is the quran from God ?

[hak2000]

Many accounts have been made to justify the Quran as a miracle with regards to its literacy. With the multitude of works on the topic of Quran, there has not been a concise explanation with regards to why the Quran is actually a miracle, using current Quran’ic research and applying the concise concept of miracles to the challenge of the Quran. Drawing on this new formulation of a miracle, we can achieve a more cogent argument that encapsulates the Miracle of the Quran in its entirety.

Remainder of article:
http://adamdeen.blogspot.com/2008/10...nimitable.html


written by Adam Deen

 

[K.Venugopal]

The Qur’anic literary form lies outside the productive capacity of the Arabic language.

I find this surmise amazingly illogical. If the Quran is in Arabic how can it lie "outside the productive capacity of the Arabic language"?

If the challenge was not confined to Arabic, as a work of supreme literary merit, Shakespeare’s works would surpass that of the Quran. No doubt my conclusion is subjective, but then all conclusions on literary merit are likely to be subjective. The Quran, presented as a religious authority, has created believers and with its "whip and carrot" (hell and heaven) promises, has managed to put the fear of God into the believers. Shakespeare's fans are pure connoisseurs of literature, not believers.

Speaking of literature, compared to Shakespeare I find the Quran (it’s English translation) rather bland (dull).

 

[YmirGF]

I find this surmise amazingly illogical. If the Quran is in Arabic how can it lie "outside the productive capacity of the Arabic language"?

If the challenge was not confined to Arabic, as a work of supreme literary merit, Shakespeare’s works would surpass that of the Quran. No doubt my conclusion is subjective, but then all conclusions on literary merit are likely to be subjective. The Quran, presented as a religious authority, has created believers and with its "whip and carrot" (hell and heaven) promises, has managed to put the fear of God into the believers. Shakespeare's fans are pure connoisseurs of literature, not believers.

Speaking of literature, compared to Shakespeare I find the Quran (it’s English translation) rather bland (dull).

Spot on, I'd say. What is more telling is why Muslims feel the need to continually try to pound the point home about something that should be breathtakingly obvious. Given that it is not, alone, casts doubts on the pedigree of the alleged authorship.

 

[England my lionheart]

I agree with K.Venugopal and can only add that "the challenge" only really makes sense in the context of Muhammed convincing the unbelievers 1400 years ago,it isn't a universal challenge for obvious reasons.

 

[Breathe]

I must say I agree with what's been said by K. Venugopal, Ymir, and England.

 

[syberpriend]

Isn;t this miracle obvious that the books is unchanged since 1400 years? and this promise is made bby God himself that It wont be changed til end of world

 

[Breathe]

Isn;t this miracle obvious that the books is unchanged since 1400 years?

... not really.

As long as you have the original, highly prize it as being perfect, and make the language a requirement for performing salah - which you must do five times a day, I don't see why it would change.

 

[syberpriend]

... not really.

As long as you have the original, highly prize it as being perfect, and make the language a requirement for performing salah - which you must do five times a day, I don't see why it would change.

I thought u will quote sikh hymns for this but wat doubt u have that it is not originnal or not preserved till now?

 

[YmirGF]

Isn;t this miracle obvious that the books is unchanged since 1400 years? and this promise is made bby God himself that It wont be changed til end of world

1. Dialectic marks have been added.
2. The order of verses is not the order they were "handed down" in. Rather the Qur'an is arranged from the longest to the shortest verses regardless of chronology. Some have said it was to provide coherency to verses that made little sense when read in chronological order.
3. Uthman, the third caliph, had all variant copies destroyed when the current version was set in stone in 651 CE. With no other copies available, the Uthman version gained prominence and is what we have today.

 

[Breathe]

I thought u will quote sikh hymns for this

Hehe, am I that predictable?

but wat doubt u have that it is not originnal or not preserved till now?

