than the task of compiling the Quran which they ordered me to fulfil!". I feel the same has to be said about how the orientalist felt after being given this simple but yet intensely unachievable task. So then, rather than dealing with the Book by these aforementioned predicates, the orientalist focused primarily on attacking the “gate of revelation” to mankind; the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself. One must accept that attacking and removing the validity of a messenger immediately eradicates the message he comes with.

i. Christian influences?: Arabia
Many Christian missionaries state that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had copied his revelations from Biblical sources. Jeffery (1938) claims that “even a cursory reading of the book makes it plain that Muhammad drew his inspiration not from the religious life and experiences of his own land and his own people, but from the great monotheistic religions which were pressing down into Arabia in his day”[A. Jeffery, “Foreign Vocabulary in the Qur’an, p. 1]. He was seen as a person who borrowed ideas from Judaism and Christianity which he incorporated into the Qur’ān [see for instance, A. Geiger, Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthem aufgenommen?, R. Bell, The Origin of Islam and its Christian Environment]. Louis Cheiko further states that the pre-Islamic poets of the hijaz area were Christians from which Muhammad could have inculcated a skill in poetry as well as Christian doctrine [H. Camille, Louis Cheikho et son livre le Christianisme et la Littrature Chretienne en Arabie avant l'Islam: Etude Critique, p. 183.]

This notion has been put aside by Muslim and non-Muslim thinkers alike. The view that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was highly exposed to Christian indoctrination or even pre-Islamic poetry being predominantly Christian, leading to the production of the Qur’ān, is an extremely farfetched idea:

“Louis Cheikho collected a great mass of poetical material related in some way to the Christian Arab theme, but the greater part of it is regarded as spurious.”

Also echoed by Bell:

“...in spite of traditions mentioning that the picture of Jesus was found on one of the pillars of the Ka’aba, there is no good evidence of any seats of Christianity in the Hijaz or in the neighbourhood of Makkah or even of Madinah.” [Richard Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment, pg. 42]

ii. Christian influences?: Baheerah and Salmān al-Farisee
Many argue that the Qur’an was composed by the Prophet (peace be upon him) with the assistance of Christian or Jewish thinkers as Muir and Margoliouth claim this to be in the hands of Baheerah, a Christian monk to whom the Prophet and his uncle went to meet in the Prophet’s childhood. This cannot be validated as we know Muhammad (peace be upon him) received revelation at the age of forty which would rule out the time he spent with Baheera. The narration mentioning Baheera has been scrutinised under principles within usool al-hadeeth, but even for the sake of argument, Yaasir Qadhi explains:

“Even given that this incident was true, would a meeting of less than a few hours – while the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a teenager – give him the capability to compose the Qur’aan?” [Y. Qadhi, Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan, p. 378]

Further, thinkers such as Menzes and Gardner suggest that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was influenced and taught by the famous companion, Salmān al-Farisee who was a Zoroastrian who then turned to Christianity for some time before accepting Islam:

“It would make sense, they claim, that he fired the Prophet’s imagination with stories of the Judeo-Christian prophets.” [Ibid]

As we know, Salmān accepted Islam after the migration to Madinah and by then most of the stories pertaining to the previous Prophets had already been mentioned, thus rendering this claim as conjecture. If something sounds similar to Christianity, it does not make it a plagiarist of that model. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all, as Muslims believe, from the same root, Allāh and this explains why there are many things which all of these religions share. Allāh had warned us of the changed and distorted nature of the previous scriptures to which the Prophet (peace be upon him) also commented:

“Do not believe the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) nor disbelieve them, but rather, say ‘We believe in Allah, and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you.’” [Sahih al-Bukhari vol. 6, Book 60, No. 12]

So we are commanded to believe in that which we share as common beliefs within all three religions but also to deny that which goes against Islam. We are also exhorted to neither believe nor deny things which are mentioned in the Judeo-Christian scriptures but there is no information in it from Islam. Allāh also highlights this common ground between these major religions:

“Oh People of the Scriptures! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but Allāh and we associate nothing in worship with him, and none of us should take others as lords besides Allāh.” [Surah āl-Imrān: Q3: 64]

Therefore, if one sees a pattern or correlation between the Qur’ān and other scriptures then it is based on this premise of them being from Allāh.

iii. “Muhammad is a madman!”
Rodwell (1909) insists that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had “worked himself up into a belief that he had received a divine call – and that he was carried on by the force of circumstances, and by gradually increasing successes, to believe himself the accredited messenger of Heaven.” [A.J. Arberry, The Koran Interoreted, p. 15] Along with this, Rodwell claims that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was also “the victim of a certain amount of self-deception” who would be “peculiarly liable to morbid and fantastical hallucinations, and alternations of excitement and depression, which would win for him, in the eyes of his ignorant countrymen, the credit of being inspired.” Hitti further suggested “the Prophet experienced ecstatic seizures as he received the revelations, giving rise to the charge that he was epileptic.” [H. Njozi, The Sources of the Qur’aan: A Critical Review of the Authorship Theories, p. 19.]

