What evidence is there that the Koran is the word of God?

[Wombat]

What evidence is there that the Koran is the word of God?

While there is no ‘proof’ (and probably never will be) there is a great deal of ‘evidence’ and a good case and good argument can be made that goes to the balance of ‘probability’.
An examination of the Quran in the light of contemporary science is a good place to begin examining such evidence.

The Bible, The Qur'an and Science
by Dr. Maurice Bucaille
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN KNOWLEDGE


http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm



Bucaille concluded-

“When a comparative study is made between the statements connected with science to be found in the collection of hadiths, which are attributed to Muhammad but are often of dubious authenticity (although they reflect the beliefs of the period), and the data of a similar kind in the Qur'an, the disparity becomes so obvious that any notion of a common origin is ruled out.​

In view of the level of knowledge in Muhammad's day, it is inconceivable that many of the statements In the Qur'an which are connected with science could have been the work of a man. It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate, not only to regard the Qur'an as the expression of a Revelation, but also to award it a very special place, on account of the guarantee of authenticity it provides and the presence in it of scientific statements which, when studied today, appear as a challenge to explanation in human terms.” ​

--sura 21, verse 30:​

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?"

 

[England my lionheart]

While there is no ‘proof’ (and probably never will be) there is a great deal of ‘evidence’ and a good case and good argument can be made that goes to the balance of ‘probability’.
An examination of the Quran in the light of contemporary science is a good place to begin examining such evidence.

The Bible, The Qur'an and Science
by Dr. Maurice Bucaille
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN KNOWLEDGE


http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm



Bucaille concluded-

“When a comparative study is made between the statements connected with science to be found in the collection of hadiths, which are attributed to Muhammad but are often of dubious authenticity (although they reflect the beliefs of the period), and the data of a similar kind in the Qur'an, the disparity becomes so obvious that any notion of a common origin is ruled out.​

In view of the level of knowledge in Muhammad's day, it is inconceivable that many of the statements In the Qur'an which are connected with science could have been the work of a man. It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate, not only to regard the Qur'an as the expression of a Revelation, but also to award it a very special place, on account of the guarantee of authenticity it provides and the presence in it of scientific statements which, when studied today, appear as a challenge to explanation in human terms.” ​

--sura 21, verse 30:​

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?"

Truly amazes me when someone joins the "Mountains as pegs" Brigade and expects to be taken seriously,in this case Dr Baucille is truly amazing.

 

[Wombat]

Truly amazes me when someone joins the "Mountains as pegs" Brigade and expects to be taken seriously,....

"A book entitled Earth is a basic reference textbook in many universities around the world. One of its two authors is Professor Emeritus Frank Press. He was the Science Advisor to former US President Jimmy Carter, and for 12 years was the President of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have underlying roots.1 These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg (see figures 7, 8, and 9).

Figure 7: Mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground. (Earth, Press and Siever, p. 413.)​

​

Islam Guide: The Quran on Mountains

I'm not a Geologist nor a "Professor Emeritus" like Press...so it's hard to tell who one should take "seriously"...those who provide detailed arguement, or those who simply dismiss an arguement without explanation as amazing.

 

[Jacksnyte]

And there you have it... one cannot argue with such a display of flawless logic.

:biglaugh::jester3::jester5:unk:

 

[Jacksnyte]

there are a handful of copyist errors scattered throughout the bible, but no outright contradictions of teaching or belief

I'm sure there are several threads on here that more than illustrate the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions within the Bible, and we could start a new one if you like, but the subject at hand is the Koran.

 

[Jacksnyte]

"A book entitled Earth is a basic reference textbook in many universities around the world. One of its two authors is Professor Emeritus Frank Press. He was the Science Advisor to former US President Jimmy Carter, and for 12 years was the President of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have underlying roots.1 These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg (see figures 7, 8, and 9).

Figure 7: Mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground. (Earth, Press and Siever, p. 413.)​

​

Islam Guide: The Quran on Mountains

I'm not a Geologist nor a "Professor Emeritus" like Press...so it's hard to tell who one should take "seriously"...those who provide detailed arguement, or those who simply dismiss an arguement without explanation as amazing.

