The Amazing Quran

[Poet-Troll]

The challenge to produce a surah like it does not really make sense to us who grew up and live outside an Arabic-speaking Islamic society. Imagine walking up to someone on the street in Erie, Pennsylvania and defying him to produce a text in classical Arabic that is like the Qur'an and if he failed to do so, then to admit that the Qur'an must therefore be of divine origin.
No doubt the challenge did make sense somewhere, sometime.
What I find remarkable is the fact of so much congruence of doctrine and practice among the Near Eastern texts such as the Bible and the Qur'an. There seems to be a strong thread of religious persistence where one might have predicted more variation and change. That being the case, the battle of the books, Christians attacking the Qur'an and Muslims attacking the Bible, seems somewhat lacking in logic. Of course one can always grasp at straws and manipulate contradictions, but the motivation for finding one book or another unacceptable seems a priori.

 

[Fatihah]

The challenge to produce a surah like it does not really make sense to us who grew up and live outside an Arabic-speaking Islamic society. Imagine walking up to someone on the street in Erie, Pennsylvania and defying him to produce a text in classical Arabic that is like the Qur'an and if he failed to do so, then to admit that the Qur'an must therefore be of divine origin.
No doubt the challenge did make sense somewhere, sometime.
What I find remarkable is the fact of so much congruence of doctrine and practice among the Near Eastern texts such as the Bible and the Qur'an. There seems to be a strong thread of religious persistence where one might have predicted more variation and change. That being the case, the battle of the books, Christians attacking the Qur'an and Muslims attacking the Bible, seems somewhat lacking in logic. Of course one can always grasp at straws and manipulate contradictions, but the motivation for finding one book or another unacceptable seems a priori.

Response: The challenge always makes sense, because if no human can produce a chapter like the qur'an, then it is illogical to say that it is the work of a human. Which ultimately proves that it is the work of a higher power, and that is none other than Allah(swt).

 

[tumbleweed41]

Response: The challenge always makes sense, because if no human can produce a chapter like the qur'an, then it is illogical to say that it is the work of a human. Which ultimately proves that it is the work of a higher power, and that is none other than Allah(swt).

Fatihah, really.
At times you seem to be a very reasonable person. At others you let your stubbornness blind you.
Let me ask you this, if someone were to meet your challenge, to your exact specifications.
Would that invalidate the Quran in your eyes?
If your answer is no, then your challenge is meaningless.
If your answer is yes, then you have based your entire belief on this one challenge.

 

[Fatihah]

Fatihah, really.
At times you seem to be a very reasonable person. At others you let your stubbornness blind you.
Let me ask you this, if someone were to meet your challenge, to your exact specifications.
Would that invalidate the Quran in your eyes?
If your answer is no, then your challenge is meaningless.
If your answer is yes, then you have based your entire belief on this one challenge.

Response: Just because someone does not agree with you, it doesn't make them stubborn. In actuality, it makes the person who makes the claim evident to the fact that they're stubborn. Not the other way around.

As for your questtion, my simple answer has, and has always been, an emphatic yes. My entire belief is based on this one challenge. That, and to find any discrepancy in the qur'an. Either or, I would denounce islam if either is proven wrong.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Response: Just because someone does not agree with you, it doesn't make them stubborn. In actuality, it makes the person who makes the claim evident to the fact that their stubborn. Not the other way around.

As for your questtion, my simple answer has, and has always been, an emphatic yes. My entire belief is based on this one challenge. That, and to find any discrepancy in the qur'an. Either or, I would denounce islam if either is proven wrong.

Thank you for your honesty.

 

[Snowber]

Fatihah, really.
At times you seem to be a very reasonable person. At others you let your stubbornness blind you.
Let me ask you this, if someone were to meet your challenge, to your exact specifications.
Would that invalidate the Quran in your eyes?
If your answer is no, then your challenge is meaningless.
If your answer is yes, then you have based your entire belief on this one challenge.

My friend Tumbleweed,

Because there is a lack of knowledge concerning the Koran (and I don't blame the people, we lack knowledge is whatever we don't specifically study, we are all busy with our lives of course) we have yet to realize the degree of difficulty in replicating a Sura in the Koran.

Over time we've only noticed more about the Koran's structure, more specifically: mathematical structure.

At first to produce a Sura like the Koran's seems like a simple challenge to any newcomer, I mean the shortest Suras are only a few verses long. To realize the extent of the challenge we must first study the Koran and it's evidence. To produce "a sura like it" is to write something 1400 years before much of it's contents are known, to produce a mathematical structure beyond chance, that is ever increasing (we only find out MORE about the mathematical structure of the Koran).

In the end, hardly anyone is gonna come to a forum and say "You're right, I believe". It is human nature to be stubborn, and I speak for myself as well. In the end, each human being MUST make their individual decisions, even if they were to make a decision based on a forum post their faith in that decision could never be strong until they fully studied it themselves.