It has always been the case with all prophets that their people would class them as estranged and mentally ill in order to remove their honour and validity as messengers of Allāh and this was also the case of the people of Makkah:

“Do they not reflect and ponder? There is no madness in their companion (Muhammad). He is but a plain warner.” [Surah al-A’rāf: Q7: 184]


Allāh also says,

“You are not, by the Grace of your Lord, a madman.” [Surah al-Qalam: Q68: 2]

This claim has no basis and was not used by any of the Makkans against the Prophet (peace be upon him) as a stake against him when they had the opportunity to mention it. Even other orientalists refuted this:

“...epilepsy as applied to the Prophet was the explanation of those who sought to amuse rather than to instruct.” [M. Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p. 13]

As Yaasir Qadhi also highlights:

“Epilepsy is not found or mentioned in any classical works or seerah...there are no incidents in the life of the Prophet that can be given as examples of insanity; on the contrary, his whole seerah is a refutation of it!” [Y. Qadhi, Introduction to the Sciences of Qur’aan, p. 377]

 

[Billal-A]

One of the most important chapters! All about Muhammad (saws) the man, the Prophet and the Authenticity of the Call! MUST READ hugo!

i. Truth & Testimony: Muhammad al-Amīn
If one is to claim that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was one who invented the revelations to suit his own cause, then how can one explain instances where the Prophet is rebuked in the Qur’ān? This would be implausible as any fabricator would by no means criticise himself:

“O Prophet! Why do you forbid that which Allāh has allowed for you, seeking to please your wives?” [Surah at-Tahrīm: Q66: 1]

Why would he also vote against himself when he ransomed prisoners of war and thus had wealth come in for the Muslims?

“It is not for a Prophet that he should take prisoners of war (and free them by ransom)...” [Surah al-Anfāl: Q8: 67]

On the other hand, we have numerous examples of how the Makkans themselves had to admit that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a truthful and upright individual. An amazing example of this is with regards to Abu Sufyan recalling his dialogue before Islam with Heraclius, who called him to question the new religion of Islām and its leader. Abu Sufyan thus concluded:

“Heraclius told his translator to tell my companions that he wanted to put some questions to me regarding that man (the Prophet) and that if I told a lie they should contradict me (i.e. make it clear by a sign)...By Allāh! Had I not been afraid of my companions labelling me a liar, I would not have spoken the truth about the Prophet...” [Sahih al-Bukhāri, vol. 1, no. 6]

Also, as one from the Makkans themselves cried:

“Oh Quraish, a new calamity has befallen you. Mohammed was a young man the most liked among you, most truthful in speech, and most trustworthy, until, when you saw gray hairs on his temple, and he brought you his message, you said that he was a sorcerer, but he is not, for we seen such people and their spitting and their knots; you said, a diviner, but we have seen such people and their behavior, and we have heard their rhymes; you said a soothsayer, but he is not a soothsayer, for we have heard their rhymes; and you said a poet, but he is not a poet, for we have heard all kinds of poetry; you said he was possessed, but he is not for we have seen the possessed, and he shows no signs of their gasping and whispering and delirium. Oh men of Quraish, look to your affairs, for by Allah a serious thing has befallen you.”

Thus we can conclude without any hesitation, that orientalist and non-Muslim thinkers who have made such allegations against Muhammad (peace be upon him) have no intention but to do cast false aspersions and slander in the guise of academia. Not only have their claims become redundant in comparison to factual evidences but also we have astounding amounts of reports about the truthfulness and sincerity of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

IMPORTANT INCIDENTS: WORDS OF NON-MUSLIM ENEMIES

Narrated Al-Walid ibn Mughira:

“They said, "He (Muhammad) is a kahin (soothsayer)." He said, "By God, he is not that, for we have seen the kahins, and his (speech) is not unintelligible murmuring and rhymed prose of a kahin." "Then he is possessed," they said. "No, he is not that," he said. "We have seen and known the possessed state, and here is no choking, spasmodic movements, and whispering." "Then he is a poet," they said. "He is not that," he replied. "We have known poetry in all its forms and meters, and this is not poetry." "Then he is a sorcerer," they said. "No, he is not that," he said, "for we have seen sorcerers and their sorcery, and here is no spitting and no knots."

(A. Guillaume (Trans.), The Life Of Muhammad: A Translation Of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah)

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:

Abu Sufyan bin Harb informed me that Heraclius had sent a messenger to him while he had been accompanying a caravan from Quraish. They were merchants doing business in Sham (Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan), at the time when Allah's Apostle had truce with Abu Sufyan and Quraish infidels. So Abu Sufyan and his companions went to Heraclius at Ilya (Jerusalem). Heraclius called them in the court and he had all the senior Roman dignitaries around him. He called for his translator who, translating Heraclius's question said to them:

"Who amongst you is closely related to that man who claims to be a Prophet?" Abu Sufyan replied, "I am the nearest relative to him (amongst the group)."

