How convincing is the Qur'an anyway? In which respects?

[lewisnotmiller]

I take the mainstream historical understanding as I wasn’t there. Much like George Washington, Napoleon, etc..

Apparently he could not write his own name.

It'll have to wait until later, since I need access to my library, but suffice to say mainstream understandings of historical figures are commonly incorrect.

George Washington didn't have wooden teeth, and Napoleon wasn't particularly short.

 

[RoaringSilence]

cts, apparently accurately by the perception of some, that Makkah is somehow "the center of Earth

I think the Sikh person did in this video

the best book ever written is the guru granth sahib (GGS) but sadly it gets ignored by everyone except the sikh's and some hindus. If they say no other book like the quran , then GGS is enough to break the "Surah like it "challenge.

One of the greatest sacrifices made apart from jesus are of the sikh's who laid their lives to protect hindus back during the mughal invasions when muslims massacred hindus and broke their temples, the sikhs step forward gave their lives to protect hindus.

ive personally experienced miracles within my life that match exact wordings of whats written in GGS. i dont even know how to promote it to others but GGS for sure brings light in my life.

even if you dont understand the language you can sense how musically perfect that book is ... check this out.

 

[George-ananda]

It'll have to wait until later, since I need access to my library, but suffice to say mainstream understandings of historical figures is commonly incorrect.

George Washington didn't have wooden teeth, and Napoleon wasn't particularly short.

Well the biography of Mohammed is a pretty well researched subject already. As is the biography of George Washington. Perhaps an outside detail like false teeth has had confusion but not any basic point.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well the biography of Mohammed is a pretty well reashered subject already. As is the biography of George Washington. Perhaps an outside detail like false teeth has had confusion but not any basic point.

You think the biography of Mohammed is a pretty well researched subject? Really??

Just for fun...
Ten Misconceptions About Washington

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Why?

To prove He knows things. When God knows less than the people in other countries, it's just weird.

It is impossible to offend it.

Hell exists because God gets offended.

Every source says so.

But the people who ended up writing it down weren't.

The Homeric epics were told orally. Not sure if Homer was illiterate. You can tell stories and not be able to read and write.

 

[George-ananda]

You think the biography of Mohammed is a pretty well researched subject? Really??

Really. Unless you know something new about the 600’s that scholars are not aware of that contradicts mainstream understanding.

I am impressed by your typing response speed though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Really. Unless you know something new about the 600’s that scholars are not aware of that contradicts mainstream understanding.

I am impressed by your typing response speed though.

My point is there is a very clear gap between historicity and 'mainstream' understandings of basically any historical figure you care to name.
You named 2, and I pointed out a very common misconception of both.

The problem is not with well researched biographies. I have a very good one at home on Washington, in fact. But instead with assumptions reinforced by those around us.

The linked list on Washington indeed showed quite specifically that the legend of the Cherry Tree was invented by...you guessed it...his biographer of the time.

There can be reasons to display someone in a certain light, and careful consideration of biographies for bias is important.

In this case, there are very clear benefits to presenting Mohammed as illiterate. That doesn't mean he wasn't, but I would urge people to actually consider where that common assumption comes from. Just like I would any other. That's all.

 

[Remté]

My point is there is a very clear gap between historicity and 'mainstream' understandings of basically any historical figure you care to name.
You named 2, and I pointed out a very common misconception of both.

The problem is not with well researched biographies. I have a very good one at home on Washington, in fact. But instead with assumptions reinforced by those around us.

The linked list on Washington indeed showed quite specifically that the legend of the Cherry Tree was invented by...you guessed it...his biographer of the time.

There can be reasons to display someone in a certain light, and careful consideration of biographies for bias is important.

In this case, there are very clear benefits to presenting Mohammed as illiterate. That doesn't mean he wasn't, but I would urge people to actually consider where that common assumption comes from. Just like I would any other. That's all.

Good luck with that one. Of course you can argue he may have not been illiterate, but you have no more reason to argue he wasn't. In other words the best you can do to be accurate is to be neutral.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Good luck with that one. Of course you can argue he may have not been illiterate, but you have no more reason to argue he wasn't. In other words the best you can do to be accurate is to be neutral.

Again, you're shooting down the discussion before it's even commenced. I find that somewhat interesting. In any case, apologies on the delay, but I won't be able to give a more informed post until I'm at home and have access to my library.

(At work currently, although...as you can tell...it's a slooooooow day!!)

 

[George-ananda]

My point is there is a very clear gap between historicity and 'mainstream' understandings of basically any historical figure you care to name.
You named 2, and I pointed out a very common misconception of both.

The problem is not with well researched biographies. I have a very good one at home on Washington, in fact. But instead with assumptions reinforced by those around us.

The linked list on Washington indeed showed quite specifically that the legend of the Cherry Tree was invented by...you guessed it...his biographer of the time.

There can be reasons to display someone in a certain light, and careful consideration of biographies for bias is important.

