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

[serp777]

First let me just say, since I know people need to be explicitly told about nuance otherwise they rage hard, I'm not saying all Muslim's think the Qur'an is the perfect book or that they necessarily subscribe to what i'm saying here. Nevertheless, I've heard it multiple times from different Muslims that the Qur'an just has to be the perfect book.

I found it to consist of highly questionable stories and boring poetry. The same kind of stories and patterns tend to show up in other holy books too like the Bible and the Torah, which tells me that's its just a rehashing of these two faiths with a new spin and a new prophet. I also can't understand why Muhammad is supposed to be so great. He was a great military leader, but otherwise i don't see any reason why I should listen to him, over say Siddhartha.

Furthermore, I know some Muslims like to note that the Arabic writing in the true Qur'an is just so sophisticated and beautiful that it just has to be the perfect word of God. But a truly perfect book from God wouldn't rely on the language it was written in--the book would be perfect in all languages for the most part because that's part of what being perfect is--not subject to ambiguity.

However, if there was such a thing as a perfect book, I would spend all my free time reading it. I would just read it over and over again whenever I could because its perfect and would never get boring. Instead I got tired of the Qur'an very quickly; a perfect book would not bore me that fast. I couldn't hope to get through it and finish it at this point. Thus I think that Muslim's also don't think the Qur'an is the perfect book. Muslims are normal people who have many hobbies and do a variety of things other than reading their holy book or going to their Mosque. Why would Muslims have other hobbies if the Qur'an was the perfect book?

So basically i'm wondering what the criteria for a perfect book is and how exactly the Qur'an fits that description. Also, why do you accept the validity of the Qur'an and Muhammad over the Bible and Jesus Christ Muslims? Personally if I was going to pick a prophet it would be the son of God instead of a warlord who consummated a marriage with a little girl. Also one final question: why do some Muslims consider themselves to be a race? That's just silly.

 

[Jedster]

Here is an interesting discussion between a Sikh & a Muslim. It addresses the 'perfect book' thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

The Qur'an has to be the perfect book for Muslims, simply because they literally forbid each other from believing anything else or even from holding any doubts on the matter.

It is not even belief as such, because belief implies the possibility of lacking it. Such is not apparently the case in a Muslim community. Any Muslim community, far as I can tell.

It is classic peer pressure, applied in one of the highest scales ever known in History. The Qur'an is the perfect book because that is what a good Muslim citizen knows to be true. It is their duty and part of their fair gratitude towards each other, a core element of their social contract which they value quite a lot.

I suspect many Muslims are literally puzzled, perhaps even troubled, by the thought that it might be possible for a person to both understand the Qur'an and fail to accept it as the pure expression of divine truth. If that is possible at all (and it must be a big "if" for most Muslims, particularly the more liberal ones), then it is very much a worrisome fact that more than hints of complete moral degeneracy.

It is sad and sobbering, but Muslim society is simply way too rooted in authoritarianism and dogmaticism to allow itself true freedom of thought.

Islam survives to this day not nearly so much because of its merits as a religious doctrine, which are average at best - and even that only because it was wildly succesfull in promoting itself and its chief rival, Christianity, into demographic success to the point that they are the nominal doctrines of literally half of the world - as because it is so strongly tied to the social models that it requires and that enable it back. It is a fairly closed loop of mutual support and need between the two cultural traits, one that unfortunately is simply not very advisable.

The closest to actual freedom of doctrine or of thought that it attains are endless scripture discussions attempting to evidence or support their competing claims (which IMO is very much missing the point and a sorry waste of good effort) and powerful undercurrents of tribal thinking and mental compartimentalization of values that create a freedom of social roles in lieu of freedom of thought.

Muslims can't question their doctrine at all significantly, so they end up questioning whether other Muslims deserve to be called Muslims at all - and end up feeling guilty and paranoid about it, because it is very cruel for a Muslim to question the beliefs of another Muslim. Besides, what is to stop reciprocation of that supposed act of cruelty?

They also relieve some of their repressed need for freedom into a "switching hats" mentality, where its acknowledged that social pressures and expectations are not entirely reasonable and sane and therefore there is a practical need to contain one's expectations at any given moment. Perhaps ironically for a society that so often proclaims their faith that literally everything will fall into place nicely if their beliefs are universally adopted, Muslims learn very quickly to purposefully fracture their thoughts and expectations in order to avoid frequent embarassment and emotional collapse. As a result, obvious yet unresolved contradictions abound and pile up.