Heraclius said, "Bring him (Abu Sufyan) close to me and make his companions stand behind him." Abu Sufyan added, Heraclius told his translator to tell my companions that he wanted to put some questions to me regarding that man (The Prophet) and that if I told a lie they (my companions) should contradict me." Abu Sufyan added, "By Allah! Had I not been afraid of my companions labeling me a liar, I would not have spoken the truth about the Prophet. The first question he asked me about him was:
'What is his family status amongst you?'
I replied, 'He belongs to a good (noble) family amongst us.'
Heraclius further asked, 'Has anybody amongst you ever claimed the same (i.e. to be a Prophet) before him?'
I replied, 'No.'
He said, 'Was anybody amongst his ancestors a king?'
I replied, 'No.'
Heraclius asked, 'Do the nobles or the poor follow him?'
I replied, 'It is the poor who follow him.'
He said, 'Are his followers increasing decreasing (day by day)?'
I replied, 'They are increasing.'
He then asked, 'Does anybody amongst those who embrace his religion become displeased and renounce the religion afterwards?'
I replied, 'No.'
Heraclius said, 'Have you ever accused him of telling lies before his claim (to be a Prophet)?'
I replied, 'No. '
Heraclius said, 'Does he break his promises?'
I replied, 'No. We are at truce with him but we do not know what he will do in it.' I could not find opportunity to say anything against him except that.
Heraclius asked, 'Have you ever had a war with him?'
I replied, 'Yes.'
Then he said, 'What was the outcome of the battles?'
I replied, 'Sometimes he was victorious and sometimes we.'
Heraclius said, 'What does he order you to do?'
I said, 'He tells us to worship Allah and Allah alone and not to worship anything along with Him, and to renounce all that our ancestors had said. He orders us to pray, to speak the truth, to be chaste and to keep good relations with our Kith and kin.'

Heraclius asked the translator to convey to me the following, I asked you about his family and your reply was that he belonged to a very noble family. In fact all the Apostles come from noble families amongst their respective peoples. I questioned you whether anybody else amongst you claimed such a thing, your reply was in the negative. If the answer had been in the affirmative, I would have thought that this man was following the previous man's statement. Then I asked you whether anyone of his ancestors was a king. Your reply was in the negative, and if it had been in the affirmative, I would have thought that this man wanted to take back his ancestral kingdom.

I further asked whether he was ever accused of telling lies before he said what he said, and your reply was in the negative. So I wondered how a person who does not tell a lie about others could ever tell a lie about Allah. I, then asked you whether the rich people followed him or the poor. You replied that it was the poor who followed him. And in fact all the Apostle have been followed by this very class of people. Then I asked you whether his followers were increasing or decreasing. You replied that they were increasing, and in fact this is the way of true faith, till it is complete in all respects. I further asked you whether there was anybody, who, after embracing his religion, became displeased and discarded his religion. Your reply was in the negative, and in fact this is (the sign of) true faith, when its delight enters the hearts and mixes with them completely. I asked you whether he had ever betrayed. You replied in the negative and likewise the Apostles never betray. Then I asked you what he ordered you to do. You replied that he ordered you to worship Allah and Allah alone and not to worship any thing along with Him and forbade you to worship idols and ordered you to pray, to speak the truth and to be chaste. If what you have said is true, he will very soon occupy this place underneath my feet and I knew it (from the scriptures) that he was going to appear but I did not know that he would be from you, and if I could reach him definitely, I would go immediately to meet him and if I were with him, I would certainly wash his feet.' Heraclius then asked for the letter addressed by Allah's Apostle which was delivered by Dihya to the Governor of Busra, who forwarded it to Heraclius to read. The contents of the letter were as follows: "In the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad the slave of Allah and His Apostle to Heraclius the ruler of Byzantine. Peace be upon him, who follows the right path. Furthermore I invite you to Islam, and if you become a Muslim you will be safe, and Allah will double your reward, and if you reject this invitation of Islam you will be committing a sin by misguiding your Arisiyin (peasants). (And I recite to you Allah's Statement

'O people of the scripture! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but Allah and that we associate nothing in worship with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (those who have surrendered to Allah).' (3:64).

Abu Sufyan then added, "When Heraclius had finished his speech and had read the letter, there was a great hue and cry in the Royal Court. So we were turned out of the court. I told my companions that the question of Ibn-Abi-Kabsha) (the Prophet Muhammad) has become so prominent that even the King of Bani Al-Asfar (Byzantine) is afraid of him. Then I started to become sure that he (the Prophet) would be the conqueror in the near future till I embraced Islam (i.e. Allah guided me to it)."
(Sahih al-Bukhāri, vol. 1, no. 6.)

[END OF SECTION]

 

[جوري]

As I said your mindset will not even allow you to say or even think that you might be wrong even in part about the Qu'ran so my point is made. So with such a mindset no growth is possible because there are questions you cannot honestly look in the face and prefer to feel some assurance because it is obvious everyone else has got it wrong.

