Quran Challenge

[KWED]

It is said that we would be judged according to our ways.

We are being spoken to according to our ways.

Ok. So we have established that you cannot present a passage from the Quran that is beyond the capability of 7th century Arabs to write.

With all due respect, can you not clutter this thread with non-relevant posts. Thanks.

 

[Link]

I understand that you think the Quran is a wonderful book containing much eloquence, but that opinion alone is not a sign of divine authorship.
Nothing you have mentioned is beyond the power of someone from 7th century Arabia.

Feel free to have another go, but this time cite one passage and then explain how it is beyond the capability of a 7th century Arab mind, in the context of existing knowledge and could only have been created by an omniscient, omnipotent god.

Note: If you want to write multiple essays about how you think the Quran is an eloquent piece of literature, there are threads specifically for that, but that is not what this thread is for. Thanks.

Counter challenge: If you can, then replace the two verses I quoted with something else that will keep the Surah as eloquent and intact. Let's see if you can.

 

[ppp]

Can I post three?

23:12 "We created man out of the extract of clay," 23:13 "Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging." 23:14 "then We made this drop into a clot, then We made the clot into a lump, then We made the lump into bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We caused it to grow into another creation. Thus Most Blessed is Allah, the Best of all those that create."

This does require some elaboration regarding the translation. I might do that later.

There's nothing about that that is beyond the ability to write by bronze age people.

 

[LukeS]

The Koran is to be applied. In life as a guide, showing how to live. Even a beginner is just a Muslim not a believer. Believers are experienced, they have spiritual life more fully. An outsider has the manifest, and the believer, and the masjid, the sociology of Muslim community to observe. An observer can see physically but a Muslim sees more aesthetically, morally and spiritually. To actually begin to see is to either have grounds for conversion. Or to be impressed at least.

So hardcore empirically it is just a book, just a faith. Just letters. Paper.

Religiously it is more. It’s a way of seeing that allows faith. Aesthetic and phenomenological. Like, ask your heart or feelings about God, rather than mere conception dispassionately. Rationalist theology and apologetics misses by miles.

Islam has feeling based epistemology. Hearts can be covered or screened. In denial of fact, so it’s more like a Freudian faith than a purely physicist pursuit. Don’t deny your true and multifaceted nature, but if you do, your life won’t be straight, it won’t fully or properly fit.

Also there is the basic concept taqwa or piety which prohibits the unhealthy and promotes the healthy. Hence, the deniers will be in decline.

Its simple logic but a ayat or proof of Koran and Islam is the persistence of the faith community in this spirit through the millennia, ongoing, healthily. Just like fitting shoes, or correct calculations help people to survive and progress.

There are signs. I see them, can you? Yes, but don’t repress or deny, that’s the method of Islam. Don’t expect miracles in isolation from feeling, from aesthetic and moral sense. Be sensitive, awaken to subtleties.

Islam is holistic in that we read and observe, see the path we’re guided to, observe it’s beauty (the masjid, the salat, the inner peace are all aspects of the straight path, straight path a term connoting fitting, apt, correct). Not simply an assessment scientifically, robotically. Not logical positivism, more phenomenological and ethical.

It’s no fun wearing the wrong shoes. The deen al Haq ( true faith) is like an analogy with that. 2+2=4 not 5. Etc.

Get this, and then you’ll understand the impressive nature of the deen. Simply read, and you’ll miss part of the essence.

Islamic piety is a “firm foothold….”

 

[KWED]

Counter challenge: If you can, then replace the two verses I quoted with something else that will keep the Surah as eloquent and intact. Let's see if you can.

Start your own thread. This ones taken.

So, I take it that this means you can't present such a passage.

 

[Link]

Start your own thread. This ones taken.

So, I take it that this means you can't present such a passage.

I did present it. If you are truthful, you would be able to replace those passages with something that keeps the chapter the same quality or better. But you won't be able to.

 

[KWED]

The Koran is to be applied. In life as a guide, showing how to live. Even a beginner is just a Muslim not a believer. Believers are experienced, they have spiritual life more fully. An outsider has the manifest, and the believer, and the masjid, the sociology of Muslim community to observe. An observer can see physically but a Muslim sees more aesthetically, morally and spiritually. To actually begin to see is to either have grounds for conversion. Or to be impressed at least.

So hardcore empirically it is just a book, just a faith. Just letters. Paper.

