The Koran is the Word of God? How do we know this?

[themadhair]

However, Zakir Naik is a scientists himself,

I could be wrong here, but I tend to use the word 'scientist' to refer to people who have made positive contributions to the field of science and have helped expand our scientific understanding of the world around us.

All I see Naik doing is talking crap and being a laughing stock.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I could be wrong here, but I tend to use the word 'scientist' to refer to people who have made positive contributions to the field of science and have helped expand our scientific understanding of the world around us.

All I see Naik doing is talking crap and being a laughing stock.

Yes, but does he wear a lab coat?

 

[Fatihah]

I could be wrong here, but I tend to use the word 'scientist' to refer to people who have made positive contributions to the field of science and have helped expand our scientific understanding of the world around us.

All I see Naik doing is talking crap and being a laughing stock.

Response: Only in the eyes of the disbeliever.

 

[England my lionheart]

This is how the famed Zakir Naik corners an Atheist:
You can go on talking about the scientific point there are more than thousands of verses in the QURAN which speaks about science. After every scientific facts you ask the question, who could have mention that in the QURAN? The only reply the atheist can give you is the creator, the cherisher, the manufacturer, the inventor, the producer.

 

[YmirGF]

This is how the famed Zakir Naik corners an Atheist:
You can go on talking about the scientific point there are more than thousands of verses in the QURAN which speaks about science. After every scientific facts you ask the question, who could have mention that in the QURAN? The only reply the atheist can give you is the creator, the cherisher, the manufacturer, the inventor, the producer.

I guess no one thought to ask Naik, why an atheist would respond with such ludicrous answers. His thinking is only impressive to the choir.

And just to clarify, Zakir Naik is a medical doctor NOT a scientist.

 

[Dezzie]

To me... religion is a test of Faith... Anyone can believe what they will... If you have Faith in God, you don't need proof. I have noticed this question thrown out there by Atheists and many other people. Why does it matter where the proof is? If someone wants to worship Allah, by all means do so...

 

[Sententia]

Actually Fatihah, I'm quite sure you're wrong about that, but since I can't actually speak for him (even though you seem to think you can) I'll just speak for myself. The Koran is nothing more than a bunch of literature written by a shrewd illiterate business man who hid away in a cave and had delusions about the angel gabriel.

That reminds me of a few other books too... Why is it always gabriel? I guess you don't mess with a model that has already once been proven to work?

But then again many things are just because they say so. Look at this next sentence.

This sentence is false.

Clearly it is what it claims to be, yes?

The Koran is the proven word of god because it says that it is. If you try to examine that statement as you might the example sentence above then you might be considered a demon or a witch. (Or what we refer to today as rational)

In answer to this thread... We do not know it is anymore then babbling derived from the same source as christianity. It is clearly borrowed.

Whats more interesting in regards to this question is how did they settle on the final form of the Koran? Its quite interesting. Another interesting fact is that some symbols in Arabic at the time the koran was standardized could have many different meanings. Modern Arabic uses dots to differentiate the symbols from one another but back when it was standardized no such dots were present an the interpretation of what is claimed to be the most important word of god ever was very subjective depending on who was reading it. hee hee. Even today people argue over what the koran says and doesnt say... An example is temporary marriage. Its common for some to get married, have sexual relations with their new wife and then get a divorce all in the same hour. This is both allowed and forbidden according the koran depending on who reads the koran.

In addition... if an almighty deity did send us a message I would expect it to be unmistakable as such. The koran is clearly not divine.

 

[Fatihah]

That reminds me of a few other books too... Why is it always gabriel? I guess you don't mess with a model that has already once been proven to work?

But then again many things are just because they say so. Look at this next sentence.

This sentence is false.

Clearly it is what it claims to be, yes?

The Koran is the proven word of god because it says that it is. If you try to examine that statement as you might the example sentence above then you might be considered a demon or a witch. (Or what we refer to today as rational)

In answer to this thread... We do not know it is anymore then babbling derived from the same source as christianity. It is clearly borrowed.

Whats more interesting in regards to this question is how did they settle on the final form of the Koran? Its quite interesting. Another interesting fact is that some symbols in Arabic at the time the koran was standardized could have many different meanings. Modern Arabic uses dots to differentiate the symbols from one another but back when it was standardized no such dots were present an the interpretation of what is claimed to be the most important word of god ever was very subjective depending on who was reading it. hee hee. Even today people argue over what the koran says and doesnt say... An example is temporary marriage. Its common for some to get married, have sexual relations with their new wife and then get a divorce all in the same hour. This is both allowed and forbidden according the koran depending on who reads the koran.

In addition... if an almighty deity did send us a message I would expect it to be unmistakable as such. The koran is clearly not divine.

Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof?

 

[YmirGF]

Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof?

The only problem with this response Fatihah is that it does wear a bit thin over time. The intelligent response would be to cut the purveyor of the opinion off at their proverbial knees with a well crafted, somewhat witty, response.

 

[kai]

To me... religion is a test of Faith... Anyone can believe what they will... If you have Faith in God, you don't need proof. I have noticed this question thrown out there by Atheists and many other people. Why does it matter where the proof is? If someone wants to worship Allah, by all means do so...