I find no errors in the Quran, if you are convinced that there are then bring them forth. Indeed if I didn't think that the Quran was anything less than what it claims to be I'd not be Muslim.. I could just live a righteous life as an agnostic. It is when and if I am convinced then I take the whole package including the aspect that rests on faith!

If you are talking about Dr Al Azami's book then if the preface is not important what else is? You simply accept everything in that book without a single question so where is you mindset?

You should be the judge of that, a preface from some third party author that has absolutely no relevance to the history and compilation of Quran rather a personal note or discussing the Quran itself? If you had anything of substance as per the Quran itself, you wouldn't be consistently clutching for straws and chapter titles without even approaching the subject matter!

Do you see how many pages you have wasted about what I think or believe, rather than discussing chapter and verse? Florid speech doesn't a refutation make!

all the best

 

[Billal-A]

The Miraculous Nature of the Qur’ān

Dr Maurice Baucaille;

"The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human-being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?"
(Speech addressed to the French Academy of Medicine in 1976.)

‘Ali ibn Ribban at-Tabari:

“When I was a Christian I used to say, as did an uncle of mine who was one of the learned and eloquent men, that eloquence is not one of the signs of prophethood because it is common to all the peoples; but when I discarded (blind) imitation and (old) customs and gave up adhering to (mere) habit and training and reflected upon the meanings of the Qur'an I came to know that what the followers of the Qur'an claimed for it was true. The fact is that I have not found any book, be it by an Arab or a Persian, an Indian or a Greek, right from the beginning of the world up to now, which contains at the same time praises of God, belief in the prophets and apostles, exhortations to good, everlasting deeds, command to do good and prohibition against doing evil, inspiration to the desire of paradise and to avoidance of hell-fire as this Qur'an does. So when a person brings to us a book of such qualities, which inspires such reverence and sweetness in the hearts and which has achieved such an overlasting success and he is (at the same time) an illiterate person who did never learnt the art of writing or rhetoric, that book is without any doubt one of the signs of his Prophethood.”
(‘A. Aleem, I'jaz ul Qur'an.)

Ibn al-Muqaffa:

“When Ibn al-Muqaffa' arrived at the passage Sura 11:42-46 he realized that it was impossible for any human being to equal the book. So, he desisted from his mu'arada and tore up what he had done.”
(G.E Von Grunebaum, A Tenth-Century Document Of Arabic Literary Theory and Criticism)


I believe this is sufficient for what I wanted to relay hugo, as we know there are 1000s more miracles that we dont have the capacity to deal with, probably for over many years Allahu akbar!

 

[Khaldun]

I will not waste my time in this thread anymore, since you do not even understand that arabic language nor do you bring a fruitful discussion yet you argue that you can talk about the miracle of the Quran? Even though more then one member has made it perfectly clear that a great portion of the actual miracle lies in the language itself.

We explain to you over and over again but you are happy with believing that the Quran is not the word of Allah.

People like you have lived and passed away, you are not the first one Hugo.

And if We were to send down to them the Angels and make the dead speak to them and brought infront of them everything face to face they would still not believe​

I only thought since you were a Christian you would understand things better, but I guess I was wrong.

all the best

 

[Hugo]

I will not waste my time in this thread anymore, since you do not even understand that arabic language nor do you bring a fruitful discussion yet you argue that you can talk about the miracle of the Quran? Even though more then one member has made it perfectly clear that a great portion of the actual miracle lies in the language itself.

We explain to you over and over again but you are happy with believing that the Quran is not the word of Allah.

People like you have lived and passed away, you are not the first one Hugo.

And if We were to send down to them the Angels and make the dead speak to them and brought infront of them everything face to face they would still not believe​

I only thought since you were a Christian you would understand things better, but I guess I was wrong.
all the best

I am sorry to read this kind of thing because it and you assume, well perhaps more you know you are right and I am a bit of an idiot because I don't always agree. Nowhere have I said that the Qu'ran is not the word of Allah but I have said that it cannot be proved to be true and I have reasonable doubts about the so called proofs that have been offered.

I have always subscribed to the Popper notion which he expressed as “I believe that a reasonable discussion is always possible between parties interested in truth, and ready to pay attention to each other”

I wonder is this true of you?

 

[Hugo]

I think you really jumped the bandwagon. Firstly, Islam is a way of Life and does not need us or anyone to privilege it by accepting it. It is the truth whether we agree or not. Secondly, all I suggested was that you may look at what I have PERSONALLY produced which was my own thesis and not based on or a copy of Al-Azamis book even though that is much more beneficial than my work. Thirdly, I would like to remind you that if you are sincere in your quest for knowledge then please satisfy that sincere thirst for the truth, but if you simply wish to antagonise Muslims by using your current method, it only shows complete insincerity on your part, insincerity I wont argue over.

I am not sure what bandwagon you are speaking of here but this thread asks a question and it cannot be answered by saying "it is the truth...". A sincere search for truth means that you face up to possibilities that you might be wrong and if you think that questioning Islam is simply about antagonising Muslims then it seems to me that you cannot perhaps tolerate contrary opinion because you see it as insincerity or as you say complete insincerity and to me that is an intolerant position. How would you feel if I claim that your faith was blind and so in your own way you are insincere because you cannot face up to being perhaps wrong.

