Can Authenticity of Quran be proven?

[MJFlores]

Not a great argument.

We could not really argue over something which is a well known fact.
Even Muslims know who wrote the Quran.
All it takes is to open one's eyes to the truth

 

[firedragon]

We could not really argue over something which is a well known fact.
Even Muslims know who wrote the Quran.
All it takes is to open one's eyes to the truth

Brother, If you think you know who wrote the Quran based on that cut and paste from an evangelical page, thats some of the poorest scholarships. Just makinng claims like "Well known fact" is not an argument. Telling others to open their eyes is also not a good argument.

Let me ask you a simple, easy to answer question if you think you know the subject just to show you how much your own apologists who compiled that cut and paste has mislead you.

You spoke of the battle of Yamama.

1. What is a Curra? Whats the definition?
2. How does one memorise? Whats the strategy?
3. Who narrated this story? Who wrote it down. When?
4. Why do you think its 100% historical fact?

Peace.

 

[MJFlores]

. What is a Curra? Whats the definition?

Curra
Description
Curra, Queensland - Wikipedia

Curra is a locality in the Gympie Region, Queensland, Australia. At the 2016 census, Curra had a population of 1,920. Wikipedia
Weather: 28°C, Wind NE at 5 km/h, 79% Humidity
Location: 188 km (117 mi) N of Brisbane; 19 km (12 mi) NW of Gympie; 10 km (6 mi) S of Gunalda
Postal code: 4570
State electorate(s): Gympie
Population: 1,920 (2016 census)

WHO WROTE THE BOOK CALLED QUR’AN AND WHO ORDERED THEM TO WRITE IT?


“Actually the Quran verses being collected by Zayd doesn't mean he is the author, as this was already memorized by many other disciples, all what he did is that he collected the verses in one book with evidence and witnesses for every verse.”


Zayd ibn Thabit - Wikipedia

THE BOOK CALLED “Qur’an” was authored and written by Zayd Bin Thabit as testified by the Islamic traditions:


“(The Caliph `Uthman ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Sa`id bin Al-As, `Abdullah bin Az-Zubair and `Abdur- Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham to write the Qur'an in the form of a book (Mushafs) and said to them. "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit (Al-Ansari) regarding any dialectic Arabic utterance of the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, for the Qur'an was revealed in this dialect." So they did it.”
[Sahih Al-Bhukari, Book 66, Hadith 6.]


Please take note of the following:

Uthman - Wikipedia

(a) According to Islamic traditions, Caliph Uthman ordered these men to write the Book called “Qur’an.” As compared to the Bible, it was God Himself who ordered the inspired prophets and apostles to write the books of the Bible as what the Lord God commanded Prophet Jeremiah:

“Thus speaks the LORD God of Israel, saying: 'Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you.” (Jeremiah 30:2 NKJV)

(b) Indeed, Qur’an was written by these men. These words of Uthman testify that these men were the author, not only collectors but writers, of the book called Qur’an, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit (Al-Ansari) regarding any dialectic Arabic utterance of the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish.” While, during the writing of the Bible, God guided and guarded the inspired writers and ordered them write only what He ordered them to write:

“Now when the seven thunders uttered their voices, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, "Seal up the things which the seven thunders uttered, and do not write them." (Revelation 10:4 NKJV)

(c) Those written by Zayd came from the disciples and followers of the prophet of Islam (“this was already memorized by many other disciples, all what he did is that he collected the verses in one book with evidence and witnesses for every verse”). Unlike the Bible, those written in the books of the Bible were not collected from those who “heard” it from the prophets and apostles, but what the prophets and apostles themselves heard from God because they themselves who wrote it:

“Thus speaks the LORD God of Israel, saying: 'Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you.” (Jeremiah 30:2 NKJV)


CONCLUSION

THUS, THE POINT IS, the Book called Qur’an was not written by Muhammed, did not exist during Muhammed’s lifetime but after his death, those who wrote it are not prophets or apostles, only Abu Bakr and Uthman ordered them to write the book called Qur’an, and their sources were those who heard the utterance of Muhammed. Unlike the books of the Bible, they were written by the inspired writers themselves and God Himself who ordered them to write the books of the Bible saying “Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you.”