Religiously it is more. It’s a way of seeing that allows faith. Aesthetic and phenomenological. Like, ask your heart or feelings about God, rather than mere conception dispassionately. Rationalist theology and apologetics misses by miles.

Islam has feeling based epistemology. Hearts can be covered or screened. In denial of fact, so it’s more like a Freudian faith than a purely physicist pursuit. Don’t deny your true and multifaceted nature, but if you do, your life won’t be straight, it won’t fully or properly fit.

Also there is the basic concept taqwa or piety which prohibits the unhealthy and promotes the healthy. Hence, the deniers will be in decline.

Its simple logic but a ayat or proof of Koran and Islam is the persistence of the faith community in this spirit through the millennia, ongoing, healthily. Just like fitting shoes, or correct calculations help people to survive and progress.

There are signs. I see them, can you? Yes, but don’t repress or deny, that’s the method of Islam. Don’t expect miracles in isolation from feeling, from aesthetic and moral sense. Be sensitive, awaken to subtleties.

Islam is holistic in that we read and observe, see the path we’re guided to, observe it’s beauty (the masjid, the salat, the inner peace are all aspects of the straight path, straight path a term connoting fitting, apt, correct). Not simply an assessment scientifically, robotically. Not logical positivism, more phenomenological and ethical.

It’s no fun wearing the wrong shoes. The deen al Haq ( true faith) is like an analogy with that. 2+2=4 not 5. Etc.

Get this, and then you’ll understand the impressive nature of the deen. Simply read, and you’ll miss part of the essence.

Islamic piety is a “firm foothold….”

Yes, I understand that Muslims often "feel" that Islam is true and that the Quran is special. But the followers of all religions feel the same way about their faith and scriptures. Non religious people can get similar feelings about art, or relationships. It's just an electro-chemical response in the brain to certain stimuli.

I was asking for something more tangible to support the claims that the Quran is beyond the ability of the human mind to produce, but I appreciate your explanation that it is the response to the book, not the book itself that is special.

 

[KWED]

I did present it. If you are truthful, you would be able to replace those passages with something that keeps the chapter the same quality or better. But you won't be able to.

You posted a load of stuff that I didn't read.

If you believe you have a single passage that makes more sense as the work of an omni-everything god than the work of man, please present it (and only it).

Asking me to rewrite the Quran is not part of the challenge, but feel free to start your own thread with that challenge, and I will see you there.

 

[Link]

You posted a load of stuff that I didn't read.

If you believe you have a single passage that makes more sense as the work of an omni-everything god than the work of man, please present it (and only it).

Asking me to rewrite the Quran is not part of the challenge, but feel free to start your own thread with that challenge, and I will see you there.

Here:


وَقَالَ لَهُمْ نَبِيُّهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ بَعَثَ لَكُمْ طَالُوتَ مَلِكًا ۚ قَالُوا أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لَهُ الْمُلْكُ عَلَيْنَا وَنَحْنُ أَحَقُّ بِالْمُلْكِ مِنْهُ وَلَمْ يُؤْتَ سَعَةً مِنَ الْمَالِ ۚ قَالَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَاهُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَزَادَهُ بَسْطَةً فِي الْعِلْمِ وَالْجِسْمِ ۖ وَاللَّهُ يُؤْتِي مُلْكَهُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ | And their prophet said to them, ‘Allah has appointed Talut (Saul) as king for you.’ They said, ‘How can he have kingship over us, when we have a greater right to kingship than him, as he has not been given ample wealth?’ He said, ‘Indeed Allah has chosen him over you, and enhanced him vastly in knowledge and physique, and Allah gives His authority to whomever He wishes, and Allah is all-bounteous, all-knowing.’ | Al-Baqara : 247

وَقَالَ لَهُمْ نَبِيُّهُمْ إِنَّ آيَةَ مُلْكِهِ أَنْ يَأْتِيَكُمُ التَّابُوتُ فِيهِ سَكِينَةٌ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ وَبَقِيَّةٌ مِمَّا تَرَكَ آلُ مُوسَىٰ وَآلُ هَارُونَ تَحْمِلُهُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَةً لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ | Their prophet said to them, ‘Indeed the sign of his kingship shall be that the Ark will come to you, bearing tranquility from your Lord and the remainder of what has been left by the House of Moses and the House of Aaron, carried by the angels. There is indeed a sign in that for you, should you be faithful.’ | Al-Baqara : 248


If you are truthful, you would be able to replace those verses in the Quran and keep Quran as beautiful, complete, and eloquent. Let's see you do it.