Do you see your own argument - I am right and you are wrong and also insincere

I just want to remind everyone, as well as myself, that Allaah is in no need of us, but we are in need of Allaah, Islam doesnt need our defence, but we need its laws, the Qur'an doesnt need to revert the masses, but to make the call, the Prophets saws duty was not to take over the world, but to call the whole world to Islam. At the end of the day, we want Islam because it is logical, it is proven, it is authentic and all other ways of life are weak, inauthentics and illogical. We have made our choice to live by Islams shade and will inshaa'Allaah continue to do so till our last breath hugo.

Fine, this is what you one hope sincerely believe and its is your choice but beyond that it is also arrogant and intolerant. This perhaps is the crux of the matter and I can say the same about Christianity though without the pomposity and like you continue in that faith until my last breath.

I have decided to post it up anyway as an invitation to you to accept the clear truth. If you dont believe and reject, to you your way and to us our way and we have nothing to butt heads about anymore.

I will read you thesis with interest but I will NOT start by assuming it is clearly truth but rather an open mind with a dash of logical thinking.

I don't quite know if you are tying to bring the thread to a close by this last sentence but I guess if you are unable intellectuality nor emotionally to deal with questions and scepticism of Islamic dogma then there is nothing more to be done or said is there - is that what you want or do you want your theses to be challenged as is customary in every other situation?

 

[Hugo]

This might be a useful point to just take stock before we consider Billal's paper which he has kindly and wisely posted in manageable sections. I thought therefore I would make perhaps two posts outlining a general philosophical position as I hope that will help us understand what might look like opposing positions. Please feel absolutely free to comment.

Logic, Facts, Opinion and Truth
It is part of all our lives I suppose to deal with logic, facts, opinions and truth more or less everyday and mostly we do it without much thought but manage to get along quite well. This does not mean that these ideas are without difficulty and it is certainly true that one can believe in one’s own truth and logic to such an extent that you looses all sense of doubt and toleration of alternatives. So it is fair to ask how we feel when people disagree with us; do we hate those who oppose us or will not side with us, do we charge them with insincerity, dishonesty or irrationality or do we welcome the challenge and learning potential it brings. Perhaps one test of our own openness is to use the dictum attributed to Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" So perhaps the mark of a civilized society is that it loves civil liberties including the freedom of religion and freedom of thought and will unfailing defend those rights.

The Problem of Knowledge
Aristotle said in order to understand we must go back to origins or basics and logic is all about rules but begins with definitions and continues with rules and that in a way sounds simple enough. However, the problem of knowledge or the nature of knowledge is easy to grasp if you simply ask yourself why everyone or anyone would deny something you know or had felt or experienced be they as extreme as hallucination or even madness. One might ask, are we afraid of knowledge, of ideas so some books for example become 'forbidden' and by implication knowledge becomes a dangerous affair or is that irrational and such fears can only be dispelled by knowledge itself. We are all I am sure familiar with books being banned or burned and it is certainly not a modern phenomena. This does of course not mean that all books are good but indeed it is most likely the truth that most books are of value.

Logic itself can seem like magic especially perhaps in Mathematics and sometimes proofs there can be so ingenious, so elegant, so beautifully simple that they seem almost supernatural but of course we take the more obvious route and conclude that reliable knowledge can only come through physical science and those sciences derive their power from mathematics. But it seems science cannot yet explain everything or explain our own fears and often the most forbidden knowledge is the knowledge about ourselves, owning up to our own doubts, fears and weaknesses. All beliefs rely on unproven axioms, meaning there are always things we take for granted and perhaps don't think too much about and consider obvious - the dilemma though is to wonder what is the value of proof if it always must rest on the unproven? It follows that when we are enlightened by modern science and start to mix it with statements of a purely spiritual nature almost everything can then becomes obscure.

Philosophy tries to deal with this but philosophers as you must know don't all agree: a Platonist thinks appearances is a bad copy of reality, are mental concepts innate or acquired: innate says Kant but acquired says Hume, is there opposition between mind and matter, yes says Descartes, no says Spinoza with Berkeley saying the material world is all in the mind. What these ideas do is to ask what is knowledge, how is it that we know something because there is something elusive about the real you and where it exists. It is sadly all too common in Islamic circles to ridicule Philosophy but let use look at the famous Cogito where Descartes says “I think therefore I am” what is he saying? He is speaking about the self the elusive "I" - you for example have never seen me and I have never seen you so what is the picture of each other that we have? For all you know I might be a computer just fooling around. Even if I could see you would that mean I really 'know' you or is the real you locked up in your head and it’s inaccessible to the rest of us. Where does that real you live, exist, point to it show us where it is?