You misunderstand - I do believe that the Qur'an (in its current form) has been preserved perfectly. I do know that i'jam and tashkil were added to the Qur'an later, but to me this does not affect its preserved nature.

But, I do not see the preservation as a miracle.

 

[syberpriend]

1. Dialectic marks have been added.
This is added to maintain the phrase while reciting, its not something added in text.
2. The order of verses is not the order they were "handed down" in. Rather the Qur'an is arranged from the longest to the shortest verses regardless of chronology. Some have said it was to provide coherency to verses that made little sense when read in chronological order.
This claim is not write, it was also revealed to keep them in such an order,
3. Uthman, the third caliph, had all variant copies destroyed when the current version was set in stone in 651 CE.

This is certainly wrong, this concept most non-muslim have, which they search from internet,

 

[EtuMalku]

According to the Muslims the Koran contains the words of God. Koran is to be read as if God Himself had spoken these words stated in it. It is important to emphasize this point because if Koran is the word of God then it should not contain any errors and it should hold true for all times. However, such is not the case.

The Opening Sura Fatihah:
(Koran 1:1-7)
In the name of the Merciful and Compassionate God.
Praise belongs to God,
The Lord of the worlds, the merciful, the
compassionate, the ruler of the day of
the day of judgement! Thee we serve and Thee
we ask for aid. Guide us in the right path,
the path of those Thou art gracious to;
not to those Thou art wroth with, nor of
those who err.



Someone need not be a rocket-scientist to comprehend that these words are clearly addressed to God, in the form of a prayer. They are Mohamed's words of praise to God, asking for God's help and guidance.


*Some Muslim compilers conveniently add the imperative "say" in the English translation of the Koran at the beginning of the sura to remove this difficulty.


You can read an incredible amount of literature that shows the Quran not to be the words of God . . . Contradictions / Difficulties in the Qur'an

 

[YmirGF]

1. Dialectic marks have been added.

This is added to maintain the phrase while reciting, its not something added in text.

Uh... the dialectic marks narrow the range of meanings and therefore is clearly altering the original vagueness of the wording. This is similar to corralling horses in an enclosed pen.

For further information, please refer to Compilation of the Qur’an by Sheik Ezzat

2. The order of verses is not the order they were "handed down" in. Rather the Qur'an is arranged from the longest to the shortest verses regardless of chronology. Some have said it was to provide coherency to verses that made little sense when read in chronological order.

This claim is not write, it was also revealed to keep them in such an order,

I have not heard this argument. Do you have proof of this?

3. Uthman, the third caliph, had all variant copies destroyed when the current version was set in stone in 651 CE.

This is certainly wrong, this concept most non-muslim have, which they search from internet,

Do you have any proof that this is actually wrong or are we to just take your word for it.

 

[syberpriend]

According to the Muslims the Koran contains the words of God. Koran is to be read as if God Himself had spoken these words stated in it. It is important to emphasize this point because if Koran is the word of God then it should not contain any errors and it should hold true for all times. However, such is not the case.

The Opening Sura Fatihah:
(Koran 1:1-7)
In the name of the Merciful and Compassionate God.
Praise belongs to God,
The Lord of the worlds, the merciful, the
compassionate, the ruler of the day of
the day of judgement! Thee we serve and Thee
we ask for aid. Guide us in the right path,
the path of those Thou art gracious to;
not to those Thou art wroth with, nor of
those who err.



Someone need not be a rocket-scientist to comprehend that these words are clearly addressed to God, in the form of a prayer. They are Mohamed's words of praise to God, asking for God's help and guidance.

I think u r mistaken here, these words are taught by God, for Muslims, and the contradictions u quoted, they all are refered to grammr, which is difficult to say its a cotradiction, as arabic grammer is vast, and many rules are there to follow, Quran is the basic guidline for following the rule. u have to learn arabic to know this thing. if u have any other contradiction beside grammmer, bring it, we wil discuss.

