Greetings Eliphaz,
Apologies for the long delay in replying to your post.
I wanted to focus on these four because I felt that these were the four strongest claims without which, as Hugo has said, you could be speaking of any book. But as you want to return to the list in its entirety, I have gone over each point again with respect to what we have covered since:
As I said, I don’t mind focusing on particular aspects. However, this does not mean the others are to be disregarded because they too are unique for the Qur’an and most certainly cannot be claimed for “any book”.
1. The language and style of the Qur'an
This is largely subjective and limited to one’s understanding of the Arabic language. This is like playing music which only some people can hear and asking them all to bear witness that the music is beautiful. Or maybe our ears are already ‘sealed’ from birth as the Qur’an sometimes says of the heart?
Indeed the extent to which we can discuss this aspect is limited by our understanding of the Arabic language, which is what I said right at the beginning. Does that mean it is subjective? No, of course not. Your earlier answer was much more befitting a seeker of truth when you said, “I am resuming my Arabic studies next year so here’s hoping that I too may one day be able to recognise the beauty of the Qur’an”. I’m disappointed that now you’ve made up your mind without even doing the research.
As for the analogy – it is incorrect. Deaf people cannot hear any music regardless of how hard they try. Yet in the case of the Qur’an, the more a person exerts effort towards it - such as educating themselves in the Arabic language and all its sciences - the more they can appreciate the miracle of the Qur’an. This applies to both Arabs as well as non-Arabs.
2. The incapability to produce anything similar to it by the disbelievers during the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) time and those after them
As I have said and stand by, Muawiyah is a straw man and you have all but admitted this. Anyone who tried to reproduce anything like the Qur’an in terms of its claim to be from God would be either mad, a liar or an actual Prophet (which is a misnomer and I only add it to make this point).
I don’t know how the second statement relates to the first, but you have failed to show how Musaylimah (not Muawiyah!) is a strawman argument
. Nevertheless, if you don’t want to accept him as a valid example simply because of how ridiculous he made himself look, let’s not waste any more time over it. Throughout the centuries, thinkers, poets, theologians and literary critics have attempted to take on the challenge of the Qur’an, yet both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars have agreed on their failure. So there are many others in addition to Musaylimah – there was
Ibn Al-Mukaffa,
‘Abu'l-'Ala Al-Marri,
Yahya b. Al-Hakam al-Ghazal,
Sayyid 'Ali Muhammad,
Ibn al-Rawandi,
Bassar bin Burd,
Sahib Ibn 'Abbad,
Abu'l - 'Atahiya and others. I hope you’re not going to come back and claim they were all strawmen too?
I would like to borrow something I read because it makes a whole lot of sense here. Consider this argument:
‘Try to produce one chapter like that of Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”. You surely can’t, can you? So you must admit that Sun Tzu is God! AllahuSunTzu!’
Is this not a silly statement? Do you still not see how silly this claim is?
The reason why you think it is “silly” is because you don’t understand the nature of the challenge and how the Qur’an is incomparable to any other work. The Qur'an, being neither prose nor poetry, is a literary genre of its own that is of the highest eloquence and of matchless stylistic perfection. For example, even though the challengers have had the same set of ‘tools’, which are the 28 letters, finite grammatical rules and the blue print of the challenge – which is the Qur’an itself; they have failed to:
- Replicate the Qur’ans literary form
- Match the unique linguistic genre of the Qur’an
- Select and arrange words like that of the Qur’an
- Select and arrange particles like that of the Qur’an
- Match the Qur’ans phonetic superiority
- Equal the frequency of rhetorical devices
- Match the level of informativity
- Equal the Qur’ans conciseness and flexibility
For further information, I would suggest you read some of the articles written on this topic which I've linked to earlier.
H A R Gibb. states:
“As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, havingneither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming theinimitability not only of its contents but also of its style….. and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose in whichall the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.”
Moreover, you’ve again committed the fallacy of homing in on one aspect of the Qur’an’s miraculous nature, thinking it alone proves the Qur’an is from Allaah (swt). As I said more than once, all the aspects are to be taken in totality.
