If Muhammad wasn't an actual prophet, then where did the Qur'an come from?

[beenie]

Muhammad recited the Ayahs as he received them and his companions (scribes) wrote the words down for him. The word "Qur'an" means recitation; it was intended to be memorized and recited from generation to generation. It was recorded and written over time during Muhammad's life.

Who Wrote Quran?

So his "illiteracy" is a moot point.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, what would you want it to be tied to? the axis of the earth? perhaps NY of the year 2011?

None of the above, actually. A truly remarkable religious text is supposed to be beyond such petty specificities, because religious wisdom is by definition transcedental.

Again. it is a religious text.

What, are religious people supposed to dislike Atheism? :areyoucra

Quite frankly, that is nonsense.

Well, you know what the book says. 'there is no compulsion in religion'.

That is yet another problem with the text of the Quran and the tradition of Islam.

In all honesty, whatever meaning that phrase has is not really very clear for, well, anyone apparently.

the debates about the inherit divinity of religious texts has become tiring. as well as the debate of whether it is the Christian Bible which is inspired or if it is the Qur'an which is inspired.
I think that by now, we have gained enough knowledge to move to the discussion of the conditions of the early societies which have produced these texts and the qualities of the texts themselves.

Knowledge, yes; but apparently not much of a consensus.

 

[LuisDantas]

Care to explain how exactly it is tied to its time and culture of origin? Also how is it too harsh to atheism?

Its whole code of conduct and moral directives are rather tied to that culture, and more than a little bit poor in allowing for cultural diversity and changing values. That is a very serious shortcoming for any religion, and a crippling one for Islam, which presents itself as the final one.

As for Atheism, it should be obvious. Being a religious Atheist myself I know for a fact that Atheism is to be accepted and embraced with joy, yet to this day many Muslims seem to believe that Atheism is an evil to be conquered.

That, in and of itself, is yet another serious failure of the faith, and a strong evidence that there is no God after all. Or at least not one that much follows the model that the Quran presents. Such an impressive figure would know that belief in Him is not at all necessary and that its followers should indeed not be compelled into belief, yet it seems clear that such a frankly trivial realization failed to make its way into Islamic doctrine and may in fact well be fully incompatible with it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So? They lacked the culture of poetry and Muhammad's native genius.

Muhammad's situation was the perfect storm to produce a great mystical text. I can appreciate that without believing God is encapsulated in a book.

They lived in the same culture as Muhammad. I don't see how they should be any different from him in terms of poetic ability.

Its whole code of conduct and moral directives are rather tied to that culture, and more than a little bit poor in allowing for cultural diversity and changing values. That is a very serious shortcoming for any religion, and a crippling one for Islam, which presents itself as the final one.

I think that the Muslims living peacefully in the western world effectively prove that wrong every day.

As for Atheism, it should be obvious. Being a religious Atheist myself I know for a fact that Atheism is to be accepted and embraced with joy, yet to this day many Muslims seem to believe that Atheism is an evil to be conquered.

This is purely subjective. You said it yourself, "many Muslims" (i.e. not even close to all of them).

That, in and of itself, is yet another serious failure of the faith, and a strong evidence that there is no God after all. Or at least not one that much follows the model that the Quran presents. Such an impressive figure would know that belief in Him is not at all necessary and that its followers should indeed not be compelled into belief, yet it seems clear that such a frankly trivial realization failed to make its way into Islamic doctrine and may in fact well be fully incompatible with it.

That's your view of God though. You can't judge how God would or should act based on your own values and principles.

 

[Storm]

They lived in the same culture as Muhammad. I don't see how they should be any different from him.

You ignored the "native genius" aspect.

There was some miscommunication, though. I thought you were referring to other cultures' texts, like the Tao Te Ching, etc..

I truly believe that had Muhammad been born in ancient Britain, for instance, you'd be just as awed by his musings on Lugh or Cernunnos.

 

[no-body]

Other people as well claim to have had the same theophanies or similar ones to Muhammad's, but none of them came up with something akin to the Qur'an
in terms of poetic quality.



And so were most of the Arabs at the time, but none of them came with anything close to what the Qur'an was and still is.

The subjectivity of written works makes this impossible to judge as well as the fact that Muslims where the "winners" of history in the area, if there was any opposition if would have been erased.

But if he did really con them, where did the Qur'an come from? (echoing the OP).

From Muhammeds mind. He had 40 years to meditate and study spirituality before the Quran appeared. It's not that far fetched. So again we come to the fact that the OP is simply your opinion and not "fact"

That's why you would have to have unbiased people judge both parties. It's not ridiculous at all when you think about it.

It's ridiculous to think you could find such unbiased judges and that everyone involved would honor the results.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You ignored the "native genius" aspect.

There was some miscommunication, though. I thought you were referring to other cultures' texts, like the Tao Te Ching, etc..

I truly believe that had Muhammad been born in ancient Britain, for instance, you'd be just as awed by his musings on Lugh or Cernunnos.