So, to understand what you are I must use my understanding not my senses. Senses are like messengers that deliver information that needs interpreting. So you and I and everyone else is an elusive thing so as Descartes would have said a ball of wax can take different properties: shape, colour, smell, taste etc. In the same way the self, the 'I' at different times thinks different thoughts. Rationalism, the power of unaided reason can get insights, can see that things must or might be one way and not another without any senses being involved - it is called 'a priori' meaning something can be seen to be true immediately, without any experience of the way of the world. In summary Descartes is saying that because you can think you can make sense of what you see as well as think new thoughts and if anything defines the real me or you it is our minds which must be free to roam for without them as I have said before we might as well be unconscious.

 

[Hugo]

This is my second post prior to a consideration of Billal's paper.

Truth and Opinion
Usually we assume that a truth is something established by facts and that implies those facts can be checked independently whereas opinions are personal things with no independent checking or if you like it’s a kind of hearsay. Thus, if I say you are ugly; is it a fact or an opinion and as this tiny example shows, sadly more often than not opinion is substituted for fact? Even with what are called facts the ground is not simple because a given fact or set of supposed facts may be interpreted and used in many ways and one might even derive opposing views from the same set of facts, just go look at the various political parties to see this.

Here I paraphrase some interesting remarks by Dr William Campbell since they are pertinent. Every reader or researcher knows or should know, we can more often than not find what we are looking for. If we read the Qur'an or the Bible assuming that it is wrong we are using a conflict approach, and we shall surely find errors. In the same way if we look through these books looking for anything we set our mind on then we will find them. If we look at the Qur'an or the Bible with a forgiving spirit and expect God and his science to agree, we are using a concordist approach and we shall find very few errors - perhaps too few, if in our search for agreement, we bend science and/or the interpretation of scripture too far.

Bias
It is impossible, of course, to have no bias; for example, I hope that my previous life decisions that led me to becoming a Christian are right, and I lean toward anything which confirms them. Therefore, there is much truth in the well known tongue in cheek joke: scientists should always state the opinion on which their facts are based.

If we cannot avoid bias then we must be aware of it, admit our biases and try to tame them a bit for discussions such as this otherwise they become a raging animal, they make us forget truth or truth becomes what we would like it to be. Therefore when anyone starts by postulating that he is being scientific and objective, you should see a red light. That man or woman is dangerous, for he/she is suffering under a delusion, and not even aware of how unscientific and how prejudiced he is. This does not mean we should not attempt objectivity but simply be aware that when you become convinced that you have the necessary objectivity you almost certainly are deluded.

One often sees a biased approach emerge because if I (or you) only quote bits that agree with my ideas, then I have forgotten truth. If I don't bother to mention or don’t even search for other views or dismiss them on the same subject which would contradict my theme, then I am bending the truth. We must not bow to the well know truism If facts do not conform to [my] theory, they must be disposed of.

We must abandon the 100% conflict approach, the attitude which can admit to no good thing, no correct reasoning or claim insincerity by the person with whom we disagree. We must admit our bias and then try to look at all the facts and be equal in our judgement. Surely this attitude is included in Jesus' words when he said, "Do to others as you would have them do to you"; and when he quoted the Torah saying, "Love your brother as yourself".

Doubt
The idea of doubt or uncertainty is part of the cosmos down to the smallest atomic particles and in its own way it is doubt, creative doubt that drives us forward because there is a never ending and exciting struggle for truth. It follows, that we should love being asked questions that stump us, that challenge and even shake perhaps the very foundations of what we believe and how we think. Why? Because those kinds of questions make you dig, study, and learn something you didn’t know before. Even if you don’t find a satisfactory answer, it’s not a loss because you have opened your mind and learned something new. And that’s the essence of wisdom: being open to learning something new as Benjamin Franklyn once said “when you’re finished changing your finished” and “the doorstep of the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of one’s own ignorance”. The instant one closes their mind and refuses to learn or even consider something new – or thinks they already know "it" all. they have the 'truth' – is the instant when they begin to die, finally, there is a saying that if you want to learn something go on a journey not assume you are already at its destination.

Logic
Logic is the process of using combinations of the known to reach the unknown, so logic is necessary reasoning based around premises because it makes the conclusions inescapable, for example consider the famous line “all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal” BUT be very aware that the wrong premises are a fools accomplice.

You can include the supernatural but any such premises will remain unprovable so any argument must be weak at the very least which is why most people do not discount the possibility of God altogether. What rational thinking does even if the premises look fine is discount contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations and calling things "miracles" when they most definitely are not because if these occur we know the logic fails.

For example, we know that in making Islamic law in Islam consensus was used. One presumes from this that such consensus was reached using some kind of evidence or circumstance. It must be a fallacy to assume therefore that such evidence or circumstances are exactly matched for all time and eternity so the ruling can never be wrong. From a thinking or logical point of view this is known as the problem of induction because even if the premises (evidence or circumstances) are true the conclusion may be false and so one has to introduce the hidden premise of infallibility - that is you have kind of engineered or invented a bridge to the past but cannot argue that the bridge is reliable except by an assumption which no rational man would accept.