- A Muslim woman is free to marry whoever she chooses. But, of course, that by no means implies that she may choose a person not of the book, nor that the family does not need to approve of the groom.

- She may also divorce. But it should not be assumed that she will have the chance to marry again, or even that her family would approve it if she attempted to.

There are many other examples. The general trend is that obedience is such an overwhelming virtue in Muslim society that it blocks the way for the development of several others, and ends up demanding the keeping of several unadvisable habits, chief among them the need for strongly fractured psyches in mostly everyone. That, of course, makes them feel vulnerable under questioning and easily degenerates into xenophoby, paranoia and persecution complex, further closing and reinforcing the closed loop.

In a very real if basically self-imposed sense, Muslims are indeed threatened by those who question their ways and beliefs.

 

[FearGod]

First let me just say, since I know people need to be explicitly told about nuance otherwise they rage hard, I'm not saying all Muslim's think the Qur'an is the perfect book or that they necessarily subscribe to what i'm saying here. Nevertheless, I've heard it multiple times from different Muslims that the Qur'an just has to be the perfect book.

I found it to consist of highly questionable stories and boring poetry. The same kind of stories and patterns tend to show up in other holy books too like the Bible and the Torah, which tells me that's its just a rehashing of these two faiths with a new spin and a new prophet. I also can't understand why Muhammad is supposed to be so great. He was a great military leader, but otherwise i don't see any reason why I should listen to him, over say Siddhartha.

Furthermore, I know some Muslims like to note that the Arabic writing in the true Qur'an is just so sophisticated and beautiful that it just has to be the perfect word of God. But a truly perfect book from God wouldn't rely on the language it was written in--the book would be perfect in all languages for the most part because that's part of what being perfect is--not subject to ambiguity.

However, if there was such a thing as a perfect book, I would spend all my free time reading it. I would just read it over and over again whenever I could because its perfect and would never get boring. Instead I got tired of the Qur'an very quickly; a perfect book would not bore me that fast. I couldn't hope to get through it and finish it at this point. Thus I think that Muslim's also don't think the Qur'an is the perfect book. Muslims are normal people who have many hobbies and do a variety of things other than reading their holy book or going to their Mosque. Why would Muslims have other hobbies if the Qur'an was the perfect book?

So basically i'm wondering what the criteria for a perfect book is and how exactly the Qur'an fits that description. Also, why do you accept the validity of the Qur'an and Muhammad over the Bible and Jesus Christ Muslims? Personally if I was going to pick a prophet it would be the son of God instead of a warlord who consummated a marriage with a little girl. Also one final question: why do some Muslims consider themselves to be a race? That's just silly.

Would you please bring here some of the questionable stories?

The quran says Jesus isn't God and he isn't the son of God, why we have to believe Jesus as God
while it doesn't make sense to us, i don't believe such story.

 

[wizanda]

The Qur'an...

Respect for your analysis, found that in depth, and well thought out.

 

[Augustus]

Here is an interesting discussion between a Sikh & a Muslim. It addresses the 'perfect book' thing.

This is quite funny. Remarkable sophistry.

Dude claims it is miraculous that 3 words contain 11 "rhetorical devices"

These "rhetorical devices" include 'using the right words', 'the word we', 'the word the', 'hyperbole', 'using the past tense' and a 'grammatical shift'. The video is also funny because it is made as a challenge to Eminem because he called a song 'rap god'.

It is even less persuasive than the 'scientific miracles' hypothesis which is really saying something, and the dude believes that this genuinely constitutes objective proof.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is too bad that it i a 64 minutes long video that is not always very easy to understand and has no subtitles.

Also, as the video's legends warn, it is an entirely one-sided questioning, with the Sikh representative asking no questions of his own.

It is a time-consuming project, but a transcription of the dialogue would be welcome for discussion.

 

[Augustus]

It is too bad that it i a 64 minutes long video that is not always very easy to understand and has no subtitles.

Also, as the video's legends warn, it is an entirely one-sided questioning, with the Sikh representative asking no questions of his own.

It is a time-consuming project, but a transcription of the dialogue would be welcome for discussion.

Watch 5 mins of my video and you'll get the gist. Same chap, a YouTube clown rather than a scholar discussing theology.

 

[LuisDantas]

For so long I clung to the hope that there were reasonable, rational Islamic proselitizers out there and I just had not lucked to meet them.

But the years just kept passing by, and the pile of warning signs in material that was supposed to win me over growing larger.