Really, what percentage of people on this forum are here to learn something? I'd say a pretty small percentage. The rest come with the idea that they want to pass time displaying their opinions (yes this is just an assumption) while very few actually having meaning in their purpose of being here.

This is similar to believers throughout history, it has been noted that believers have almost inevitably been small communities except for very few cases. Obviously just because a billion or more people were to believe in Christianity or Islam does not mean it is the truth. In the end, I think we have to be very open minded and do our own research to find the truth if GOD wills that we do.

Ok I've rambled on too long, I'll stop myself before it's too late and I get carpal tunnel

 

[Caladan]

In the end, hardly anyone is gonna come to a forum and say "You're right, I believe". It is human nature to be stubborn, and I speak for myself as well. In the end, each human being MUST make their individual decisions, even if they were to make a decision based on a forum post their faith in that decision could never be strong until they fully studied it themselves.

I think this is perhaps unintentionally presumptuous. you choose to define it as stubborness because Islam is your religion, but it is not the religion for the majority of us. stubborness has nothing to do with it. intellect, society, honesty, standards, aesthetics, and dozens of other criteria are the reasons. to you Islam is the right religion, to others it is 'a religion', its really as simple as that. by the same tokken people here can say that Muslims are stubborn because they refuse to accept what to many of us are common scientific conceptions, and refuse to come to terms with scientific theories which are essential.

Really, what percentage of people on this forum are here to learn something? I'd say a pretty small percentage. The rest come with the idea that they want to pass time displaying their opinions (yes this is just an assumption) while very few actually having meaning in their purpose of being here.

Showing a willingless to accept religious sentiments as true is the opposite of learning to me. so while you might perceive my and other members style on the forum as lacking in spirit to learn, to us its the complete opposite. being willing to debate religion IS willingless to learn, the fact that people refuse to take many of the answers of the religious members at face value only shows standards in learning.
stubbornness and the lack of will to learn have nothing to do with religious adherence. the need to convert others to ones beliefs or to repeatedly claim infallibility and absolutism on the other hand ARE stubborrness and a lack of capacity to learn.
ask yourself this. what would you rather.. that people accepted Islamic theological claims simply because these claims meet *your* standards?, or for people to keep a forum with a lively debate, where all claims of all religions are examined and weighted in the face of modern scientific understanding, and modern academic research? and where people maintain their highest standards of critique when observing and examining various religious topics?

:no: refusing to accept scriptures as the word of God is not stubborrness, it simply means that today's society has socially evolved beyond such simplicity, and that people answer to much more logical standards. this fact however, does not take from the capacity and will to learn and discuss these scriptures.

 

[Snowber]

I think this is perhaps unintentionally presumptuous. you choose to define it as stubborness because Islam is your religion, but it is not the religion for the majority of us. stubborness has nothing to do with it. intellect, society, honesty, standards, aesthetics, and dozens of other criteria are the reasons. to you Islam is the right religion, to others it is 'a religion', its really as simple as that. by the same tokken people here can say that Muslims are stubborn because they refuse to accept what to many of us are common scientific conceptions, and refuse to come to terms with scientific theories which are essential.

Showing a willingless to accept religious sentiments as true is the opposite of learning to me. so while you might perceive my and other members style on the forum as lacking in spirit to learn, to us its the complete opposite. being willing to debate religion IS willingless to learn, the fact that people refuse to take many of the answers of the religious members at face value only shows standards in learning.
stubbornness and the lack of will to learn have nothing to do with religious adherence. the need to convert others to ones beliefs or to repeatedly claim infallibility and absolutism on the other hand ARE stubborrness and a lack of capacity to learn.
ask yourself this. what would you rather.. that people accepted Islamic theological claims simply because these claims meet *your* standards?, or for people to keep a forum with a lively debate, where all claims of all religions are examined and weighted in the face of modern scientific understanding, and modern academic research? and where people maintain their highest standards of critique when observing and examining various religious topics?

:no: refusing to accept scriptures as the word of God is not stubborrness, it simply means that today's society has socially evolved beyond such simplicity, and that people answer to much more logical standards. this fact however, does not take from the capacity and will to learn and discuss these scriptures.

If I may say, I think you have misunderstood my post. My main point was that I believe human nature is to not change one's own belief (naturally the ego is reluctant to accept opinions other than its own) based on debating/arguments. The tendency is to get riled up in debates where each side focuses on holding up it's defenses because anything else may "look like a weakness". I was not discrediting the forum, it has it's usefulness and can very well be used as a learning tool. I am just saying that I think a human being who willingly makes the choice to go out and study opposing sides will end up making a decision themselves rather than debate for the sake of debating (though in rare instances there are productive debates with both parties being very professional).