If it was his creation, why didn't he include personal stories about himself and his family in it (such as when his wife and uncle died)? He could have easily done that if it was indeed his creation but his name is mentioned only 4 times, while Moses' name is mentioned 136 times, for example. Also there are many examples where he is told what to do by God, contradicting some of his actions such as when he scowled upon seeing the blind man.

 

[Storm]

If it was his creation, why didn't he include personal stories about himself and his family in it (such as when his wife and uncle died)? He could have easily done that if it was indeed his creation but his name is mentioned only 4 times, while Moses name is mentioned 136 times, for example.

Because it wasn't about him.

Also there are many examples where he is told what to do by God, contradicting some of his actions such as when he scowled upon seeing the blind man.

OK. How is this relevant?

 

[Caladan]

None of the above, actually. A truly remarkable religious text is supposed to be beyond such petty specificities, because religious wisdom is by definition transcedental.

Petty specificities?
you are strange Dantas. don't you ever take on the issues where you are?
or look who are the people around you?
Muhammad's men did all that. and they conquered. Mecca has changed and millions of people recite their achievements.
start from Western Saudi Arabia. than advance to Neoliberalism.

What, are religious people supposed to dislike Atheism? :areyoucra

Quite frankly, that is nonsense.

Its a religious text Dantas. it deals with mid eastern affairs. Surat Al-Kafirun is a piece which discusses the way the Muslims were persecuted by the polytheists.
take the text for what it is.

In all honesty, whatever meaning that phrase has is not really very clear for, well, anyone apparently.

Again. you need to read the entire Surah. it is Surat Al-Kafirun.

So many of you talk as if a text ows you anything. as if it is supposed to be considerate of your sedentary condition. these texts were written by people who had to clear the sand from their cracks most of the day. they probably cursed half the time and fought over who gets the last pita bread. it is a wonder that we received such a fine literary piece in Arabic.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Give anyone 23 years or more to come up with something better or even similar, and I guarantee you they won't be able to do it.

What you are saying already happend!. I agree and believe that no one other Than God can reveal a Book like Quran. But just incase you are not aware, the Bab revealed the equivallent of Quran in ONLY two days and two nights:

"Verily the equivalent of that which God revealed unto Mu[FONT=Times Ext Roman,Times Ext Roman][FONT=Times Ext Roman,Times Ext Roman]ḥ[/FONT][/FONT]ammad during twenty-three years, hath been revealed unto Me within the space of two days and two nights. However, as ordained by God, no distinction is to be drawn between the two. He, in truth, hath power over all things." - The Bab

Baha'i Reference Library: The Works of The Báb

 

[LuisDantas]

That's your view of God though. You can't judge how God would or should act based on your own values and principles.

Why not? It seems in fact that I must.

 

[McBell]

You can't judge how God would or should act based on your own values and principles.

Really?
Then whose values and principles should be used to Judge God?

 

[Storm]

What they said. We have nothing else, in the end.

 

[LuisDantas]

Petty specificities?
you are strange Dantas. don't you ever take on the issues where you are?
or look who are the people around you?
Muhammad's men did all that. and they conquered. Mecca has changed and millions of people recite their achievements.
start from Western Saudi Arabia. than advance to Neoliberalism.

That is all fair and good, but it does not go very far at all towards supporting a supposedly eternal religion. If anything, it is counter-evidence. That is what I meant.

Its a religious text Dantas. it deals with mid eastern affairs. Surat Al-Kafirun is a piece which discusses the way the Muslims were persecuted by the polytheists.
take the text for what it is.

I do. That is my point.

Again. you need to read the entire Surah. it is Surat Al-Kafirun.

I just did, and I am disappointed. It reinforces my own opinion and in fact aggravates it.

It is an admission of a desire of being no more than an ethnic faith, and therefore essentially self-appointed to obsolescence.

A true God-revealed religion would know better than to have such a statement in its most holy book. I wonder how many people in Muslim cultures are not hidden Atheists in part due to such evidence and attitude.

So many of you talk as if a text owes you anything. as if it is supposed to be considerate of your sedentary condition. these texts were written by people who had to clear the sand from their cracks most of the day. they probably cursed half the time and fought over who gets the last pita bread. it is a wonder that we received such a fine literary piece in Arabic.

Religion is supposed to stand or fail on its own merits, Caladan. In that sense, they all owe me the reasons to believe they are worth my consideration. Not that I am any different from anyone else in this regard.

Taken as the belief of an ancient people, the faith of the Quran may well be admirable. Taken as a religion at the present day, not so much, at least until and unless its adherents take it upon themselves to transcend the limitations of the Quran itself - which, I understand, is something of a self-defeating proposition anyway.

 

[England my lionheart]

It would be better if you have actually read the Qur'an in Arabic beforehand as it cannot be fully appreciated any other way.

This seems to be a cop out IMO,ok if you could read Arabic you would see the poetic beauty but the meaning would still be the same and there were great poets before Muhammed Imru al Qais bin Hujr al Kindi for example,some say Muhammed used some of his material.

 

[Matthew78]

There's a lot of stuff in the Qur'an though which renders it impossible to be written by a human being.