Paradox
There is a problem, a serious problem with logic and one that cannot be fixed. Consider an infinite hotel where even if it is full a room can still be found - so with infinity there is always something more but that does not seem to make much sense. No other idea has pushed the human mind to the limits of it absolute power and exposes the inner frailty of mathematical knowledge

So this turns the tables on the idea that things can be obvious because what might be considered obvious only works if it works at all when we set limits on things. So ideally we need to banish the devils of contradiction and paradox; so is there a machine that has the rules of proof so that we can feed it the axioms and out comes the required proof to any question we set it?

So is the conviction that the world is totally understandable by reason meaning if a question can be rigorously stated it can be logically answered. Well, we know this to be untrue and indeed it is worse because we cannot even know which questions can be answered and which cannot so we could spend a lifetime on a question that can never be answered and not know it. A picture called The Danaides perhaps illustrates this very well where water carriers are condemned to endlessly pour water to fill a leaking jar.

A paradox is something that looks as if it is both true and false at the same time so always leads to a contradiction. Perhaps the most famous example of this was provided by Russell almost 100 years ago now. It might be assumed that, for any formal criterion, a set exists whose members are those objects (and only those objects) that satisfy the criterion; but this assumption is disproved by a set containing exactly the sets that are not members of themselves. If such a set qualifies as a member of itself, it would contradict its own definition as a set containing sets that are not members of themselves. On the other hand, if such a set is not a member of itself, it would qualify as a member of itself by the same definition.

Because of this inherent flaw in logic some have argued there is a sense in which the right amount of irrationality let's you read religion or logic and admit to a God of the infinite. However, we must be careful not to confuse reality with ones mental map or model of how things are by chopping off the parts that could not fit through the grid protecting our intellectual lair.

There is a tragic loneliness of every human being, suffering and death and no one else can get inside our head and see the world exactly as we do and very often we do not even try to share who we are with anyone and hide behind some kind of mask or other. The only way out I suppose is to look for some kind of alternative, (to logic) redemption in compassion.

Language itself is a is a model, a picture of reality so each part of reality is represented by a symbol so many have hoped that language had the potential for deciding truth or falsehood. The trouble is reality up close looks very different to a picture - a model of the front line in a war is miles literally from reality. Often it can seem as if we stand on the brink of an abyss and you don't fall in you become a mystic or a madman and so we resort to faith and accept we can go no further.

That is we hope that every correctly formulated question is necessarily answerable - is every statement provable or if it states something false it's opposite but there are always unanswerable questions so any system will be incomplete as discussed earlier. Therefore, when it comes to talking about human life, certainty and the supposed logic that supports it just congeals into or around an all-encompassing and perfect seeming theory only to become a very evil con trick.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Hugo,

Greetings, I will have to reply in bits as our posts are getting to long for comfort.

That's fine. Please let me know if I happen to miss any of your posts directed at me.

Regarding the point about Dr. Al-Azami's book, it's really a point of no significance that we are wasting our time with. I found it strange how you discredited many things about the book, yet when it comes to something that will support your views, it is taken as fact. Moreover, a preface is simply an introduction to a book; I'm not sure what "plan and methods" you are referring to. Anyhow, the bottom line is this: it is known through common knowledge and experience that there is only one Qur'an. There is no need for me to justify this in light of what you understand from one particular preface, when the facts are apparent for all to see.

As for the rest of the book - it isn't the topic at hand hence there's no need to go into it.

Lastly, you asked some questions about the preservation of the Qur'an. I think most of these have already been touched on in our previous posts. However, you still seem to be ignoring the oral aspect of the preservation of the Qur'an. With such selectivity in accepting answers, the discussion isn't going to get very far.

Regards.

 

[Hugo]

Sorry to be slow in replying but my systems have been intermittent but hopefully it is now fixed so I will; begin posting a reply to your 4 posts sometime tomorrow as it is now very late here.

That's fine. Please let me know if I happen to miss any of your posts directed at me.

Regarding the point about Dr. Al-Azami's book, it's really a point of no significance that we are wasting our time with. I found it strange how you discredited many things about the book, yet when it comes to something that will support your views, it is taken as fact. Moreover, a preface is simply an introduction to a book; I'm not sure what "plan and methods" you are referring to. Anyhow, the bottom line is this: it is known through common knowledge and experience that there is only one Qur'an. There is no need for me to justify this in light of what you understand from one particular preface, when the facts are apparent for all to see.

It is a somewhat shallow argument or reply to simply dismiss what I say as of 'no significance' don't you think? If I quoted any fact they were taken from Dr Al Azami's book. I think you miss the point, if this book is scholarly then all of it must be like that if we are to take it seriously and the preface cannot be regarded as unimportant in this case because the author sets out his principles and motivation there.

It may be common knowledge for some Muslims there is only one Qu'ran but may I suggest you actually read Dr Al Azami's book and you will find it is also common knowledge that Abdulla bin Masud's copy had 111 suras not 114 or Ubayy bin Ka'b copy which had 116 suras? But that is a topic for another thread.