I think going off on a tangent I mislead you into thinking by stubbornness I meant that you are stubborn if you don't believe in the Koran, that was not the case and I'd like to point that out if my post wasn't clear enough.

 

[Caladan]

If I may say, I think you have misunderstood my post. My main point was that I believe human nature is to not change one's own belief (naturally the ego is reluctant to accept opinions other than its own) based on debating/arguments. The tendency is to get riled up in debates where each side focuses on holding up it's defenses because anything else may "look like a weakness". I was not discrediting the forum, it has it's usefulness and can very well be used as a learning tool. I am just saying that I think a human being who willingly makes the choice to go out and study opposing sides will end up making a decision themselves rather than debate for the sake of debating (though in rare instances there are productive debates with both parties being very professional).

I think going off on a tangent I mislead you into thinking by stubbornness I meant that you are stubborn if you don't believe in the Koran, that was not the case and I'd like to point that out if my post wasn't clear enough.

One of the reasons I chose to tackle this is, that there are members who are not only willing but have an honest desire to discuss and query on various Islamic topics, but various elements, such as trying to prove the Qur'an contains scientific miracles are diverting from a more advanced and serious discussion. for examples, while discussing the Hebrew bible and the New Testament has been common on the forum, from many angles, academic, secular, religious, etc. discussing Qur'anic matters has been more difficult. for people who wish to discuss scriptures without religious sentiments, discussing Islamic matters sometimes proves to be a complicated task, perhaps because of religious taboos.
perhaps a main reason is, that there are people who live in Judeo-Christian societies or with a Judeo-Christian background but are not religious, while the people from Muslim background are perhaps exclusively or almost exclusively religious and give less room for non orthodox analysis.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You also find maths professors in Mental institutions.

 

[skydivephil]

Response: The challenge always makes sense, because if no human can produce a chapter like the qur'an, then it is illogical to say that it is the work of a human. Which ultimately proves that it is the work of a higher power, and that is none other than Allah(swt).

It doesn't make any sense at all.
BY your criteria, a book that inspiserd people to create a religion and conquer countries would be the bible. The bible says that Jesus is the son of god. yet you believe that to be untrue,as do I. yet by your own criteria it must be true , because clearly a religion was created and it conquered many countries.

Furthermore who gets to decide what is like the Quran and what is not? it is an arbitrary judgement.Even if one knows the Arabic of the time better than any scholar of today one does not automatically come to conclusion that the Quran is uniqe. How do we know this? In the Quran itself, it mentioned those who when offered it , rejected it saying it was "fables of the ancients" or "tales from the past" (in some translations). sura 83:13 and in sura 46,17. So even in your own Quran we can see people that were there at the time, spoke the language of the time ad did not accept the Quran as unique.

 

[Fatihah]

It doesn't make any sense at all.
BY your criteria, a book that inspiserd people to create a religion and conquer countries would be the bible. The bible says that Jesus is the son of god. yet you believe that to be untrue,as do I. yet by your own criteria it must be true , because clearly a religion was created and it conquered many countries.

Furthermore who gets to decide what is like the Quran and what is not? it is an arbitrary judgement.Even if one knows the Arabic of the time better than any scholar of today one does not automatically come to conclusion that the Quran is uniqe. How do we know this? In the Quran itself, it mentioned those who when offered it , rejected it saying it was "fables of the ancients" or "tales from the past" (in some translations). sura 83:13 and in sura 46,17. So even in your own Quran we can see people that were there at the time, spoke the language of the time ad did not accept the Quran as unique.

Response: Another statement, with no proof. And once again, you dodge the challenge. I asked "you" to produce a religion, and use the made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation" . So what do you do? You do everything but that. Clearly you are in denial.

Instead, you run from the challenge once again, and present the bible as proof. Once again, saying so, isn't proof that it is so. Prove in fact that the person who created the bible, used it to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, if you are truthful. In other words, who created it, who did he or she inspire to follow him or her and how, and when and how did he or she, along with their followers, conquer any nation.

 

[Poet-Troll]

It is always possible to find, in any writing, a contradiction at some level. And it is simply no relevant to challenge people who don't even know Arabic to produce a surah like one of the Qur'an. I'm not convinced by the presence of supposed contradictions nor my lack of proficiency in Arabic.
I think the proposal that the amazing structure of the Qur'an that unfolds to the careful reader who studies and contemplate the Qur'an over a long time is more convincing than such surface arguments.
The historical relevance in view of the conflict between Jews and Christians in the Arabian peninsula at the time speaks in favour of the Qur'an.
The call to an improved morality over the general Arab mores of the time speaks in favour of the Qur'an.
The general effect of the Qur'an to improve the morality of those who come into contact with it today speaks well for its abiding importance. Those are doubtless in the majority, despite the attention given to those who abuse the Qur'an to excuse violence.