If this claim alone, the self-declared ‘miracle’ of the Qur’an, can be refuted, then the other proofs are irrelevant.
You keep calling it a “self-declared miracle”, but I can’t understand how you came to that conclusion.
3. The stories and accounts of the nations and prophets of old, since the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had no recourse to such information.
*According to your knowledge of events. As I have discussed there were many opportunities for the Prophet to have recourse to this information, but you have said that the probability of this is irrelevant because he was ‘was raised among his people and every aspect of his life was exposed to them’ and that ‘how could they believe in his truthfulness if they had any doubt that he was claiming credit for ideas taught to him by some other teachers without bothering to give them credit ?’ But the point is that not everyone did believe him, in fact most people didn’t.
All that you have presented on this topic is mere conjecture that is unfeasible and contradictory. I presented many points showing this, yet you only quote one of the six questions posed by Jamal Badawi and seem to have forgotten not only the other five, but everything posted in addition. The fact that some people didn’t accept Islam has nothing to do with this, because it is well known that not everyone who comes to know of the truth accepts it.
Besides which how many of the Jews actually converted in Medina before the rest were massacred?
How exactly does this misinformation support anything you’ve said?
I also do not understand why you have accepting that the Prophet could not have edited the information without being able to read or write. If I went into the desert and heard various fantastical stories from Christian traders (who perhaps wanted me to convert to their religion), and pondered over them during the long desert nights, without writing a single word down I am sure anyone could come up with different permutation without much difficulty.
It’s one thing to conjecture about something, and another to back it up with evidence. As I said, I have already mentioned a number of points in this regard that you haven’t responded to. I also came across this excerpt of Dr Laurence Brown which echoes some of those points:
Something Wrong With This Picture
The great importance the Qur’an assigns to reason in the pursuit of faith is surprising, especially considering the era and place in which it first appeared. By all accounts the Arabian Peninsula was at that time far from being a cradle of learning or philosophy. The Arabs were a callous, poor, illiterate, and uncultured people, often struggling fiercely against their harsh environment and each other for what little there was to extend their survival. While the Scriptures of the other major world religions appeared in developed and refined societies, the Qur’an first appeared in what can be aptly described as a cultural desert. Historians agree that the Arabs were a primitive people with no artistic, literary, or scientific heritage to speak of. They had no schools of philosophy, no significant works of visual art or literature; they were unknowledgeable in higher mathematics and possessed no other Scriptures or sacred writings. Their only developed art form was poetry, orally communicated and handed down. Such an environment is not expected to produce a work of such genius and literary power. We might assume that a long and gradual, cultural maturation would have preceded the Qur’an’s appearance.
There is no evidence that Muhammad had any formal education. He may have led a few caravan expeditions in his twenties, but that would not provide him with the opportunity to develop his intellectual skills to such a high level. The whole style of the Qur’an, its stress on reason, its logical coherence … its beauty and conciseness, suggests an author whose insight and wisdom come from far beyond the primitive confines of the then backward and isolated Arabian Peninsula.
I thought that perhaps there may have been more than one author of the Qur’an, but, unlike other Scriptures, there is no internal evidence to support this. The personality behind the Revelations is clearly one and its coherence is too great for it to have been a collective effort. As the Scripture states:
Surely if it were from other than God, they would find in it many a contradiction (4:82).
They could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support (17:88).
The only reasonable explanation I could come up with is that Muhammad had to be humanity’s greatest genius, for history has known many unusually gifted minds but none that transcended their time and place as he must have. Einstein was an amazing physicist, but his development of the Theory of Relativity was preceded by centuries of discovery with the science of physics moving in that direction for some time. Had Einstein not come up with the Theory of Relativity when he did, one of his peers almost certainly would have soon after. Andrew Wiles’ recent proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem is a brilliant achievement, but hundreds of years of advancement in mathematics and work on this problem contributed to it. Mozart, Van Gough, and Shakespeare were exceptional, but their works built on and reflect trends within their cultural surroundings. But the Qur’an’s sudden appearance in the Hijaz seemed to me like a rose bush suddenly appearing in full bloom in the most barren sector of the Empty Quarter of Arabia.