 

[firedragon]

Curra
Description
Curra, Queensland - Wikipedia

Curra is a locality in the Gympie Region, Queensland, Australia. At the 2016 census, Curra had a population of 1,920. Wikipedia
Weather: 28°C, Wind NE at 5 km/h, 79% Humidity
Location: 188 km (117 mi) N of Brisbane; 19 km (12 mi) NW of Gympie; 10 km (6 mi) S of Gunalda
Postal code: 4570
State electorate(s): Gympie
Population: 1,920 (2016 census)

You quoted ahadith. You dont have a kindergarten level clue of what it says or even the words it uses which is why you have gone and found some australian people which is not what the hadith is speaking about which i believe even a little child will understand that medieval arabic and australia are a little far away from eachother.

This ends objective capability in your part. So it is just evident that you can only cut and paste from a page online but are incapable of making deductive reasoninng.

THE BOOK CALLED “Qur’an” was authored and written by Zayd Bin Thabit as testified by the Islamic traditions:

Wrong. That is one episode in tradition. This usually happen when you quickly browse a bit and think thats everything.

CONCLUSION

THUS, THE POINT IS, the Book called Qur’an was not written by Muhammed, did not exist during Muhammed’s lifetime but after his death, those who wrote it are not prophets or apostles, only Abu Bakr and Uthman ordered them to write the book called Qur’an, and their sources were those who heard the utterance of Muhammed. Unlike the books of the Bible, they were written by the inspired writers themselves and God Himself who ordered them to write the books of the Bible saying “Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you.”

Thats not even an inductive conclusion. Its much worse than an average logical fallacy.

Since you cant answer my simple questions, you have gone into a strawman.

Now try and do some real research and answer these simple questions. Again, this is only a little bit of your cut and paste that will show you how unread you are, and how mislead you are by such shallow exploration.

You spoke of the battle of Yamama.

1. What is a Curra? Whats the definition?
2. How does one memorise? Whats the strategy?
3. Who narrated this story? Who wrote it down. When?
4. Why do you think its 100% historical fact?

 

[MJFlores]

You spoke of the battle of Yamama.

For Muslims, Qur’an was not only a revelation from Allah, but “the miracle of miracles.” The “miracle of Qur’an” is a popular doctrine accepted and upheld by Muslims. Muhammad himself claimed that Qur’an is his miracle:

“Again and again when miracles are demanded from the Prophet of God by the cynical and frivolous few, he is made to point to the Qur’an – Message from High – as ‘The Miracle.’ THE MIRACLE OF MIRACLES And men of wisdom, people with literary and spiritual insight, who were honest enough to themselves, recognised and accepted Al-Qur’an as a genuine miracle.” (Al-Qur’an, The Miracle of Miracles, p. 12.)

Why this doctrine is very important for Muslims? The “miraculousness of the Qur’an is the “foundation of Islam and the most essential evidence for the propethood of Muhammad”:

“This absolute confidence in the miraculousness of the Qur’an has remained unshaken among Muslims to this day. In a sense, this is the foundation of Islam and the most essential evidence for the prophethood of Muhammad…the prophetic office of the Prophet – upon whom be peace – is built upon this miracle.’ A contemporary Muslim author, Faruqi, observes that ‘Muslims do not claim any miracles for Muhammad. In their view, what proves Muhammad’s prophethood is the sublime beauty and greatness of the revelation itself, the Holy Qur’an, not any inexplicable breaches of natural law which confound human reason.’ ” (Answering Islam, p. 103-104.)

A contemporary Muslim author, Faruqi, said “Muslims do not claim any miracles fir Muhammad. In their view, what proves Muhammad’s prophethood is the sublime beauty and greatness if the revelation itself the Holy Qur’an, not any inexplicable breaches if natural law which confound human reason.”

Thus, proving that the “miracle of Qur’an” is “not a miracle at all” will refutes the “prophethood of Muhammad.”


