How on earth can the Qur'an be considered the perfect book?

[FearGod]

Writing did exist elsewhere. Are you claiming that the Qur'an was revealed for an Arabic-speaking people because it was particularly skilled to preserve it in written form, perhaps?

Did i say it didn't?

Considering that I know personally atheists that write far better books than the Qur'an, I fail to see why that would be impressive, nor what it illustrates.

Whom and what they wrote ?

Quite frankly, I am less than certain that this tale is legit. Who is that atheist, and why should he be considered a good parameter for comparison? Did he even exist at all?

Considering how unskilled that verse you mention is, I am half convinced that he either did not exist or was faking it as a way of enhancing the perception of Muhammad and the Qur'an.

You have the right to be skeptical, but that doesn't confirm anything.

 

[FearGod]

We didn't have planes even 200 years ago, I guess humanity is less than 200 years old.

Do you think the language skills of today is similar to the ones 1000 years ago and similar to the
one 5000 years ago..etc?

 

[LuisDantas]

Did i say it didn't?

I thought you did. But I may have misunderstood.

Whom and what they wrote ?

Peter Singer wrote "How Are We to Live?" and "The Life You Can Save".

Jonathan Haidt I just learned of, but he sure looks promising.

A couple of people I know in person strike me as plenty skilled enough to do somewhat comparable works if given the proper incentive and opportunity.

Give me a few years with people supporting my needs and I might well write a better religious book than the Qur'an myself, albeit certainly not in a similar style, nor in Arabic.

You have the right to be skeptical, but that doesn't confirm anything.

Of course it does not. Which is why I prefer to take note of what Muslims actually say and do.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi, DawudTalut.

A clarification please:

Peace be on you.
By the grace of God, all Muslims believe Holy Quran is Unique Book which is not only preserved but provides perfect teaching in all era, and it is in full agreement of proven science - especially evolution [guided evolution + creation].

(...)

These could be only those people who under the influence of their non-practicing-their-own-religions-friends may think so.

There seems to be a contradiction here. You are confirming that the Quran provides perfect teaching for all era, yet then you disapprove of an identical claim?

I assume there was some confusion at some point.

(...) Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) was great as he brought balanced teaching - teaching for all mankind while other religions were limited for certain people

That is hardly absent before Muhammad. Even Paul of the Christian tradition explicitly had the same goal.

(...)

It is the language which has enough properties to carry a perfect message by God.
""
The perfect pattern of the roots of Arabic words.
Arabic possesses an extraordinarily high degree of intellectual connotations.
The system of elementary words in Arabic is most complete and perfect.
In Arabic idiom a few words convey extensive meanings.
Arabic has the full capacity for the exposition of all human feelings and thoughts.""
Ref and more: https://www.alislam.org/books/essence/chap1/chap1.html

I am no linguist, but I have to wonder how accurate such a claim may be. One assumes I would have heard of such unique and impressive attributes from some linguist who was not necessarily a Muslim apologist at some point.

Maybe Arabic is a better religious language than, say, Sanskrit. Maybe there is in fact no other language with comparable attributes. But with so many languages out there, I reserve the right to not believe that just yet.

Also, @serp777 raises a valid point. Would a such a perfect book with such a transcendental message have such a hard time in translating its message properly to other languages?

One would expect at least a fair bit of that eternally perfect and divine inspiration to rub off into other language's translations. There is no obvious reason to value the original Arabic text quite so much over the translations.

 

[FearGod]

Peter Singer wrote "How Are We to Live?" and "The Life You Can Save".

Jonathan Haidt I just learned of, but he sure looks promising.

What things that impressed you from their writings that you see it better than the quran or the Bible or the Tipitaka.

A couple of people I know in person strike me as plenty skilled enough to do somewhat comparable works if given the proper incentive and opportunity.

Give me a few years with people supporting my needs and I might well write a better religious book than the Qur'an myself, albeit certainly not in a similar style, nor in Arabic.

Do you need to tell in your book that earth was a smoke?

 

[Aquitaine]

Do you think the language skills of today is similar to the ones 1000 years ago and similar to the
one 5000 years ago..etc?

I don't study linguistics, but I'd say no. Language changes over time.

 

[LuisDantas]

What things that impressed you from their writings that you see it better than the quran or the Bible or the Tipitaka.

I don't know the Tipitaka quite well enough to say it is not better than Peter Singer's writings.

For that matter, I am lacking in awareness and understanding of Atisha's Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, Shiran Shonin's writings, the Tao Te Ching, the
Guru Granth Sahib, the Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata and Ramayana, or even the Talmud. Any or all of them may easily have more worth as religious texts than Peter Singer's books do. I just don't know. Many of those are impressive on their own merits, from what I have learned of them.

Peter Singer is a very good and enlightened writer, but not supernaturally so. It is entirely possible and even necessary to surpass his religious insights eventually. It may very easily have happened already while I failed to be aware of it or even to understand it. Mathematically, it is nearly certain to have happened.