 

[KWED]

And their prophet said to them, ‘Allah has appointed Talut (Saul) as king for you.’ They said, ‘How can he have kingship over us, when we have a greater right to kingship than him, as he has not been given ample wealth?’ He said, ‘Indeed Allah has chosen him over you, and enhanced him vastly in knowledge and physique, and Allah gives His authority to whomever He wishes, and Allah is all-bounteous, all-knowing.’
Their prophet said to them, ‘Indeed the sign of his kingship shall be that the Ark will come to you, bearing tranquility from your Lord and the remainder of what has been left by the House of Moses and the House of Aaron, carried by the angels. There is indeed a sign in that for you, should you be faithful.’|

I fail to see how that could not possibly have been written by a 7th century Arab. Seems like pretty ordinary stuff. You'll have to explain.

 

[Link]

I fail to see how that could not possibly have been written by a 7th century Arab. Seems like pretty ordinary stuff. You'll have to explain.

You fail to see, true. I can't make you see, but I might able to help you.

Like I said, first thing is we have to acknowledge some features of speech whether God or anyone. Speech is contextual. So a verse is in place of larger content of speech, it's preceded by what leads to it and leads to things after it.

Every Surah has a place in Quran.

So I will first explain significance of the words themselves. Then with over all Surah. Then how it leads to next Surah and the next Surah is a big expansion of the story of Talut (a) but applied to Mohammad (s). Then I will briefly talk about how that Surah leads to the next, and next Surah, and one more Surah and end on Surh 6th. The rest is up to you.

We will also see some ahadith with respect to the verses since the words of Ahlulbayt (a) tend to glorify and amplify the meaning.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Phrases themselves are eloquent, but not alone. With respect to the Chapter they are in. And the chapter is with respect to the whole book.

There are subtle eloquent features, that add up, and then you realize it's from God based on eloquence.

Aside from that, is every chapter has a style. The style and how it sounds in Arabic is a miracle along with the meaning.

If you isolate a verse and don't explain it with respect to chapter or Quran as a whole, you are being unfair. If you see every verse in it's place with respect to Quran, you will witness a miracle.

The sound and how beautiful is also goes with the flow of that chapter and how the chapter sounds.

I expected more from Link. So your proof of devine authorship is eloquence, structure and musical preference?

Verses in the Qur'an are organized by descending size, which is arguably the worst way to organize a book

 

[Link]

Verses in the Qur'an are organized by descending size, which is arguably the worst way to organize a book

Descending size is a norm, but a lot of Surahs are exception to it in Quran. Anyways, that is part of it's nice features. You make it sound as if a bad thing.

 

[LukeS]

Yes, I understand that Muslims often "feel" that Islam is true and that the Quran is special. But the followers of all religions feel the same way about their faith and scriptures. Non religious people can get similar feelings about art, or relationships. It's just an electro-chemical response in the brain to certain stimuli.

I was asking for something more tangible to support the claims that the Quran is beyond the ability of the human mind to produce, but I appreciate your explanation that it is the response to the book, not the book itself that is special.

Ok thank you for the warning, but for the sake of science, can I add that I suppose that a Google supercomputer could produce, at random, trillions of Arabic script texts, using a basic algorithm and a long time? Most would be nonsense, some would be sensible, and one would be identical to the Koran. So it is in theory possible to replicate the Koran nowadays.

Then we might try and assess all coherent texts in terms of their relative complexity, and ask a scientist to do rank them.

yet….

One issue with the main question is it’s not well defined. What are the a priori limits of the human mind? And of human creativity. This needs reasonable clarification. Until the definition is made properly clear then we may be arguing at crossed purposes over smoke and mirrors.

…but generally I think the requirement of citing a single passage misses a point. Say I quote
2 1 this is the book no doubt therein a guidance to the pious…
This is interpreted in terms of the wider book, and Hadith etc. and Muslim experience.

So I’m not one to mention one specific verse or short passage as miraculous or whatever. On a stand alone platform, especially if we use a Humean definition as breach of law of nature.

You win.