Indeed people can worship what and who they wish in my book, Its just when they try and prove it that the problems start.As you say those that are satisfied with their faith wouldn't really need to prove it. the statement "it a matter of faith" is good enough for me.

 

[YmirGF]

Indeed people can worship what and who they wish in my book, Its just when they try and prove it that the problems start.As you say those that are satisfied with their faith wouldn't really need to prove it. the statement "it a matter of faith" is good enough for me.

As the ago old proverb proves, Kai, "The devil is in the details."

 

[Fatihah]

The only problem with this response Fatihah is that it does wear a bit thin over time. The intelligent response would be to cut the purveyor of the opinion off at their proverbial knees with a well crafted, somewhat witty, response.

Response: These are obviously the words of one who is not interested in evidence or proof. So naturally, a request from someone asking for proof is looked upon as unwitty. However, such a statement is further acknowledgement of a person accepting something as true, knowing that they have no logical evidence to support it.

 

[McBell]

Response: These are obviously the words of one who is not interested in evidence or proof. So naturally, a request from someone asking for proof is looked upon as unwitty. However, such a statement is further acknowledgement of a person accepting something as true, knowing that they have no logical evidence to support it.

you know, for all you talk about proof, you present extremely little yourself.

I wonder why it is that everything has to proven to you, yet you feel no need to present anything that even resembles proof yourself?

Furthermore, I have lost count of the number of times you have dismissed actual honest to god proof in favor of your beliefs, not to mention the number of times you simply ignored that which you thought disagreed with your beliefs.

Which make your response, "There's the statement. Where's the proof?" all the more ridiculous.

and no, this is not trolling, though you will try to dismiss the truths I present as such.
But then, your denial merely further proves the truths I present.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

To me... religion is a test of Faith... Anyone can believe what they will... If you have Faith in God, you don't need proof. I have noticed this question thrown out there by Atheists and many other people. Why does it matter where the proof is? If someone wants to worship Allah, by all means do so...

Let me ask you a question.
Does God want you to have a blind nonexplanable faith without proof?
Or in other words... Do you think God wants followers who cant ever really know that he exists even?

 

[Caladan]

To me... religion is a test of Faith... Anyone can believe what they will... If you have Faith in God, you don't need proof. I have noticed this question thrown out there by Atheists and many other people. Why does it matter where the proof is? If someone wants to worship Allah, by all means do so...

Hi there Dezzie, WB, nice to see you again.
I think you need to understand where this thread springs from in order to relate to its context. the point is not against faith in God, its against numerous threads about scriptural infallibility against all sciences and all logic, and a phenomena which many members on the forum consider to be downgrading of the potential of discussion and debate.

 

[syberpriend]

To prove that the Qur’an is the Word of Allah, you do not have to indulge into futile discussions or philosophical dialect. You have at your disposal a “living material evidence,” the Qur’an itself. Starting with the null hypothesis, i.e., assuming that the Qur’an is not the word of God, one should ask himself: could a human being in the seventh century write such a book? Or does there exist—up till today—any book that is claimed to match the Qur’an?

Let us examine the Qur’an more closely. Starting with the content, could the knowledge therein have been within the reach of any human source, i.e., the Prophet Muhammad, his contemporaries, or the whole human civilization and for several centuries ahead? How could a book revealed at that point of history refer —in precise terms—to scientific phenomena and historical events—prior and subsequent—that were unknown or misunderstood before their subsequent verification?

These Qur’anic references cover such wide spectrum of topics as the nature of space, relativity of time, the shape and motion of the earth, the role of mountains, water for life, the water cycle, the sources of rivers and groundwater, sea depths, embryology, hygiene and proper health practices, prophecies fulfilled (after revelation), etc.

As to the form of the Qur’an—i.e., linguistic and literary features—any strict comparative analysis identifies the Qur’an to be not only superior to any other text—preceding or following, including the sayings of the Prophet himself, who received and delivered the revelation—but also to be a perfect, flawless and the most eloquent composition. This perfection can be witnessed and proved on the levels of the individual words (semantics), sentence (grammar and rhetoric), and whole surahs (chapters).

Thorough examination of the Qur’an shows that each of these elements was selected and phrased in the most appropriate manner to fulfill the most precise meaning and most effective impact, whether cognitive, psychological, passionate, or phonic, on the reader or listener. The Qur’an challenges mankind, Arabs and non-Arabs, to the end of time, to produce anything like or compared to itself. And so it is proved.

All that said can in itself be enough to answer your second question as to the existence of Allah Almighty. If the Qur’an is the true undisputed word of Allah, then it follows that whatever is in it is the absolute unquestionable truth.

Over the millennia, philosophers’ attempts to agree, through abstract arguments alone, on the existence of God, His attributes, and the way He interacts with His creatures, have all been futile. The human mind can only observe, measure, compare, correlate, and hence theorize, within the limited capacities created in Man, and no more.