I felt that if Muhammad was the author of the Qur’an, then, besides being the most brilliant mind in history, he also must have been intensely devout and altruistic. The Qur’an is the purest testament to monotheism in existence, and it shows a deep, compassionate commitment to helping humanity, guiding men and women to the love of God, and righteous living. It would also seem that the Prophet must have been remarkably humble and self-effacing, as the Scripture repeatedly insists that Muhammad is only a man; that his only role is to deliver the message; that he has no supernatural powers; and that he, like everyone else, should pray for guidance and forgiveness. It criticizes and corrects him on several occasions. Such humility is rare in persons so intellectually superior to their peers.
Therefore, if Muhammad had authored the Qur’an, it would seem that he was singularly devoted to serving God and humanity and to teaching virtue, but yet, I could not ignore that he must also have concocted the most audacious hoax, fabricating a Scripture that portrays itself as God’s direct communication through him. It does not fit that a person capable of such a colossal lie could also produce such a powerful call to truth and goodness. I toyed with the idea that the Prophet may have had multiple personalities, but the Qur’an is surely not the delusions of a fragmented personality, any more than it could be the work of several individuals.
Can you then explain what the lesson of the story of ‘Ad and the Thamud is? Is there any purpose to the stories of ‘Ad and Thamud than to spread fear and to create obedient slaves who worship out of fear? Why does Allah need to show off his strength so often in the Qur’an, why is it not enough for Him to let us see grandiosity of the Creation and be satisfied that, yes, God can do great things? To me these stories suggest Allah has a chip on his shoulder and has to constantly use these interchangeable examples of brute force to maintain self-respect.
I’m glad you asked. One of the most important benefits from the stories in the Qur’an is that they demonstrate the manner in which one should call people to Allaah (swt) and what are the matters to be emphasised first – the primary message of all the prophets was Tawheed. In addition, these stories show that the true religion of mankind has always been one and the same (the religion of Tawheed) - there has been no evolution from polytheism to monotheism. Furthermore, through these stories, the believer realises that he is part of one great community that has existed throughout the centuries, whose sole purpose is the worship and pleasure of Allaah (swt). The Muslim is not alone in striving to follow the Straight Path, rather there have been many that have gone along that path in the past.
Another benefit from these stories is that they provide reassurance to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and all those following in his footsteps. Many of these stories show how the earlier prophets were treated by their people, showing how they had to face ridicule, scorn and denial etc. Thus, whoever faces such difficulties should realise that earlier prophets faced the same and that this is a trial from Allaah (swt) that all people following the same path may have to face. Moreover, their stories make it clear that Allaah (swt) gave them strength and supported them due to their patience.
These stories also demonstrate how greatly Allaah (swt) blesses His true and devoted servants. The reader can quickly recognise how much Allaah (swt) blessed, guided and aided the pious people and this will remind the reader that if he is working for the sake of Allaah (swt), Allaah (swt) will indeed help him, bless him and never allow his works to be lost in vain.
Through reading these stories of the earlier prophets, one also realises how Allaah (swt) is able to manifest His power over His creation. Nothing occurs except by His will. Furthermore, no matter how strong the forces of evil might seem, there will come a time when they will be brought down and removed.
These are some examples of the morals and teachings presented by the stories in the Qur’an. The impertinent comments you made towards Allaah (swt) demonstrate your need for a proper approach to the Qur’an. If you do not have a sincere heart in learning about Islam and the Qur’an, then discussions such as these are a complete waste of time.
You mean calling the leader ‘King’ not ‘Phaoroh’ in the story of Joseph and the Phaoroh calling a man ‘Haman’ in the story of Moses?
I mean all the points I mentioned regarding the borrowing theory. Let’s deal with what we have before adding in extra points for discussion.