At some point one has to stop hoping for the best and start dealing with reality as it shows itself to be.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is an IMO revealing scene in the story of the first volume of "The Arab of the Future" by Riad Sattouf.

One of the main characters is the author's father. He is not even particularly religious, but he is a Syrian that emmigrated to France in order to get an education.

Even so, his cultural indoctrination is powerful to the point that he loses his temper by as much as hearing his own wife describe a certain singer as a "god".

In the context, it is exceedingly obvious that she is simply using a metaphor to describe his popularity and how much attention he receives from fans. But that strikes a nerve, much to her surprise.

There is not even anyone else around - it is just the couple and their little children - yet the simple idea that some human might be called a god in any way angers him immediately.

And he is a secular man by his own admission. Because apparently that is how secular moderates behave in Muslim societies.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is quite funny. Remarkable sophistry.

I don't know about that. It feels like unremarkable sophistry to me.

It is not that much worse from the best Islamic proselitism that I have seen so far, much as I attempted to find better examples.

Yusuf Estes, for instance, tries hard but ends up falling way short.

 

[Corthos]

Here is an interesting discussion between a Sikh & a Muslim. It addresses the 'perfect book' thing.

It's inspiring listening to the Sikh man speak. =) Thanks for posting that!

Listening to the arguments that the Muslim man makes is a little troubling to me, as it points out the problems with fundamentalism: especially in a text that has SO many meanings... It can have many different interpretations that are taken literally, and while that's not much of a problem for people who focus on the good aspects (though, that's debatable), for those who focus more on the negative aspects, the results are self evident in the world. This doesn't just pertain to Islam or the Quran, either, as we can see what this same fundamentalism has done in Christianity (both past and present) or other faiths.

I've experienced that fundamentalism myself, and it's an ugly thing. It just goes to show you the value of keeping an open mind, and an open heart. =)

 

[FearGod]

I don't know about that. It feels like unremarkable sophistry to me.

It is not that much worse from the best Islamic proselitism that I have seen so far, much as I attempted to find better examples.

Yusuf Estes, for instance, tries hard but ends up falling way short.

Words and making statements out of it in a specific way is a very easy job.
Do you agree with me on that?

 

[Useless2015]

This is quite funny. Remarkable sophistry.

Dude claims it is miraculous that 3 words contain 11 "rhetorical devices"

These "rhetorical devices" include 'using the right words', 'the word we', 'the word the', 'hyperbole', 'using the past tense' and a 'grammatical shift'. The video is also funny because it is made as a challenge to Eminem because he called a song 'rap god'.

It is even less persuasive than the 'scientific miracles' hypothesis which is really saying something, and the dude believes that this genuinely constitutes objective proof.

A muslim that compares the Words of God to the ones of a ***staff edit*** 50 year old rapper is not that good of a muslim.

 

[LuisDantas]

Words and making statements out of it in a specific way is a very easy job.
Do you agree with me on that?

To a degree.

Some texts are simply more clear than others. And some texts need interpretation more than others.

 

[FearGod]

To a degree.

Some texts are simply more clear than others. And some texts need interpretation more than others.

I'm saying in general, formulating sentences from words to give a specific meaning is a very easy job.
Do you agree with me on that?

 

[MARCELLO]

A muslim that compares the Words of God to the ones of a whitetrash 50 year old rapper is not that good of a muslim.

What do you mean by white trash?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm saying in general, formulating sentences from words to give a specific meaning is a very easy job.
Do you agree with me on that?

To that specific question I must say that sure, it is. That is what language is supposed to enable, after al.

I suspect however that you meant to ask something more specific, about quoting from scripture to support statements that are not necessarily even vaguely compatible with the text's true intent.

Which I also agree with, by the way.

 

[FearGod]

To that specific question I must say that sure, it is. That is what language is supposed to enable, after al.

I suspect however that you meant to ask something more specific, about quoting from scripture to support statements that are not necessarily even vaguely compatible with the text's true intent.

Which I also agree with, by the way.

Do you agree that modern human"Homo sapiens" lived on earth since 200,000 years ago?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you agree that modern human"Homo sapiens" lived on earth since 200,000 years ago?

I'm not quite sure about the dates, personally, but a few hundred thousands years ago, sure.

It may depend on what exactly is meant by Homo Sapiens.

Our specific subspecies, "Homo sapiens sapiens", is believed to be around 200 thousand years old. The main species is 500 thousand years old, however.