THE ISLAM’S DOCTRINE OF INIMITABILITY

Ask a Muslim to prove the “miracle of Qur’an” and they will point to their doctrine called “the costrine of inimitability.” This is how they explain their “doctrine of inimitability”:

“The Qur’an is the word of God revealed to Muhammad through the Holy Spirit Gabriel, and it is beyond human imagination to produce anything like it.” (Islam in Focus, p, 217)

Muslims claim that “it is beyond human imagination to produce anything like it.” Muhammad himself claimed that only God can produced the Qur’an:

“This Qur’an is not such As can be produced By other than God…” (Surah 10:37, ALI)

They claimed that no man can produced the like of Qur’an and that only God can produced the Qur’an because of the “literary beauty” of Qur’an:

“They believe that Qur’an ‘is second to none in the world according to the unanimous decision of the learned men in points of diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations to shape the destinies of mankind.’ ” (Ans. Islam, p. 181)

They claimed that the diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations are second to none. Thus, they concluded the following:

“Say: ‘If the whole Of mankind and Jinns Were to gather together To produce the like of this Qur’an, they Could not produce The like thereof, even if They backed up each other.” (Surah 17:88, ALI)

For Muslims, the literary beauty of Qur’an is a miracle for no one can produce the like of it and that the diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations are second to none. This is the core reason why they say that Qur’an is a “miracle.”


THE FLAWS OF THEIR ARGUMENT FOR QUR’AN

(1) Even if the Qur’an is the most eloquent book in Arabic, this would hardly prove it had divine authority. For the same could be argued for the most eloquent book in Hebrew, Greek or any other language. Homer would qualify as a prophet for producing the Iliad and the Odyssey. Shakespeare is without peer in the English Language.

(2) It is logical fallacy to argue that simply because it is eloquent that God must have said it. Not because God said it, He would say it most eloquently. The sovereign God (whom Muslims accept) could choose to speak in plain everyday language, if he wished.

(3) There is no logical connection between literary eloquence and divine authority. Even it were proved beyond the possibility of doubt that the Qur’an far surpassed all other books in eloquence, elegance, and poetry, that would no more prove its inspiration than a man’s strength would demonstrate his wisdom or a woman’s beauty her virtue. Not because that woman is the most beautiful woman iin the Not because that man is the strongest man in the world, it doesn’t prove that he is a prophet of God.

(4) Eloquence is highly questionable as test for divine inspiration. At best it only proves that Muhammad was extremely gifted. After all Mozart wrote his first symphony at the age of six! In fact Mozart was even more talented, since his entire music corpus was produced before age thirty-five. Muhammad did not begin to produce the suras of the Qur’an until age forty. But what Muslim would say that Mozart’s works are miraculous like the Qur’an?

(5) The so-called “inimitability” (that no one can produced the like of it) is not a valid test for divine authority. Would Muslims accept the challenge to produce a work like Romeo and Juliet or else accept the divine inspiration of the works of Shakespeare? In fact, other religious leaders have given the beautiful literary style of their work as a sign of its divine origin. Would Muslims accept the inspiration of these works? For example, the Persian founder of the Manichaeans, Mani, ‘is said to have claimed that men should believe in him as the Paraclete (‘Helper’) Jesus promised in John 14 because he produced a book called Artand, full of beautiful pictures.’ Further, ‘he said that the book had been given him by God, that no living man could paint pictures equal in beauty to those contained in it, and that therefore it had evidently come from God Himself.’ Yet, no Muslim will accept this claim. Why then should non-Muslim accept literary beauty as a valid test for divine authority.


QUR’AN’S LITERARY BEAUTY, ELOQUENCE
AND DICTION ARE SECOND TO NONE?

Even though we accept (for the sake of argument) that literary beauty and eloquence is a valid test for divine authority, still, the Qur’an fails.

In terms of literary beauty and style:

“The Islamic scholar, C.G. Pfander, points out that ‘it is by no means the universal opinion of unprejudiced Arabic scholars that the literary style of the Qur’an is superior to that of all other books in the Arabic language.’ For example, ‘some doubt whether in eloquence and poetry it surpasses the Mu’allaqat, or the Magamat or Hariri, though in Muslim lands few people are courageous enough to express such an opinion.’ ” (Ans. Islam, p. 187)

In terms of eloquence and diction:

“Eloquence” means “discourse marked by apt and fluent diction”:

“1a: discourse marked by force and persuasiveness suggesting strong feeling or deep sincerity; esp: discourse marked by apt and fluent diction, and imaginative fervor <the poetry of western nations ~ in meter – George Santayana> b: the art or power of using such discourse…” (Webster’s’ Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, 1961, p. 737)

“Diction” means “correctness, clearness, or effectiveness of wordings used”:

“…choice of words esp. with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness: wording used…” (Webster’s’ Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, 1961, p. 627)

What Muslim scholars admits regarding Qur’an:

“The Iranian Shi’ite scholar Ali Dashti contend, however, that the Qur’an possesses numerous grammatical irregularities. He notes that…The Quran contains sentences which are incomplete and fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning, adjectives and verbs infected without observance of the concord of gender and number; illogical and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects…Dashti concludes: ‘to sum up, more than one hundred Quranic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted.”