4. The predictions which occurred in the Qur'an, and which later came true
…
Firstly, by ‘decade’ I was referring to the fact that the prediction in that Surah was made in around 615 AD, so when we say ‘3 to 10 years’ it could have either come true in the 610s or the 620s, therefore in either of the two decades.
Whichever decade it falls into is irrelevant – the main point is that it was given to occur within the next 3 to 9 years.
Secondly you forget the Roman (Byzantine) Empire was now based in Constantinople, and the leadership transferred there in 324 AD – therefore to talk about the setbacks of the Western Roman Empire is not really that relevant by this point and is more of a distraction. The weakened Empire it was still formidable,
Wherever the capital was, the east and the west were simply two regions of the same empire. As for it being “formidable”, see below.
and let us not forget the Roman-Persian War of 572-591 (shortly after the Prophet’s birth) during which the Romans defeated the Persians and were left in a strategically stronger position towards the Persians than before. If you were going to place bets after that war which side would you pick?
Even if the Romans defeated the Persians at this time, it doesn’t necessarily mean they were now in a “strategically stronger position” as the Romans and Persians had been fighting for centuries, with either side gaining victories or with long intermittent periods of peace between them. The situation was drastically different decades later when the Roman empire was at the brink of destruction. (
According to Wikipedia, since 614, the emperor issued large quantities of silver coins with a new and desperate slogan on them:
Deus adiuta Romanis - "God, help the Romans!")
The renowned historian Edward Gibbon has commented:
“When this prophecy was made, no prediction could be more unbelievable because the initial twelve years of Heraclius were evidently declaring an end to the Roman Empire.” [Fall of the Roman Empire, v.5, p.73-74]
Since when did anything an American President (or other world leader for that matter) has promised mean squat? I’d say my prediction is actually a fairly good example considering I do not have as much data to hand to show how often an American President, let alone Barack Obama keeps his promises (which has to be quite low), compared to the Prophet, who had evidence of the Romans already having defeated the Persians in his lifetime.
This is getting quite silly. Whether you believe the President or not is irrelevant, the fact is that from all the information available to you, you make a prediction on what seems most likely, which anyone can do. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) didn’t have access to the internet and news channels, neither did he have any “evidence” of the likely outcome. To the contrary, the prediction was made against all odds such that even the pagan Arabs confidently betted against it. I reiterate the underlying point again: no prediction made in the Qur’an has failed, but rather each (of the ones mentioned) came true consistently despite circumstances which made some, if not all of them, very unlikely.
Neither. The Battle of Badr was won in 624 whereas the Persians were defeated in 628 AD.
You forget that Heraclius launched his campaign throughout 622-627 CE. In 627/628 was the climactic Battle of Nineveh, yet the Romans had begun gaining victory well before this. Thus, what may be referred to is an earlier victory, which according to Dr. Laurence Brown, was the defeat of a major Persian force led by the famous general Shahr-Baraz.
5. The perfect belief of Monotheism - The attribution of all that befits Allaah and the negation of all that does not befit Him, and the call of the Creator to the created to worship Him. All of this is not possible for a human to bring forth unless he was inspired by Allaah.
This is a misassumption and circular logic. What ‘befits’ Allah is a matter of human interpretation and in the case of your argument is based solely on what the Qur’an says Allah is. I could say that God is ‘Most Practical’ (a made up attribute) and it could be argued that I am right because this attribute befits God, because what is God if not a practical being?