Our senses have limits. For example, we can see only those bodies emanating light in the wavelength range of 0.4 to 0.7 microns, and can hear only those sounds in the frequency range of 2500 to 4000 cycle per second. In time and space our perception is limited by the velocity of light, since the visible universe is so wide as to be measured in billions of light years. This means that what we will ever see—however advanced our technology is—are only images from the far-deep past. Also, what we can see is essentially no more than an extremely minute fraction of the real existence.

We can know Allah as the Creator and Sustainer of this universe through His detectable creation. The harmonious “intelligent” physical systems in our bodies and other biological species (plant or animal), in matter in general (viewed at the sub-atomic or cosmic levels) boldly manifest the purposeful design, endless diversity, and sustainable precise running of all these systems. Allah only is the One God Who can consistently create and sustain such a marvelous, harmonious universe like this. Praise be to Him!

Abstract philosophical thinking alone could never and can never conclusively prove or disprove the presence and attributes of God. Proving the existence of God is and should always be beyond the reach of human philosophy. Philosophy cannot—in itself—produce or create knowledge, but only through concrete observations together with sensible percepts can it offer any sound conclusion.

Now I ask you my dear friends, wat reason uve not to believe that Quran is not from God? Is it ever changedd since it was writen and revealed? or any contradiction is proved yet?

 

[Caladan]

Plagiarizing is against forum rules syberpriend. you have simply pasted this page: Muhammed The Prophet of Islam_Proving the Qur’an is the Word of God into your post without even providing a source or a link.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

To prove that the Qur’an is the Word of Allah, you do not have to indulge into futile discussions or philosophical dialect. You have at your disposal a “living material evidence,” the Qur’an itself. Starting with the null hypothesis, i.e., assuming that the Qur’an is not the word of God, one should ask himself: could a human being in the seventh century write such a book? Or does there exist—up till today—any book that is claimed to match the Qur’an?

I think you will have the same problem that many theists have. You (must) assume that a good investigation starting from that "zero-point" would have to lead to the conclusion that (in this case) the Quran is truely the word of God.

Now the problem is that rather obviously for most "i start from zero" this definetly is not the conclusion that is drawn and those people are not all plain stupid or have a "wrong understanding".

As to your questions in above paragraph:
Why shouldnt a person in the 7th century write such a book? There is nothing in it in my view which couldnt have been written by humans. Actually there are many errors depending on the method you utilize to examine the quran.
As for your second question:
Just look at the number of different religions with all their followers which make the same claim that you do and you will see that there are more than enough other books that are in the same "quality level" as the quran.

Let us examine the Qur’an more closely. Starting with the content, could the knowledge therein have been within the reach of any human source, i.e., the Prophet Muhammad, his contemporaries, or the whole human civilization and for several centuries ahead? How could a book revealed at that point of history refer —in precise terms—to scientific phenomena and historical events—prior and subsequent—that were unknown or misunderstood before their subsequent verification?

Now you make a lot of claims about that scientific stuff.
I have had such debates already more than 20 years ago.
And i know that each generation there again come people that think this science claim to be true. Well IF you actually went over the quran in the way you asked others todo it and took into account science then you wouldnt even think about a second about this claim. There are no "scientific facts that were not known" in the quran unless you put them there using supposed knowledge of today.

Actually most of what is said in the quran which you PICK for science is (when analyzed with the same scrutiny as scientific claims made somewhere else) errorneaous.
Most examples that you mention actually are starting with the shape of the earth, the functions of the mounts and who knows what else.
Embryology is my favorite. A paid for special third edition of Moores book which never made it to any new edition and which never appeared ANYWHERE appart of arabic countries and "universities".

Now I ask you my dear friends, wat reason uve not to believe that Quran is not from God? Is it ever changedd since it was writen and revealed? or any contradiction is proved yet?

If you believe the quran to be Gods word then by mere declaration of faith you cant allow any contradiction to exist no matter how obvious it is. The verse like this challenge has already been met before my lifetime and duringmy lifetime again and again. I myself have already met it with more than enough muslims. It only depended on whether they thought it was from the quran or not.
Actually the challenge itself is already a display of imperfectness for no challenge makes sense if no clear rules for the challenge are given. And we can see in this forum how the challenge is interpreted depending on the answers that are given to meet it.

Instead of asking others to investigate the quran neutrally (which was/is done by many) you should do so yourself first

 

[Fatihah]

you know, for all you talk about proof, you present extremely little yourself.

I wonder why it is that everything has to proven to you, yet you feel no need to present anything that even resembles proof yourself?

Furthermore, I have lost count of the number of times you have dismissed actual honest to god proof in favor of your beliefs, not to mention the number of times you simply ignored that which you thought disagreed with your beliefs.

Which make your response, "There's the statement. Where's the proof?" all the more ridiculous.

and no, this is not trolling, though you will try to dismiss the truths I present as such.
But then, your denial merely further proves the truths I present.

Response: The pot calls the kettle black.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Response: There's the statement. Where's the proof?

I propose one should start thinking about whether such replies from Fatihah shouldnt be considered spam. No content, no contribution to the topic, just a senseless statement revealing an infantile if not ludicrous character.

If this were to be considered spam then surely she would qualify as troll.