But the bottom line is this, you can also be charged just like me of only favouring something that will support your views.

Lastly, you asked some questions about the preservation of the Qur'an. I think most of these have already been touched on in our previous posts. However, you still seem to be ignoring the oral aspect of the preservation of the Qur'an. With such selectivity in accepting answers, the discussion isn't going to get very far.

I am not being selective, just sceptical and if you are so firm in this oral tradition you might like to read what Dr Al Azamis suggested was the principle motivation for Uthman's recension.

My I also say I find it not helpful when you continually accuse me of let say poor scholarship - I know you might find this difficult because you come from an Islamic background so automatically you assume you or Islam must be right and if others don't agree then they must of necessity be insincere or worse because in essence that is what the Qu'ran says about unbelievers. I cannot take that attitude with you and I will always assume you are sincere but like me and everyone else on the planet you might just be wrong at least in part.

Please look out for my further posts tomorrow as I want to take some time over them so that I fully consider what you have said my comments are as clear as I can make them.

 

[جوري]

actually we find you of poor scholarship not because we come from an Islamic background, but because the stuff you present for an argument can only invite ridicule. I have already presented you a piece by Dr. hoffman on the previous page where he made minor editorial changes to Dr. Al-Azami's book. If you had something of substance to say of the book you wouldn't be so fixated on such ancillary trifles in the preface and actually focus on the subject matter.

I notice that after 23 pages, you haven't at all challenged anything that was written on the revelation and compilation of the Quran. And the best you have managed is direct me to the title page of chapter 11, yet failed to actually understand the purpose of said chapter from the very words of the author.

is it any wonder that you have tired just about every last person here inane manifestos of doubt and logic and paradox .. one wonders how many of those you employ toward your bible and still manage to be a christian!

all the best

 

[جوري]

Let's examine chapter 13 of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud's and the alleged variances!

'' As mentioned Arthur Jeffrey examined 170 volumes to compile a list of variant readings which makeup roughly 300 pages in printed form, covering the so-called mushafs of nearly thirty scholars. Of this total he reserves 88 pages for the variations allegedly coming from Ibn Mas'ud's mushaf alone, with another 65 pages for Ubayy's muhaf, dividing the reminder (14) pages between the other twenty eight. The disproportionally high variance rate attributed to Ibn Mas'ud makes this mushaf worthy of closer inspection; some claims raised by Jeffrey are:

• That it differs from the Uthmani mushaf in its sura arrangement
  
• and in its text
• and that it omits three suras.

he levied all these charges though no one, including his sources, has ever witnessed a 'mushaf' with all these alleged variances. In truth none of his references even mentions a 'mushaf of ibn masud'; instead they use the word qar'aa ( قرأ= read), in the context of ''Ibn Masud recited such and such verse in this way'' A cursory glance at his sources yields two objections straight away. First, because they never state that Ibn Mas'ud was reading from a written copy we can just as easily assume that he was overheard reciting from memory, and how can we confidently deduce that the erroneous reading were not due to a memory slip? second (and this is a point I made earlier), the vast majority of Jeffery's references contain NO ISNAD whatsoever, making them inadmissible because they offer nothing but empty gossip'' Chapter 14 (the so-caled Mushaf of IBN Mas'ud and Alleged variances therein) p. 195


Let me tell you and the rest of the board members exactly what it is that you are doing here.

1- You drown in specialized l terminology that has positively no bearing on this particular subject!

2- fixate on ancillary topics shying away at best from the subject matter because you know that at least one member on this board has read the book (that being me) so you count on asking ridiculous questions to another member who can offer you no specific response for firstly he hasn't come across the orientalists accusatory heresy to see what the scholars have actually offered against it.

3- you read two titles by an orientalist and I won't even give the benefit of the doubt here (you have taken them straight out of Al-Azami's book) and yet you fail to read Al-Azami's response to them. You are hoping to bank on an un-orthodox opinion of folks not very different from you yet you can't back up his opinion and in turn yours from one credible source. This is Islamic material after all, one questions from where you get your secondary opinion? If the first on the scene were Islamic scholars, where exactly did you get a different opinion than that from the recorded history and the better question yet, why you can't you back it up? And at the end expect that we should call you or your sources scholarly? I find you to be a fraud, and I don't understand why you insist on being a fraud so publicly?

4- You are hoping to tire the reader into your own views as the adage goes, if you can dazzle them with science baffle them with bull, and for the most part it is working as you have managed to dominate this thread with the same repeats and fail to read anything that anyone has offered you by way of a solid counter rebuttal.

5- and last but certainly not least, you perplex us at best as to why you fail to employ this painstaking task to your own gospels, which is really the subject that deserves the most scrutiny given that you don't have copies that remotely resemble each other or are even shared by different denominations, yet think yourself the expert on Qur'anic text.

you should really ponder those before presenting us with the next manifesto.

And know that I have a copy of Al-Azami's book in my possession, though I have read it long ago, it isn't difficult for me to leaf through it and catch you in an overt perversion o what he has written time after time!


all the best!