We’re not talking about one or two attributes here, we’re talking about the Islamic belief as a whole. There is no other religion whose concept of monotheism is as pure and perfect as Islam. Allaah (swt) is described with qualities of complete perfection, and at the same time in a manner that is free of ascribing to Him any imperfection. This is in line with man’s natural disposition and ability to reason that God is perfect in every way and free from having any partners etc – there is no circular logic involved, as the beliefs in the Islamic creed distinctly stand out in their purity and appeal to human rationale. Looking at other religions, the flaws in their beliefs are very apparent where they ascribe partners to God and weaknesses like fatigue, sleep and hunger, and incompatible stories of gods fighting each other, engaging in inappropriate behaviour and so on.Moreover, Islam gives a sense of integrity and honour for the prophets as recipients of divine revelation, yet this is denied by the Christians and Jews who ascribe crimes such as murder, incest and drunkenness to them. It thus becomes clear that the concept of an existing being that possesses such complete ability, knowledge, and greatness; Who has subdued the creation; Who has encompassed everything in the universe, small or large; and Who possesses such perfect mercy – all of this must be from the true God and not the invention of any human being or philosopher. It is also worthy to note the context in which the Qur’an was revealed – amongst a people heavily engrossed in superstitious beliefs and strange practices, none of which adulterate the pristine teachings of Islam.
6. The laws and sharee'ah that the Qur'an came with, and the morals and conduct that it called for. All of this leads to the betterment of life in this world and in the Hereafter. The perfection of a set of laws that can be applied to any society at any time and place is humanly impossible, and the sharee'ah is the only example of such a set of laws.
What I have asked is: can you prove Shariah law does any of the things you have suggested, particularly in terms of being applied to any society and any time and place? Can you prove it leads to the betterment of society when applied as a comprehensive system?
Perhaps the most obvious example is that during the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) himself. A society so steeped in evil practices such as tribal wars, murdering of children, drinking and gambling, prostitution and cruel treatment of women etc. was completely transformed. This transformation is something that many have marvelled at. When Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) began preaching Islam, Durant notes,
`Arabia was a desert flotsam of idolatrous tribes; when he died it was a nation.’ W. Durant: The Age of Faith, Simon and Shuster, New York, 1950. Chapter VIII; p.174.
And the historian Michael S. Hart ranked the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) as the most influential figure in history.
The sharee’ah continued to be studied and implemented throughout the Muslim lands, not being outdated over the passage of time or change of place. There are ample references to the tolerance and humane aspects of Muslim civilisation, and the nature of Muslim rule in various places. For example:
This prosperity and the Golden Age did not just end in the Middle Ages, rather this pattern continued for many centuries to come. In some places Jews were so comfortable with the Islamic system that they deliberately applied to Shari’ah courts for the purpose of attaining justice and arbitration, even when they had complete autonomy in their religious affairs [i.e. they had their own courts to refer to]. For instance, Amnon Cohen, another American Jewish historian, studied the 16th century documents stored in the archives of the Shari’ah religious court of Jerusalem (commonly known as sijill), whereby he found 1000 Jewish cases filed form the year 1530 to 1601 CE. Cohen published his research in 1994 and during his research he made some astonishing discoveries, as he himself states:
"Cases concerning Jews cover a very wide spectrum of topics. If we bear in mind that the Jews of Jerusalem had their own separate courts, the number of cases brought to Muslim court (which actually meant putting themselves at the mercy of a judge outside the pale of their communal and religious identity) is quite impressive[21]…The Jews went to the Muslim court for a variety of reasons, but the overwhelming fact was their ongoing and almost permanent presence there. This indicates that they went there not only in search of justice, but did so hoping, or rather knowing, that more often than not they would attain redress when wronged…The Jews went to court to resolve much more than their conflicts with Muslim or Christian neighbours. They turned to Shari’a authorities to seek redress with respect to internal differences, and even in matters within their immediate family (intimate relations between husband and wife, nafaqa maintenance payments to divorcees, support of infants etc.)."
http://www.islam21c.com/index.php?o...al-perspective&catid=36&Itemid=80#notes#notes
Even today, the solutions for the problems of society lie in following the sharee’ah. To appreciate this, a proper study of the sharee’ah is required and many examples will then become apparent of how it is applied, the benefits it can bring, and so on. This is a topic in itself and if interested, you can read into it elsewhere. We may have some threads on the forum, such as this one:
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/4498-shariah-law.html
There is no system of man-made laws that has remained unchanged or provided a perfect set of rules for the betterment of society.