 

[Fatihah]

It is always possible to find, in any writing, a contradiction at some level. And it is simply no relevant to challenge people who don't even know Arabic to produce a surah like one of the Qur'an. I'm not convinced by the presence of supposed contradictions nor my lack of proficiency in Arabic.
I think the proposal that the amazing structure of the Qur'an that unfolds to the careful reader who studies and contemplate the Qur'an over a long time is more convincing than such surface arguments.
The historical relevance in view of the conflict between Jews and Christians in the Arabian peninsula at the time speaks in favour of the Qur'an.
The call to an improved morality over the general Arab mores of the time speaks in favour of the Qur'an.
The general effect of the Qur'an to improve the morality of those who come into contact with it today speaks well for its abiding importance. Those are doubtless in the majority, despite the attention given to those who abuse the Qur'an to excuse violence.

Response: The challenge is not to produce something in arabic. The qur'an is a miracle of miracles. Meaning that the arabic is not the only referred to miracle. The challege I presented in post 85 of page 9 of the thread does not require arabic. It is a test that shows that the qur'an is divinely inspired and divinely guarded.

 

[skydivephil]

Response: Anothee statement, with no proof. And once again, you dodge the challenge. I asked "you" to produce a religion, and use the made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation" . So what do you do? You do everything but that. Clearly you are in denial.

Instead, you run from the challenge once again, and present the bible as proof. Once again, saying so, isn't proof that it is so. Prove in fact that the person who created the bible, used it to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, if you are truthful. In other words, who created it, who did he or she inspire to follow him or her and how, and when and how did he or she, along with their followers, conquer any nation.

Are you seriously suggesting that Christians haven't conquered any nations?
What about the Jews, did they conquer Palestine or not?

 

[Fatihah]

Are you seriously suggesting that Christians haven't conquered any nations?
What about the Jews, did they conquer Palestine or not?

Response: That doesn't answer the question at all. Your consistancy to dodge simple questions is becoming clear as to why.

 

[skydivephil]

What it does is show how unreasonable our criteria for truth is.
If you think that the Quran is true because Muslims were inspired by it and they were then able to conquer other nations, then by the same token Christianity mst be true because they conquered many other counties, so must Judaism be true as they have continually defeated Arab countries in war. so must ROman religious beliefs be true as they conquered most of Europe, we can go on and on with thr Norse gods or the Greek gods and so on. But why bother? Your criteria makes no sense, why should conquering other nation have any bearing on the that religion?
Furthermore if more people were to take your belief seriously the world would be a far more violent place than it already is. Perhaps you should think of the implications of what you are suggesting.

 

[Fatihah]

What it does is show how unreasonable our criteria for truth is.
If you think that the Quran is true because Muslims were inspired by it and they were then able to conquer other nations, then by the same token Christianity mst be true because they conquered many other counties, so must Judaism be true as they have continually defeated Arab countries in war. so must ROman religious beliefs be true as they conquered most of Europe, we can go on and on with thr Norse gods or the Greek gods and so on. But why bother? Your criteria makes no sense, why should conquering other nation have any bearing on the that religion?
Furthermore if more people were to take your belief seriously the world would be a far more violent place than it already is. Perhaps you should think of the implications of what you are suggesting.

Response: And once again, not a single question asked in post 152 is answered. Why? Because you have no proof. That's why. For if you had proof of your claim, you would have answered the simple questions. I asked who created the bible. Your answer,....nothing. I asked how did the creater of the bible inspire people to follow him or her. Your answer......nothing. I asked what nation did the creater of the bible and those he or she inspired to follow him or her conquer. Again......nothing. Once again, you dodge them. Your denial is clearly evident, which once again confirms the validity of the challenge that the qur'an is the true word of Allah(swt). Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[skydivephil]

I have answered your question. Christianity has conquered many nations, the Jews have conquered Palestine, the Romans conquered Europe.
But your criteria is utterly absurd. I could equally come up with the criteria of name a religion that as conquered the whole world. If it hasn't then it isn't true. of course truth isn't about conquering nations. If other religious people would learn that perhaps the world might be more peaceful. Does it not bother that this desire to conquer costs people lives or do you not give a ****?

 

[Fatihah]

I have answered your question. Christianity has conquered many nations, the Jews have conquered Palestine, the Romans conquered Europe.
But your criteria is utterly absurd. I could equally come up with the criteria of name a religion that as conquered the whole world. If it hasn't then it isn't true. of course truth isn't about conquering nations. If other religious people would learn that perhaps the world might be more peaceful. Does it not bother that this desire to conquer costs people lives or do you not give a ****?

Response: Post 158 proves to the contrary.