 

[syberpriend]

Uh... the dialectic marks narrow the range of meanings and therefore is clearly altering the original vagueness of the wording. This is similar to corralling horses in an enclosed pen.

For further information, please refer to Compilation of the Qur’an by Sheik Ezzat

Until u will learn arabic, u wont know this, so better not to talk on this, coz at the end it will be ur failure


I have not heard this argument. Do you have proof of this?
ive proof, but its of no use to u, coz u dont believe in proofs. but its not making any sense of ur statement of making it contradiction.
Do you have any proof that this is actually wrong or are we to just take your word for it.

the quran which were burnt, were the qurans which ppl wrote footnotes before it was finaly compiled, and in some places, ppl were thinking its a part of quran, the original script was kept with Hafsa(wife or Prophet Muhammad), and Usman, took that original copy, make several copies, and thn sent to many places that this one is to be followed as original, rest to be burnt so no mis-confusion will be there.
Find urself on net, u will find the same detail everywhere.

 

[YmirGF]

Find urself on net, u will find the same detail everywhere.

Clearly, there is no point in further discussions with you as you are incapable of being honest.

 

[Caladan]

Spot on, I'd say. What is more telling is why Muslims feel the need to continually try to pound the point home about something that should be breathtakingly obvious. Given that it is not, alone, casts doubts on the pedigree of the alleged authorship.

I think the evidence of human authorship is in the content. the Qur'an may be a lot of things to me; a cultural gem of humanity's heritage, the sacred text of one of the world's major religions, a testament of monotheism in Arabia, but above all, it is simply evident from the content of the text that it is not the product of a supreme being. and I would be worried about existential problems and where we are heading if it was, it does not meet my standards of enlightenment and intellect of the normal human being in the modern world. that is not to say that the authors were unintelligent or ignorant, it simply means that they came from a different time, a different place, and the text reflects it. we should appreciate it as the heritage these men left us, but there is zero reason for a modern human being to look for infallibility in it. in fact in my perception it downgrades a real appreciation of the literary work at hand and its place on the stage of history.
I think that world scripture should be immortalized, not by a God, but by the responsible interest of people to preserve our own history and the healthy need to know ourselves, where we came from and what were some of the sources of inspiration of vast social movements throughout history.

 

[EtuMalku]

There are many, but here is a funny one

Ants Cannot Talk:

At length, when they came to a valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."

So he smiled, amused at her speech; and he said: "O my Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours, which Thou has bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by They Grace to the ranks of Thy Righteous Servants."
-- Sura An-Naml [The Ant] (27):18-19
​

 

[syberpriend]

Clearly, there is no point in further discussions with you as you are incapable of being honest.

If u can;t find the right thing, dont call any1 wrong, its ur mistake and u dont want to accept the truth, not mine, I gave u truth, as I said already, even clear proof will not change u, coz in ur heart and mind is hate towards muslim for unknown reason.

 

[syberpriend]

I think the evidence of human authorship is in the content. the Qur'an may be a lot of things to me; a cultural gem of humanity's heritage, the sacred text of one of the world's major religions, a testament of monotheism in Arabia, but above all, it is simply evident from the content of the text that it is not the product of a supreme being. and I would be worried about existential problems and where we are heading if it was, it does not meet my standards of enlightenment and intellect of the normal human being in the modern world. that is not to say that the authors were unintelligent or ignorant, it simply means that they came from a different time, a different place, and the text reflects it. we should appreciate it as the heritage these men left us, but there is zero reason for a modern human being to look for infallibility in it. in fact in my perception it downgrades a real appreciation of the literary work at hand and its place on the stage of history.
I think that world scripture should be immortalized, not by a God, but by the responsible interest of people to preserve our own history and the healthy need to know ourselves, where we came from and what were some of the sources of inspiration of vast social movements throughout history.

Any proof u can provide for not calling it as revealed book, or un ethical towards human mind? or y not compatible with todays world?