But certainly not by the Bible or the Qur'an. Both of those I know well enough, and I have seen plenty of indirect evidence by way of their proselitists, to know for a fact that they are not going to impress me favorably at all. They are simply not very good religious books.

That said, I don't particularly value books for religious teachings. True religion is a matter of personal interaction and must, in fact, be forever protected and corrected in its path by the wisdom and realizations of its practicioners. Scripture is inherently just a minor aid at best, and sometimes an actual detriment to religious practice.

Do you need to tell in your book that earth was a smoke?

Uh? I suppose not. Why would I?

 

[FearGod]

Uh? I suppose not. Why would I?

But the quran mentioned that earth was a smoke, why it needs to tell such fact which wasn't known
for the people of that era?

 

[LuisDantas]

But the quran mentioned that earth was a smoke, why it needs to tell such fact which wasn't known
for the people of that era?

I never thought it did. Far as I can tell, it is only Muslim apologists who make such a claim.

Which does not impress me favorably, now that you mention it.

For one, depending on one's desire to cooperate with the text, the claim is either false or true only by taking a jumbo-sized artistical stretch. "Smoke" is by no means an accurate description of Earth's composition. It might be an useful descriptor to invoke an understanding of disperse stellar matter in the proper contexts, I suppose. Or perhaps of the subatomic nature of matter, with so much empty space. Maybe Muhammad simply noticed that since matter density varies so much it must have a variable amount of free room in its microscopic nature. Maybe he just liked the sound of saying it. Who knows?

He might have described Earth as a network, as a stone, as a ball, or as a fruit. Each comparison would have had its own merits and been true by its own perspective, often without quite so much need for artistic license. Even an entirely unworkable descriptor would simply be glossed over amidst so much ornate language, waiting patiently for the hypothetical day when someone finds some rough correspondence to it in other fields of knowledge.

As evidence for truth of the text goes, that just does not work at all.

Also, how do you even know that people of the time were lacking in physical or cosmological knowledge to the point of being unable of making such a comparison? You almost seem to believe that the Qur'an is not only a religious scripture, but a veritable cornucopia of previously unsuspected scientific knowledge. Which it plainly wasn't, since so many of those supposed prophecies took so long to be "confirmed" - and even then only by using copious amounts of poetic license. It is plenty obvious that the people of the time did not particularly benefit on their scientific knowledge from the Qur'an, mainly because there is so little actual science to be found in it. Even today it is far from clear what that comparison was supposed to mean, which shows how little actual information it provides.

As a matter of fact, I am unaware of a single actual scientific innovation that was revealed by the Qur'an. It is entirely possible that there were some, or at least some items of practical advice that is now scientifically sound. But I would not count a claim that the Earth is made of smoke among them.

 

[paarsurrey]

How on earth can the Qur'an be considered the perfect book?

Quran is a Recitation, available in book form also. It descended on the heart of Muhammad from G-d, is authored by G-d , symbolically came from the heavens/skies. That is why it is not earthly and is perfect for the guidance of humanity in ethical, moral and spiritual realms so that they could know the path to G-d, perfectly. Right? Please
Regards

 

[FearGod]

I never thought it did. Far as I can tell, it is only Muslim apologists who make such a claim.

Which does not impress me favorably, now that you mention it.

For one, depending on one's desire to cooperate with the text, the claim is either false or true only by taking a jumbo-sized artistical stretch. "Smoke" is by no means an accurate description of Earth's composition. It might be an useful descriptor to invoke an understanding of disperse stellar matter in the proper contexts, I suppose. Or perhaps of the subatomic nature of matter, with so much empty space. Maybe Muhammad simply noticed that since matter density varies so much it must have a variable amount of free room in its microscopic nature. Maybe he just liked the sound of saying it. Who knows?

He might have described Earth as a network, as a stone, as a ball, or as a fruit. Each comparison would have had its own merits and been true by its own perspective, often without quite so much need for artistic license. Even an entirely unworkable descriptor would simply be glossed over amidst so much ornate language, waiting patiently for the hypothetical day when someone finds some rough correspondence to it in other fields of knowledge.

As evidence for truth of the text goes, that just does not work at all.

Also, how do you even know that people of the time were lacking in physical or cosmological knowledge to the point of being unable of making such a comparison? You almost seem to believe that the Qur'an is not only a religious scripture, but a veritable cornucopia of previously unsuspected scientific knowledge. Which it plainly wasn't, since so many of those supposed prophecies took so long to be "confirmed" - and even then only by using copious amounts of poetic license. It is plenty obvious that the people of the time did not particularly benefit on their scientific knowledge from the Qur'an, mainly because there is so little actual science to be found in it. Even today it is far from clear what that comparison was supposed to mean, which shows how little actual information it provides.