What do you mean? I read that you mentioned that the Quran contains prescientific insights in it before being discovered by modern science. I used to read the same thing from Christians regarding the Bible. The founder of the modern American creationist movement, Henry M Morris, used to argue this in a few of his books. I have encountered this kind of argument in my past conversations with Muslims; they were surprised that I didn't find it convincing.

What exactly convinces you the Quran is divinely inspired?

If that was true there wouldn't have been nearly as many non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

What do you mean?

I also want to make something clear: I don't even care what you believe or don't believe in. These are purely personal choices and cannot be imposed
on anyone without their will. Why you felt the need to explicitly point that out though, is far beyond me.

I have seen this argument about the Quran used before and it's almost always by people who are seriously bothered by the fact that people are not Muslims like them. I wasn't sure if you were one of them or not. I'm glad that you're not although I did get the impression that you might have been by the wording of your first few posts in this thread. I didn't know for sure and I didn't want to make any unfair accusations against you . So I decided to say this in case you or any other Muslims on here are seriously bothered by nonbelief. I'm comforted by the fact that you're not.

 

[YmirGF]

Give anyone 23 years or more to come up with something better or even similar, and I guarantee you they won't be able to do it.

I agree to the extent that one copy of the Qur'an is quite enough to inflict on the world. I see no reason to duplicate the "effort". That, however, was not my point. My point was and is, that Arabic writers are hobbled, from the "get go" by their belief that no written work can surpass the majesty and quality of the Qur'an. With that belief in mind, it is unlikely that anyone could possibly pen such a work. There is another reality at play here however and that is the fact that even IF such a work was created, no self-respecting Muslims would be inclined to admit that it was, in fact, better than the Qur'an. They may agree that it is a marvelous work, but could not make the extra leap and admit the Qur'an had been eclipsed.

This is the English version we're talking about though. That's why I mentioned in the OP that in order to properly judge the Qur'an, you would have to read it in Arabic first.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but is not the ordering of the Qur'an the same in English or Arabic? In general, the longest verses appear first, followed by the shorter verses. This is NOT the order that the verses were given by Muhammad originally.

Meccan sura - Wikipedia
(I know, I know... it's Wikipedia, but the information given is accurate in this case.)

And how exactly does being a natural politician or a military genius help you in composing such book?

It is evidence of mental dexterity and highly refined communication skills. For someone who can martial people and fire their imaginations, authoring a book would be fairly easy.

You know that there's a verse in the Qur'an that challenges anyone who doubts the Qur'an to come up with something better/equal, right? If you think you can do it, why not give it a shot? No one is stopping you.

Thanks for the offer, however I have chatted about this with several Muslims in the past and none of them could agree on the criteria upon which the work would be judged. This led me to realize that there is NO WORK that could possibly be produced that would SATISFY devout Muslims into admitting the new work was superior to the Qur'an. What you have to try to realize is that Muslims have painted themselves into a corner on this topic. There is virtually no possibility that any work would seriously be considered as having met the challenge. In this regard, the challenge is not worth the paper it is written on.

There is also the niggling detail that if a person was successful some wacko jacko Muslim would be deeply insulted enough to physically assault the writer. Many have been killed in the name of Islam for much, much less.

 

[madnessinmysoul]

Seeing as you haven't read the Arabic version, that renders your conclusion about it being easy to come up with void.

I'm sorry, but no it really doesn't. The content itself is incredibly horrendous, contains insane amounts of contradictions (acknowledged by schools of Islamic theology for centuries with many attempts to apologize for such problems) and it contains outright falsehoods. It says that the Earth is flat and that mountains are its roots.

I can judge the content of the book without being able to read it in its original language. I may not be able to judge the poetic value of the text itself, but the presence of any poetic prowess doesn't really hint at divine inspiration.

Once again, we're talking about the English version here, right?

No, we're talking about the Qu'ran in whatever version.

It's not just that though. And you have to be fully aware of the extent of that "aesthetic achievement" to judge if something similar can be written by a human or not.

Do you honestly think that a book containing contradictions and outright falsehoods is better than Hamlet? Better than Catch-22? Better than Paradise Lost, Anna Karrenina, The Divine Comedy, and Don Quixote? Also, oddly enough, those last three are all written in other languages yet their linguistic prowess, depth, and beauty all translate quite well to the English language.

Greater works than the Qu'ran have been written by humans. In fact, I posit that Sandman, the graphic novel by Neil Gaiman, is a better work than the whole of the Qu'ran. I posit that The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie is also a better work, which is probably why that fatwa was issued against him.

So? How is that relevant here?

It's relevant because I've never read Plato in its original Greek either and people claim that Plato's original text in classical Greek is among the greatest texts ever written, if not the single greatest literary achievement in human history, yet that beauty adds no strength to Plato's arguments. It also doesn't decry us to claim that his work was divinely inspired.

Your argument, it is full of many holes.

 

[Caladan]

Dantas,

I am talking of the study the history of religion for the sake of studying. no one stands over your head holding a cross or a scimitar. and if they do they usually leave the forum after a while.
this is an on line debate. most of the people have a sense of history.

 

[rojse]

This strikes me as an interesting piece ...

Thanks for the link, Jayhawker Soule.