An example of grammatical irregularities in Qur’an as pointed out by Ali dashti, a Muslim scholar:

“He (Ali Dasgti) lists numerous examples (74:1; 4:160; 20:66; 2:172, and so on), one of which is ‘In verse 9 of sura 49 (ol-Hojorat), ‘If two parties of believers have started to fight each other, make peace between them’, the verb meaning ‘have started to fight’ is in the plural, whereas it ought to be in the dual like its subject ‘two parties’.”

Other examples of literary flaws in Qur’an:

“Anis A. Shorrosh list other literary flaws in the Qur’an. For example, in 2:177 he points out that the word Sabireen in Arabic should have been Sabiroon because of its position in the sentence. Likewise, Sabieen is more correct Arabic than Sabioon in 5:69. Also, Shorrosh notes that there is “a gross error in Arabic” in 3:59.”

 

[firedragon]

For Muslims, Qur’an was not only a revelation from Allah, but “the miracle of miracles.” The “miracle of Qur’an” is a popular doctrine accepted and upheld by Muslims. Muhammad himself claimed that Qur’an is his miracle:

“Again and again when miracles are demanded from the Prophet of God by the cynical and frivolous few, he is made to point to the Qur’an – Message from High – as ‘The Miracle.’ THE MIRACLE OF MIRACLES And men of wisdom, people with literary and spiritual insight, who were honest enough to themselves, recognised and accepted Al-Qur’an as a genuine miracle.” (Al-Qur’an, The Miracle of Miracles, p. 12.)

View attachment 36479

Why this doctrine is very important for Muslims? The “miraculousness of the Qur’an is the “foundation of Islam and the most essential evidence for the propethood of Muhammad”:

“This absolute confidence in the miraculousness of the Qur’an has remained unshaken among Muslims to this day. In a sense, this is the foundation of Islam and the most essential evidence for the prophethood of Muhammad…the prophetic office of the Prophet – upon whom be peace – is built upon this miracle.’ A contemporary Muslim author, Faruqi, observes that ‘Muslims do not claim any miracles for Muhammad. In their view, what proves Muhammad’s prophethood is the sublime beauty and greatness of the revelation itself, the Holy Qur’an, not any inexplicable breaches of natural law which confound human reason.’ ” (Answering Islam, p. 103-104.)
View attachment 36480

A contemporary Muslim author, Faruqi, said “Muslims do not claim any miracles fir Muhammad. In their view, what proves Muhammad’s prophethood is the sublime beauty and greatness if the revelation itself the Holy Qur’an, not any inexplicable breaches if natural law which confound human reason.”

Thus, proving that the “miracle of Qur’an” is “not a miracle at all” will refutes the “prophethood of Muhammad.”


THE ISLAM’S DOCTRINE OF INIMITABILITY

Ask a Muslim to prove the “miracle of Qur’an” and they will point to their doctrine called “the costrine of inimitability.” This is how they explain their “doctrine of inimitability”:

“The Qur’an is the word of God revealed to Muhammad through the Holy Spirit Gabriel, and it is beyond human imagination to produce anything like it.” (Islam in Focus, p, 217)
View attachment 36481


Muslims claim that “it is beyond human imagination to produce anything like it.” Muhammad himself claimed that only God can produced the Qur’an:

“This Qur’an is not such As can be produced By other than God…” (Surah 10:37, ALI)

They claimed that no man can produced the like of Qur’an and that only God can produced the Qur’an because of the “literary beauty” of Qur’an:

“They believe that Qur’an ‘is second to none in the world according to the unanimous decision of the learned men in points of diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations to shape the destinies of mankind.’ ” (Ans. Islam, p. 181)

They claimed that the diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations are second to none. Thus, they concluded the following:

“Say: ‘If the whole Of mankind and Jinns Were to gather together To produce the like of this Qur’an, they Could not produce The like thereof, even if They backed up each other.” (Surah 17:88, ALI)

For Muslims, the literary beauty of Qur’an is a miracle for no one can produce the like of it and that the diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations are second to none. This is the core reason why they say that Qur’an is a “miracle.”