7. Scientific facts mentioned in the Qur'an that were unknown at that time.
This is something I want to go over in more detail in this post. It seems that to ‘see’ the science in the Qur’an one has to wear rose-tinted glasses. I have already commented on the so-called ‘miracle verses’ describing the orbits of the sun and moon, the water cycle, the description of female bees leaving the hive and the production of milk, which is perhaps the obscurest yet. The ‘Big Bang’ verse is of the same nature although it is being discussed in another thread and whatever that verse describes, it isn’t the big bang, although I once convinced myself that it did.
I don’t think it’s that difficult, actually. Although these scientific references may be brief, the miraculous aspect appears in the fact that even in these limited descriptions, the Qur’an conforms exactly to modern science and that there was no way for people to know about such things during that time. Moreover, these descriptions are free from the retroactive ideas that would have been prevalent at that time. The comments you made earlier weren’t exactly refutations but mere opinions that don’t disprove anything. By the way, I didn’t mention anything about the Big Bang.
As I said before, embryology in the Qur’an foremost scientific claim considering it relates to something entirely unobservable by Muhammad and is mentioned twice in the Qur’an. From the first link it is discussed that Surah 23, in its apparent meaning mentions bones forming before flesh, which is the opposite of what actually happens:
Dr. Abdel-Rahman argues around this by saying that ‘the primordia of both the bone and muscle are present together with those of bones and other tissues in a collective primitive structure during the first 40 days … however in this stage the primordial of muscle have not yet differentiated into definitive bones and muscles.’
But the verse is explicit in saying bones then flesh, whereas if we look at what Keith Moore, a professor who is much praised in the second link you gave me, has written in his book, we find:
‘The skeletal and muscle system develops from the mesoderm, some of which becomes mesenchymal cells. These mesenchymal cells make muscles, and also have the ability to differentiate...into osteoblasts which make bone. At first the bones form as cartilage models so that by the end of the sixth week the whole limb skeleton is formed out of cartilage but without any bony calcium.’
What this is saying is that muscles form before bones, rather than around them. I do not see how what Dr. Abdel-Rahman wrote in any way refutes this.
The verses pertaining to embryology are actually more than two – some mentioning other aspects of it. Regarding what you’ve quoted above, I don’t see where the contradiction is and there is no mention of muscles being formed before bones. Both authors agree that when the cartilage bones are differentiated, the embryonic connective tissue or mesenchyme around them is undifferentiated. If you quoted the rest of Dr. Abdel-Rahman’s words, the matter would have become clearer. He goes on to say,
“…During the seventh week- the skeleton begins to spread throughout the body and the bones take their familiar shapes. The embryo then starts to acquire the human appearance. At the end of the seventh week and during the eighth week the muscles take their positions around the bone forms…”
Now as an aside, can I just ask the Muslim biology experts what the clot refers to in 23:14? And why is this translated as a ‘clinging form’ in some translations and a ‘clot’ in others?
Different translators have used different wordings to interpret the same word.
An interesting point to note is, if you see the various stages of development of the embryo, one notices how strikingly similar the Qur’anic references are to particular stages:
http://www.quranandscience.com/human/135-dr-keith-moore-confirms-embryology-in-quran.html
Another aspect of the embryological references in the Qur’an is how the embryo is surrounded by three layers: the abdominal wall, the uterine wall, and the placenta with its choriono-amniotic membranes. These three layers are referred to in the verse,
…He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation in three veils of darkness… [39:6]
8. The fact that it has been protected and remained unchanged over such a long period of time, despite the fact that all other religious books have been distorted.
All the other religious books have been distorted according to your beliefs. Christians believe their Bible is the authentic Bible and Jews believe their Torah is the authentic Torah. Inconsistencies in the Bible do not automatically mean the Bible is an altered version of an original book called the ‘Injeel’ brought down by Jesus just because the Qur’an says so. The most sensible explanation is that Jesus never brought any book and that his followers instead developed a religion around him which incorporated their own pagan beliefs. To use the inconsistencies in the Bible and Torah to try and add credibility to the Qur’an is like standing on the third floor of a tower and saying ‘This floor is the most stable because the two floors below it are completely unstable!’