Precisely because of extended hermeneutic and epistemological needs which exist, as far as I can tell, for a valid Muslim perspective. And what are the laws of nature regarding human inventiveness?


If I tried? Personally I’d not be using deductive reasoning, because as afar as I know abduction (inference to the best explanation, which is inductive) is more in tune with the Koranic sense of belief. A Muslim mind responds to ayah in the Koran and the world ( signs, evidence, arguments) which generally indicate higher truths rather than compel as far as I know.

So “ could not have been written by…” would not be meaning analytic, a priori, logically impossible. In terms of pure modal logical abstraction, an Arab could have written it. I just prefer to view that as a inferior explanation. Because faith and belief, they help me ‘win’ a little more in life. And believe me, that’s miraculous.

 

[KWED]

Ok thank you for the warning, but for the sake of science, can I add that I suppose that a Google supercomputer could produce, at random, trillions of Arabic script texts, using a basic algorithm and a long time? Most would be nonsense, some would be sensible, and one would be identical to the Koran. So it is in theory possible to replicate the Koran nowadays.

Yes, that is hypothetically possible (otherwise known as "Shakespeare's Monkeys"). And that would certainly show that it doesn't even need a mind of any kind to produce it.

Then we might try and assess all coherent texts in terms of their relative complexity, and ask a scientist to do rank them.

Why would a scientist be required for a subjective evaluation of literary merit?

One issue with the main question is it’s not well defined. What are the a priori limits of the human mind? And of human creativity. This needs reasonable clarification. Until the definition is made properly clear then we may be arguing at crossed purposes over smoke and mirrors.

Why said there are limits in this context?

…but generally I think the requirement of citing a single passage misses a point. Say I quote
2 1 this is the book no doubt therein a guidance to the pious…
This is interpreted in terms of the wider book, and Hadith etc. and Muslim experience.

So I’m not one to mention one specific verse or short passage as miraculous or whatever. On a stand alone platform, especially if we use a Humean definition as breach of law of nature.

Again, I agree that a personal spiritual or emotional response to sacred texts is a reasonable claim. I was looking for some sort of validation of the beyond human capability claim.

You win.

It wasn't a competition.

In terms of pure modal logical abstraction, an Arab could have written it.

Agreed. I haven't found any passage (or even the sum total) to be beyond the capacity of people living at the time.

I just prefer to view that as a inferior explanation. Because faith and belief, they help me ‘win’ a little more in life. And believe me, that’s miraculous.

Again, I completely understand how people have these personal, emotional responses to holy texts, art, people, etc. It's part of what makes us 'human'.

 

[LukeS]

Thank you KWED.

I accept a computer may kind of produce the text of the Koran, but without reference to the original "revealed version" that we Muslims have, the programmers and generators wouldn't even know which language(s) it was written in never mind the exact text.

So. That was why I mentioned evaluations.

I think for the Muslims, who claim eloquence etc as unsurpassed, there might (might, may be) be a an algorithm which could search the trillions of books produced for the "real Koran". And therefore find the most eloquent text?

Some thoughts on the side issues:

I'm not making that claim though - assessing things this way:

For me the Koran and Islam provide empowering guidance, and how do we choose between competing philosophies and faiths if not the most ethical and health giving, and in general the more empowering.

This takes some understanding...

After all, by analogy: medicine may work by magic but we believe more in scientific realism because its a more reliable philosophical approach in terms producing of this type of health giving, entropy denying instrumentality or usefulness. Likewise, I say, with faith - its more likely objectively true if it works like a medicine does.

(cf. Healing Verses in Quran | Ziyara)

If an alien see an Earthly chemist store,and it could infer: they have scientific knowledge.

If a neurologist may map the experience of a community of Muslim believers, noting signs of peace, trust, hope, contentment and might infer abductively: they have a type of religious knowledge*.

*ok, each faith group can claim success and empowerment, according to experiences and axioms etc. but I think health and power are more scientific indicators of truth, for instance. Things like Crucifiction and self sacrifice (Christianity) Renunciation or denial of reality (Buddhism), and Idol reverence (Hinduism) are less healthy than the Islamic perspectives on related matters. And science, as a stand alone 'faith', on its own, can't even tell us enough to form any kind of optimising cultural group ethic never mind a "far from thermodynamic equilibrium" functioning community....

cf. Far-From-Equilibrium Physics: An Overview

When you understand Koran ayat 2.1 - 5. you'll start to appreciate why I'm saying this side stuff about ethics and power etc.