THE FLAWS OF THEIR ARGUMENT FOR QUR’AN

(1) Even if the Qur’an is the most eloquent book in Arabic, this would hardly prove it had divine authority. For the same could be argued for the most eloquent book in Hebrew, Greek or any other language. Homer would qualify as a prophet for producing the Iliad and the Odyssey. Shakespeare is without peer in the English Language.

(2) It is logical fallacy to argue that simply because it is eloquent that God must have said it. Not because God said it, He would say it most eloquently. The sovereign God (whom Muslims accept) could choose to speak in plain everyday language, if he wished.

(3) There is no logical connection between literary eloquence and divine authority. Even it were proved beyond the possibility of doubt that the Qur’an far surpassed all other books in eloquence, elegance, and poetry, that would no more prove its inspiration than a man’s strength would demonstrate his wisdom or a woman’s beauty her virtue. Not because that woman is the most beautiful woman iin the Not because that man is the strongest man in the world, it doesn’t prove that he is a prophet of God.

(4) Eloquence is highly questionable as test for divine inspiration. At best it only proves that Muhammad was extremely gifted. After all Mozart wrote his first symphony at the age of six! In fact Mozart was even more talented, since his entire music corpus was produced before age thirty-five. Muhammad did not begin to produce the suras of the Qur’an until age forty. But what Muslim would say that Mozart’s works are miraculous like the Qur’an?

(5) The so-called “inimitability” (that no one can produced the like of it) is not a valid test for divine authority. Would Muslims accept the challenge to produce a work like Romeo and Juliet or else accept the divine inspiration of the works of Shakespeare? In fact, other religious leaders have given the beautiful literary style of their work as a sign of its divine origin. Would Muslims accept the inspiration of these works? For example, the Persian founder of the Manichaeans, Mani, ‘is said to have claimed that men should believe in him as the Paraclete (‘Helper’) Jesus promised in John 14 because he produced a book called Artand, full of beautiful pictures.’ Further, ‘he said that the book had been given him by God, that no living man could paint pictures equal in beauty to those contained in it, and that therefore it had evidently come from God Himself.’ Yet, no Muslim will accept this claim. Why then should non-Muslim accept literary beauty as a valid test for divine authority.


QUR’AN’S LITERARY BEAUTY, ELOQUENCE
AND DICTION ARE SECOND TO NONE?

Even though we accept (for the sake of argument) that literary beauty and eloquence is a valid test for divine authority, still, the Qur’an fails.

In terms of literary beauty and style:

“The Islamic scholar, C.G. Pfander, points out that ‘it is by no means the universal opinion of unprejudiced Arabic scholars that the literary style of the Qur’an is superior to that of all other books in the Arabic language.’ For example, ‘some doubt whether in eloquence and poetry it surpasses the Mu’allaqat, or the Magamat or Hariri, though in Muslim lands few people are courageous enough to express such an opinion.’ ” (Ans. Islam, p. 187)

In terms of eloquence and diction:

“Eloquence” means “discourse marked by apt and fluent diction”:

“1a: discourse marked by force and persuasiveness suggesting strong feeling or deep sincerity; esp: discourse marked by apt and fluent diction, and imaginative fervor <the poetry of western nations ~ in meter – George Santayana> b: the art or power of using such discourse…” (Webster’s’ Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, 1961, p. 737)
View attachment 36482


“Diction” means “correctness, clearness, or effectiveness of wordings used”:

“…choice of words esp. with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness: wording used…” (Webster’s’ Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, 1961, p. 627)

What Muslim scholars admits regarding Qur’an:

“The Iranian Shi’ite scholar Ali Dashti contend, however, that the Qur’an possesses numerous grammatical irregularities. He notes that…The Quran contains sentences which are incomplete and fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning, adjectives and verbs infected without observance of the concord of gender and number; illogical and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects…Dashti concludes: ‘to sum up, more than one hundred Quranic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted.”