I didn’t say the corruption of the Torah and Bible in and of itself proves the Qur’an is true, rather the point is regarding the uniqueness of the Qur’an in its preservation. If you make an objective comparison between these scriptures, you will find a clear difference. No other book has been memorised as much as the Qur’an, and neither can it be traced back through such a large number of chains of narration going right back to the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), leaving no doubt of its authenticity. In fact, you said earlier,
“I don’t deny that the Qur’an is the most authentic religious book…” (post #163).
9. The compilation of the Qur'an and the diligence with which all the knowledge essential for its understanding has been preserved (such as the causes of revelation behind specific verses, verses revealed in Makkah/Madeenah, abrogation etc.)
The reason I did not comment on this one earlier is because it is simply saying that the material needed for the Qur’an to be fully understood has been preserved. If the Qur’an explained itself fully in the first place then this supplementary material would not have been required. Therefore if anything this weakens the Qur’an’s position. For a book to be conceived over 20 years and to still require so much abrogation and further explanation is utterly confounding.
This has nothing to do with the clarity of the Qur’an, because clarity is not negated by requisite knowledge. Knowing about the causes of revelation behind specific verses and whether verses were revealed in Makkah or Madeenah, together with the other sciences of the Qur'an, all aid in one’s understanding of the Qur’an. The fact that such minute details have been preserved till this day leaves one in awe of how meticulously Islamic knowledge has been preserved and further increase one's conviction in the truth of the Qur'an.
As for the issue of abrogation, you can read about it here:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=531§ion=indepth&subsection=Glorious Quran
10. The miraculous nature of the various ways and manners of reciting the Qur'an (the ahruf and qira'aat).
See previous posts.
11. The ease by which it is memorised, and this is known by experience and observance.This is in contrast to all other religious books, for none of them are memorised like the Qur'an.
See previous posts
12. The deep meanings that are present inside it, and the fact that a reader never tires of reading the Qur'an, no matter how many times he has heard it or read it. This is in contrast to any other book, since a person cannot read it more than a few times without it getting monotonous and mundane.
See previous posts
13. The impact that the Qur'an has on those who hear it and the euphonious quality of the Qur'an.
I’ve browsed through the previous posts and it appears you stopped responding to these points. You cannot therefore conclude points 10, 12 and 13 are “purely subjective”, and doing so simply seems like a cop-out. You called number 11 a “self-fulfilling prophecy” – do you want to explain what exactly you mean by that?
The reason I jump from one ‘weak’ theory to another is because the claims of the Qur’an’s divinity is based upon one weak theory after another! It is almost like if you throw enough ‘proofs’ at it something will stick.
If the Qur’an was based upon “weak” theories, it should have been very easy for you to refute them. Instead, all I am finding in your posts is vague expressions like “purely subjective”, “simply irrelevant” and “personal opinions”, which don’t mean anything if not supported by evidence and explanation. It’s an easy way out of the discussion to disregard whole topics by labelling them with empty words instead of responding to individual points.
The problem if one starts mentioning say, Shakespeare or Yeats, in terms of literature superior to the Qur’an, is that you will then answer that ‘the Qur’an is not a book of poetry or prose.’ If we criticise the ‘science’, you will then answer that ‘the Qur’an is not a book of science’. If we then say well, the Qur’an has questionable ideas of justice, you will say ‘well it is from God so believe it or prepare to suffer, no skin off our noses!’ When we ask why it is from God, you say ‘produce a single surah like it.’ And so the cycle continues.
Again, an over-simplification and misrepresentation of the facts. We’ve already discussed literary excellence and science above, so I’m not going to repeat that here. If you have real criticisms to make, you can present them in the appropriate place. As for your other comments, where has anyone used these arguments? I clearly listed 13 aspects of the Qur’an’s miraculous nature -not simply a one sentence reply, so if you really want to know the answer to your questions, it would help if you stopped repeating the same errors and actually accept the responses we’ve given.
Regards.