In this case, there are very clear benefits to presenting Mohammed as illiterate. That doesn't mean he wasn't, but I would urge people to actually consider where that common assumption comes from. Just like I would any other. That's all.

Well the life of Mohammed and his literacy level prior to his revelation was not considered that uncommon in his place and time. It would best be understood by historians closest to that time and place. I know no more than experts and historians closer to that time and place than me.

I guess we can question anything from the past to infinity. It comes down to a judgment of what is the most reasonable position to hold.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I guess we can question anything from the past to infinity. It comes down to a judgment of what is the most reasonable position to hold.

I agree. I guess I'm making the possibly unfair judgement that you're assuming this is correct due to the common nature of the assumption, rather than that you have done any particular research or reading on the scholars or reasons this belief is held.

If I'm wrong on that, I apologize.

 

[Prestor John]

Of course as if you read and understood it. Funny how Jews have more in common theologically with Muslims than you Christians.

That makes sense to me since Jews aren't very convincing either. In my opinion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Like the Bible? I mean, personally, I don't see the divine in either the Bible nor the Quran, but those who use it's impact as an indication of divinity must surely see both as divine, then?

Yes I see both as Holy Books as divinely inspired for many reasons including the teachings of love for all and to be kind and good hearted.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

That makes sense to me since Jews aren't very convincing either. In my opinion.

If you say so.

 

[George-ananda]

I agree. I guess I'm making the possibly unfair judgement that you're assuming this is correct due to the common nature of the assumption, rather than that you have done any particular research or reading on the scholars or reasons this belief is held.

If I'm wrong on that, I apologize.

No, I just think I am basically hearing the start of the best atheist-materialist explain-away of the Quran’s sophistication that is historically attributed to the revelations of an unlettered merchant.

 

[George-ananda]

Oopa

 

[Remté]

None of which are persuasive or changes the fact that it was an invention of the Saudi government in the 80s and has no support outside of apologetic circles.

How about

"It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course." 21:33

"And We send down water from the sky according to (due) measure, and We cause it to soak in the soil; and We certainly are able to drain it off (with ease)." 23:18

"Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe." 6:125​

"And Allah has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for verily Allah has power over all things." 24:45

"He Who has, made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels); and has sent down water from the sky. With it have We produced diverse pairs of plants each separate from the others." 20:53​

 

[Augustus]

How about

"It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course." 21:33

"And We send down water from the sky according to (due) measure, and We cause it to soak in the soil; and We certainly are able to drain it off (with ease)." 23:18

"Those whom Allah (in His plan) willeth to guide,- He openeth their breast to Islam; those whom He willeth to leave straying,- He maketh their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus doth Allah (heap) the penalty on those who refuse to believe." 6:125​

"And Allah has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for verily Allah has power over all things." 24:45

"He Who has, made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels); and has sent down water from the sky. With it have We produced diverse pairs of plants each separate from the others." 20:53​

What is remarkable about any of them?

• The sun and moon move in the sky.
• It rains sometimes
• Climbing tall mountains leaves you short of breath
• Animals need water to live (especially in the desert)

Anyway it is very easy to find 'miracles' in poetic texts if you send enough time looking and have complete freedom to interpret vague statements in any way you like.

For example, this from Paradise Lost by Milton:

In the Beginning how the Heav'ns and Earth
Rose out of Chaos:

Look how it predicts the big bang! How could someone back then know that space itself emerged from a chaotic pre-big bang state?

Miracle?

 

[Augustus]

Well the biography of Mohammed is a pretty well researched subject already.

Theology and history are 2 different subjects though. The sirah belongs to the former category more than the latter.

Well the life of Mohammed and his literacy level prior to his revelation was not considered that uncommon in his place and time. It would best be understood by historians closest to that time and place. I know no more than experts and historians closer to that time and place than me.

Islamic orthodoxy was established centuries after the fact. Early traditions are far more diverse on many issues, even ones that are seen as central.

For example, there was debate among early Muslims whether Isaac or Ishmael was the one to be sacrificed yet now it would be blasphemous to say it was Isaac. Same with the 'verse of the cranes'/Satanic verses. Muslim luminary ibn Taymiyya accepted this events as true, yet doing so today would be a death sentence in many countries.

Almost historical certainly.

According to tradition, Muhammad was wealthy, very intelligent, a successful merchant, well travelled. This alone is a bit incongruous with being illiterate, given we know numerous companions were literate.

The source of this belief though "al-nabi al-ummi" , you can see here the variety of ways this term is translated al-A`raf 7:157

It can mean gentile, untaught in scripture or illiterate.

Seeing as the expectation was that prophets would be Jews, gentile makes a lot more sense in context. (ummi is related to the term ummah: community of Muslims)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, I just think I am basically hearing the start of the best atheist-materialist explain-away of the Quran’s sophistication that is historically attributed to the revelations of an unlettered merchant.

This discussion has nothing to do with either atheism or materialism. Why would it?