An example of grammatical irregularities in Qur’an as pointed out by Ali dashti, a Muslim scholar:

“He (Ali Dasgti) lists numerous examples (74:1; 4:160; 20:66; 2:172, and so on), one of which is ‘In verse 9 of sura 49 (ol-Hojorat), ‘If two parties of believers have started to fight each other, make peace between them’, the verb meaning ‘have started to fight’ is in the plural, whereas it ought to be in the dual like its subject ‘two parties’.”

Other examples of literary flaws in Qur’an:

“Anis A. Shorrosh list other literary flaws in the Qur’an. For example, in 2:177 he points out that the word Sabireen in Arabic should have been Sabiroon because of its position in the sentence. Likewise, Sabieen is more correct Arabic than Sabioon in 5:69. Also, Shorrosh notes that there is “a gross error in Arabic” in 3:59.”

Thanks for the same cut and paste. You have worked hard googling. Good for you.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

In the link I shared he cites the Islamic scholar's sources it comes from. I don't think this is disputed. Link: Is the Qur'an Pure? Book Burning in Early Islam

Thats not a scholarly analysis for your information. Try and make distinction between apologetics and scholarship as much as you can.

 

[stvdv]

Thanks for the same cut and paste. You have worked hard googling. Good for you.

Peace.

Good point IMO. Spirituality is about "Inner Transformation", whereas "finding faults in other Religion's Scriptures" is about "copy/paste" mostly nowadays

 

[Hawkins]

The Bible is about testimonies on encounters of God by His chosen eyewitnesses we call the prophets. A strict process we call canonization is carried out by a specified authority which is God's chosen people the Jews. Such a process is required because the Bible is made up of multiple accounts of testimonies as a typical valid process of human witnessing.

God's eyewitnesses are called the prophets for a reason. God is a transparent entity to humans. He often does what humans can't in order to show that He's God, or at least not a human. What humans cannot do is, 1) to tell a future and 2) to break our own physics laws. That's why God came often with prophecies and miracles.

A prophet is also authenticated in a similar manner that God prophesies through their mouths and performs miracles through their hands. That's actually how they are called the prophets.

Acts 14:3 (NIV2011)
So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders.


Mohammad has none of the above characteristics. While quran is a single account hearsay from a self-proclaimed "angel" whose credibility cannot be identified even by humans back then.

 

[firedragon]

The Bible is about testimonies on encounters of God by His chosen eyewitnesses we call the prophets. A strict process we call canonization is carried out by a specified authority which is God's chosen people the Jews. Such a process is required because the Bible is made up of multiple accounts of testimonies as a typical valid process of human witnessing.

God's eyewitnesses are called the prophets for a reason. God is a transparent entity to humans. He often does what humans can't in order to show that He's God, or at least not a human. What humans cannot do is, 1) to tell a future and 2) to break our own physics laws. That's why God came often with prophecies and miracles.

A prophet is also authenticated in a similar manner that God prophesies through their mouths and performs miracles through their hands. That's actually how they are called the prophets.

Acts 14:3 (NIV2011)
So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders.


Mohammad has none of the above characteristics. While quran is a single account hearsay from a self-proclaimed "angel" whose credibility cannot be identified even by humans back then.

Thats too much of a rhetorical statement bro. And i doubt a comparison is a valid argument against the book called the Quran. And this is not a valid comparison at all.

If you wish to compare like that, there maybe arguments that go both ways. Have you considered all angles?

Lets see. Rather than simply insulting the Bible without an in-depth analysis, i will just make two points. Try and make that comparison.

1. Quran has carbon14 dated manuscripts as early as the 7th century (first half) which is closer to Muhammed and/or the time period its supposed to have been written.
2. The whole Quran was written by one person. (Thats not a faith statement or a belief statement but proven with linguistic studies)

 

[Link]

For Muslims, Qur’an was not only a revelation from Allah, but “the miracle of miracles.” The “miracle of Qur’an” is a popular doctrine accepted and upheld by Muslims. Muhammad himself claimed that Qur’an is his miracle:

“Again and again when miracles are demanded from the Prophet of God by the cynical and frivolous few, he is made to point to the Qur’an – Message from High – as ‘The Miracle.’ THE MIRACLE OF MIRACLES And men of wisdom, people with literary and spiritual insight, who were honest enough to themselves, recognised and accepted Al-Qur’an as a genuine miracle.” (Al-Qur’an, The Miracle of Miracles, p. 12.)