As a matter of fact, I am unaware of a single actual scientific innovation that was revealed by the Qur'an. It is entirely possible that there were some, or at least some items of practical advice that is now scientifically sound. But I would not count a claim that the Earth is made of smoke among them.

I believe the quran is a heavenly message

ARE, THEN, they who are bent on denying the truth not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity, which We then parted asunder? – [38] and [that] We made out of water every living thing? Will they not, then, [begin to] believe? [39] - 21:30

The verse with no doubts says the universe was a single entity.

And [11] He [it is who] applied His design to the skies, which were [yet but] SMOKE;[12] and He [it is who] said to them and to the earth, “Come [into being], both of you, willingly or unwillingly!” - to which both responded, “We do come in obedience.” [13] - 41:11

The verse with no doubt describes the gaseous state of the universe.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would say that you just underscored my point.

 

[serp777]

I believe the quran is a heavenly message

ARE, THEN, they who are bent on denying the truth not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity, which We then parted asunder? – [38] and [that] We made out of water every living thing? Will they not, then, [begin to] believe? [39] - 21:30

The verse with no doubts says the universe was a single entity.

And [11] He [it is who] applied His design to the skies, which were [yet but] SMOKE;[12] and He [it is who] said to them and to the earth, “Come [into being], both of you, willingly or unwillingly!” - to which both responded, “We do come in obedience.” [13] - 41:11

The verse with no doubt describes the gaseous state of the universe.

Gaseous state of the universe? What are you talking about? Most of the matter in the universe behaves like a plasma since that's what suns are composed out of. Actually most of the matter is dark matter which behaves more like a super fluid that doesn't react with light. And most of the universe itself is composed out of space time which doesnt resemble smoke at all. Way less than 1% of things in the universe are in a gaseous state.

I mean you can't use quotes from the Quran to show that it is a heavenly message. next thing you're going to tell me about the "prophecies" of the Quran where they say there will be mockers and doubters; a regurgitation of the doubting Thomas. Its like using quotes from the scientology manifesto to prove the validity that the scientology manifesto is holy. You have no reason to believe the Quran is a heavenly message.

 

[serp777]

How on earth can the Qur'an be considered the perfect book?

Quran is a Recitation, available in book form also. It descended on the heart of Muhammad from G-d, is authored by G-d , symbolically came from the heavens/skies. That is why it is not earthly and is perfect for the guidance of humanity in ethical, moral and spiritual realms so that they could know the path to G-d, perfectly. Right? Please
Regards

Not it wasn't authored by God. It was authored by several human beings. At most you could say inspired by God and is filled to the brim with the morality and understanding of primitive bronze age peasants. And saying G-d is more insulting to God presumably because you're saying that he gets so butthurt and has such a massive ego that you can even type his name without offending him. Truly insulting to anyone of sentience.

And why is Muhammad special? he was a warlord and a pedophile according to every definition. What kind of morality is that?

 

[serp777]

But the quran mentioned that earth was a smoke, why it needs to tell such fact which wasn't known
for the people of that era?

When was the earth ever smoke? It was formed as solids came together. Only a very small percentage of the earth was ever in a gaseous state.

 

[serp777]

Who said Quran is the perfect book? btw define perfect first.

You seriously don't know about the numerous Muslims who say the Quran is the perfect book, which is the reason it can't be modified or changed. Sorry you're just plain ignorant. Ask most Muslims if they think the Quran has flaws and they will say it has none.

Are you saying the Quran is tragically flawed and thus not the word of God? Because how could the word of God be flawed?

 

[paarsurrey]

Not it wasn't authored by God. It was authored by several human beings. At most you could say inspired by God and is filled to the brim with the morality and understanding of primitive bronze age peasants. And saying G-d is more insulting to God presumably because you're saying that he gets so butthurt and has such a massive ego that you can even type his name without offending him. Truly insulting to anyone of sentience.
And why is Muhammad special? he was a warlord and a pedophile according to every definition. What kind of morality is that?

You are simply wrong. Quran the Recitation was authored by G-d. Please bring your evidence that it was authored by several people, name them and quote their claims of Muhammad's time that they authored it and their witnessing in this regard.
Regards

 

[muhammad_isa]

When was the earth ever smoke? It was formed as solids came together. Only a very small percentage of the earth was ever in a gaseous state.

Wow! Who are you? Were you there at the time? Perhaps you are the creator of the universe..

No .. just another 'challenger'

 

[LuisDantas]

You are simply wrong. Quran the Recitation was authored by G-d. Please bring your evidence that it was authored by several people, name them and quote their claims of Muhammad's time that they authored it and their witnessing in this regard.
Regards

Isn't that what we call misplacement of the burden of proof?

People are entitled to simply disagree.

 

[LuisDantas]

Wow! Who are you? Were you there at the time? Perhaps you are the creator of the universe..

No .. just another 'challenger'

Excuse me?

I am having a hard time even understanding what you mean.