 

[KWED]

I accept a computer may kind of produce the text of the Koran, but without reference to the original "revealed version" that we Muslims have, the programmers and generators wouldn't even know which language(s) it was written in never mind the exact text.

Obviously we would need a copy of the Quran to compare the computer generated version to.
Without an "original" Quran, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

So. That was why I mentioned evaluations.

Evaluations of literature are subjective, so a scientist's opinion is no more valid than a baker's or a bus driver's.

I think for the Muslims, who claim eloquence etc as unsurpassed, there might (might, may be) be a an algorithm which could search the trillions of books produced for the "real Koran". And therefore find the most eloquent text?

Don't see what you are getting at here.

I'm not making that claim though - assessing things this way:

What claim? (You need to retain the sections of my post so I know what you are referring to)

For me the Koran and Islam provide empowering guidance, and how do we choose between competing philosophies and faiths if not the most ethical and health giving, and in general the more empowering.

Again, this is subjective. You claim that the Quran is the most "ethical" guide. Billions of people disagree for a variety of reasons. People often look for something that confirms and validates their pre-existing position. Some have their position indoctrinated from infancy. There is no "best philosophy" and simply agreeing with one doesn't make it "best" or even "good".

After all, by analogy: medicine may work by magic

But we know it doesn't. We understand the natural processes and mechanisms involved. That's how we can develop medical treatments that actually work.

Likewise, I say, with faith - its more likely objectively true if it works like a medicine does.

Faith does not work that way. There has never been any kins of evidence for physiological effect of faith, prayer etc.

If an alien see an Earthly chemist store,and it could infer: they have scientific knowledge.

Sorry, you've lost me.

If a neurologist may map the experience of a community of Muslim believers, noting signs of peace, trust, hope, contentment and might infer abductively: they have a type of religious knowledge*.

[ We know that certain areas of the brain correspond to certain behaviours and emotions. This is the same for believers of all religions and non-believers.

*ok, each faith group can claim success and empowerment, according to experiences and axioms etc. but I think health and power are more scientific indicators of truth, for instance. Things like Crucifiction and self sacrifice (Christianity) Renunciation or denial of reality (Buddhism), and Idol reverence (Hinduism) are less healthy than the Islamic perspectives on related matters.

No idea what point you are trying to make here.

And science, as a stand alone 'faith', on its own, can't even tell us enough to form any kind of optimising cultural group ethic never mind a "far from thermodynamic equilibrium" functioning community....

Science does not attempt to establish ethics or cultural practices. However, it can inform such decisions. For example, it can tell us that there is no rational justification for mutilating a child's genitals, despite religious texts demanding that we do it.

When you understand Koran ayat 2.1 - 5. you'll start to appreciate why I'm saying this side stuff about ethics and power etc.

There is nothing really to understand there. It is a straightforward expression of religious doctrine.

 

[LukeS]

What I mean is when someone says "the Koran possesses x y z properties uniquely" then maybe use a search algorithm to search those generated competitors (which have been Shakespeare's monkeys generated, or some other AI technique). For example, there may be a billion computer generated Arabic poems. One could take the apologists list of criteria for eloquence, style etc. and sift through the list in minutes...?

Or better still, use an evolutionary program to learn how to write poems which meet the criteria. Perhaps?

I'm not saying the Koran isn't eloquent, but for statrters I barely know a word of Arabic.

 

[LukeS]

Morals are subjective? Does that mean, if you (or I...) go to hell, the evil of it will be all in the mind?

Or, that the problem of evil - a common defence of rejection of faith or unbelief - is rooted merely in personal feelings?

This is relevant because i think that evolutionary insight makes health and well being a morally worthwhile value. We're "programmed" to survive via valuing health - albeit in a culturally malleable manner. Which is why children cry when injured, etc. and parents respond in various ways.

So. I therefore mention the Koranic valuing of health and freshness (the salih) as opposed to the rotten and corrupt (the fasad) which the pious find gentle benign guidance in (huda) - quite in tune with some aspects of modernism.

 

[paarsurrey]

Quran Challenge

Did Quran make any Challenge in it, please?
If yes, then will one kindly quote from Quran the verse/s of the text in the original Arabic and the context verses, that is some verses preceding and some following, please. Right?

Regards