View attachment 36479

Why this doctrine is very important for Muslims? The “miraculousness of the Qur’an is the “foundation of Islam and the most essential evidence for the propethood of Muhammad”:

“This absolute confidence in the miraculousness of the Qur’an has remained unshaken among Muslims to this day. In a sense, this is the foundation of Islam and the most essential evidence for the prophethood of Muhammad…the prophetic office of the Prophet – upon whom be peace – is built upon this miracle.’ A contemporary Muslim author, Faruqi, observes that ‘Muslims do not claim any miracles for Muhammad. In their view, what proves Muhammad’s prophethood is the sublime beauty and greatness of the revelation itself, the Holy Qur’an, not any inexplicable breaches of natural law which confound human reason.’ ” (Answering Islam, p. 103-104.)
View attachment 36480

A contemporary Muslim author, Faruqi, said “Muslims do not claim any miracles fir Muhammad. In their view, what proves Muhammad’s prophethood is the sublime beauty and greatness if the revelation itself the Holy Qur’an, not any inexplicable breaches if natural law which confound human reason.”

Thus, proving that the “miracle of Qur’an” is “not a miracle at all” will refutes the “prophethood of Muhammad.”


THE ISLAM’S DOCTRINE OF INIMITABILITY

Ask a Muslim to prove the “miracle of Qur’an” and they will point to their doctrine called “the costrine of inimitability.” This is how they explain their “doctrine of inimitability”:

“The Qur’an is the word of God revealed to Muhammad through the Holy Spirit Gabriel, and it is beyond human imagination to produce anything like it.” (Islam in Focus, p, 217)
View attachment 36481


Muslims claim that “it is beyond human imagination to produce anything like it.” Muhammad himself claimed that only God can produced the Qur’an:

“This Qur’an is not such As can be produced By other than God…” (Surah 10:37, ALI)

They claimed that no man can produced the like of Qur’an and that only God can produced the Qur’an because of the “literary beauty” of Qur’an:

“They believe that Qur’an ‘is second to none in the world according to the unanimous decision of the learned men in points of diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations to shape the destinies of mankind.’ ” (Ans. Islam, p. 181)

They claimed that the diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations are second to none. Thus, they concluded the following:

“Say: ‘If the whole Of mankind and Jinns Were to gather together To produce the like of this Qur’an, they Could not produce The like thereof, even if They backed up each other.” (Surah 17:88, ALI)

For Muslims, the literary beauty of Qur’an is a miracle for no one can produce the like of it and that the diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations are second to none. This is the core reason why they say that Qur’an is a “miracle.”


THE FLAWS OF THEIR ARGUMENT FOR QUR’AN

(1) Even if the Qur’an is the most eloquent book in Arabic, this would hardly prove it had divine authority. For the same could be argued for the most eloquent book in Hebrew, Greek or any other language. Homer would qualify as a prophet for producing the Iliad and the Odyssey. Shakespeare is without peer in the English Language.

(2) It is logical fallacy to argue that simply because it is eloquent that God must have said it. Not because God said it, He would say it most eloquently. The sovereign God (whom Muslims accept) could choose to speak in plain everyday language, if he wished.

(3) There is no logical connection between literary eloquence and divine authority. Even it were proved beyond the possibility of doubt that the Qur’an far surpassed all other books in eloquence, elegance, and poetry, that would no more prove its inspiration than a man’s strength would demonstrate his wisdom or a woman’s beauty her virtue. Not because that woman is the most beautiful woman iin the Not because that man is the strongest man in the world, it doesn’t prove that he is a prophet of God.

(4) Eloquence is highly questionable as test for divine inspiration. At best it only proves that Muhammad was extremely gifted. After all Mozart wrote his first symphony at the age of six! In fact Mozart was even more talented, since his entire music corpus was produced before age thirty-five. Muhammad did not begin to produce the suras of the Qur’an until age forty. But what Muslim would say that Mozart’s works are miraculous like the Qur’an?

(5) The so-called “inimitability” (that no one can produced the like of it) is not a valid test for divine authority. Would Muslims accept the challenge to produce a work like Romeo and Juliet or else accept the divine inspiration of the works of Shakespeare? In fact, other religious leaders have given the beautiful literary style of their work as a sign of its divine origin. Would Muslims accept the inspiration of these works? For example, the Persian founder of the Manichaeans, Mani, ‘is said to have claimed that men should believe in him as the Paraclete (‘Helper’) Jesus promised in John 14 because he produced a book called Artand, full of beautiful pictures.’ Further, ‘he said that the book had been given him by God, that no living man could paint pictures equal in beauty to those contained in it, and that therefore it had evidently come from God Himself.’ Yet, no Muslim will accept this claim. Why then should non-Muslim accept literary beauty as a valid test for divine authority.


QUR’AN’S LITERARY BEAUTY, ELOQUENCE
AND DICTION ARE SECOND TO NONE?

Even though we accept (for the sake of argument) that literary beauty and eloquence is a valid test for divine authority, still, the Qur’an fails.

In terms of literary beauty and style:

“The Islamic scholar, C.G. Pfander, points out that ‘it is by no means the universal opinion of unprejudiced Arabic scholars that the literary style of the Qur’an is superior to that of all other books in the Arabic language.’ For example, ‘some doubt whether in eloquence and poetry it surpasses the Mu’allaqat, or the Magamat or Hariri, though in Muslim lands few people are courageous enough to express such an opinion.’ ” (Ans. Islam, p. 187)

In terms of eloquence and diction:

“Eloquence” means “discourse marked by apt and fluent diction”:

“1a: discourse marked by force and persuasiveness suggesting strong feeling or deep sincerity; esp: discourse marked by apt and fluent diction, and imaginative fervor <the poetry of western nations ~ in meter – George Santayana> b: the art or power of using such discourse…” (Webster’s’ Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, 1961, p. 737)
View attachment 36482


“Diction” means “correctness, clearness, or effectiveness of wordings used”:

“…choice of words esp. with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness: wording used…” (Webster’s’ Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, 1961, p. 627)

What Muslim scholars admits regarding Qur’an:

“The Iranian Shi’ite scholar Ali Dashti contend, however, that the Qur’an possesses numerous grammatical irregularities. He notes that…The Quran contains sentences which are incomplete and fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning, adjectives and verbs infected without observance of the concord of gender and number; illogical and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects…Dashti concludes: ‘to sum up, more than one hundred Quranic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted.”

An example of grammatical irregularities in Qur’an as pointed out by Ali dashti, a Muslim scholar:

“He (Ali Dasgti) lists numerous examples (74:1; 4:160; 20:66; 2:172, and so on), one of which is ‘In verse 9 of sura 49 (ol-Hojorat), ‘If two parties of believers have started to fight each other, make peace between them’, the verb meaning ‘have started to fight’ is in the plural, whereas it ought to be in the dual like its subject ‘two parties’.”

Other examples of literary flaws in Qur’an:

“Anis A. Shorrosh list other literary flaws in the Qur’an. For example, in 2:177 he points out that the word Sabireen in Arabic should have been Sabiroon because of its position in the sentence. Likewise, Sabieen is more correct Arabic than Sabioon in 5:69. Also, Shorrosh notes that there is “a gross error in Arabic” in 3:59.”

The Quran emphasized it's uniqueness with respect to guidance. In this regard, the Torah and Quran are the same. Both, humans can't replicate. But Quran is superior in guidance, and eloquence is just something to enjoy about the Quran, not to obsess over it, since a lot of people don't have the art or literature sense to detect this and a lot of is lost in translation.

It's guidance however, enough of it trickles even through the worse translations.

 

[Link]

The eloquence of Quran is a side-effect miracle. It's the meaning and guidance that is to be obsessed over and that's it's universal miracle. The former is a miracle only to those who understand Arabic and are familiar with eloquence in speech and writing. The guidance aspect, is similar, how till this day the Torah is Miracle. The Quran's guidance is commentary on the old revelations but also address all possible writing and speeches of humans, and addresses all possible disputes. It has as much allusions to Socrates as it does to the Bible. It's universality is part of it's design and it's a miracle in this regard.