I think I have a pamphlet with this exact text and graphic. I think this is all very interesting, but my question would be: How were these things interpreted prior to some of these modern scientific discoveries that are being cited here? It would be interesting to look at these in thew context of the times in which they were written.

 

[England my lionheart]

"A book entitled Earth is a basic reference textbook in many universities around the world. One of its two authors is Professor Emeritus Frank Press. He was the Science Advisor to former US President Jimmy Carter, and for 12 years was the President of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have underlying roots.1 These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg (see figures 7, 8, and 9).

Figure 7: Mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground. (Earth, Press and Siever, p. 413.)​

​

Islam Guide: The Quran on Mountains

I'm not a Geologist nor a "Professor Emeritus" like Press...so it's hard to tell who one should take "seriously"...those who provide detailed arguement, or those who simply dismiss an arguement without explanation as amazing.

OK,the Qur'an says:

And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you...

(Quran, 16:15)

This is Geology:
Over long periods of time, mountains are created by tremendous forces in the earth with a steep top usually shaped up to a peak or ridge. Mountains occur more often in oceans than on land; some

islands are the peaks of mountains coming out of the water. Mountains are formed by volcanism, erosion, and disturbances or uplift in the earth's crust. Most geologists believe that the majority of mountains are formed by geological forces heat and pressure producing changes under the earth's crust and movements in the earth's crust. They call this movement plate tectonics. This theory sees the crust of the earth divided into a number of vast rigid plates that move about at the rate of a few centimeters a year. The uplift is caused by the collision of plates below the earth's surface that triggers various geologic processes that produce this crustal uplift. Other processes are caused by horizontal compression that is the deformation of crustal strata which produces folds or wrinkles. The Himalayas, for example, were raised by the compression that accompanied collision of the Indian plate with the Eurasian plate. Another example is Europe's Alps and Jura mountains which were also formed by horizontal compression, generated in their case by collision with the African plate and the Eurasian plate.

Some ranges of low mountains are raised by nontectonic processes, and are caused by sculpturing effects of differential erosion. Erosion occurs when wind, rain and ice are present. Mountains are impacted by erosion through the combined action of wind, rain and ice changing the shapes of the mountains.



So Mountains ,rather than preventing the Earth shaking are the result of shaking ,
further the Earth still shakes so

 

[Wombat]

OK,the Qur'an says:

And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you...

(Quran, 16:15)


This is Geology:

Hang on a minute...What happened to the totally dismissive “amazement”- “ when someone joins the "Mountains as pegs" Brigade and expects to be taken seriously”???!!!

I had never heard of the ‘Mountains as pegs’ concept...but within a couple of Googles I find it presented as standard/accepted contemporary geological science.

Now you hasten from and completely ignore the "Mountains as pegs" issue you raised as an indicator of things not to be taken seriously.....only to move onto new and even shakier ground-

So Mountains ,rather than preventing the Earth shaking are the result of shaking further the Earth still shakes so

And yet when the “amazing” “"Mountains as pegs" Brigade contemporary science is perused we find-


Answers.com - Why are the mountains like pegs buried in earth who proved this when how why

"In 1948, the Geologist Van Anglin stated in his book Geomorphology (on page no. 27) that it is quite well understood currently that there is a root for each mountain below the crust of the earth. The function of mountains on the earth is to fasten the crust of the earth. This fact was proven by the principle of hydrostatic balance of the earth as illustrated by the US Geologist Dutton, in 1889. He stated that the protrusions of the earth are immersed into the earth in a way that conforms to their height. Moreover, after the existence of the plates of the earth was proven in 1969, it became clear that the mountains are responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates. Further proof of this fact can be found in "Anatomy of the Earth (1968)" by French paleontologist and geologist. Page 220 of the book desribes mountains as "like pegs, have deep roots embedded in the ground". More proof can be found in "Understanding Earth" by Frank Press and Raymond Siever. On page 413 of their book it says that "mountains have roots deep under the surface of the ground".
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_the_mountains_like_pegs_buried_in_earth_who_proved_this_when_how_why#ixzz1EJNP2qky
..................................
So lets play one of these things is not the same as the others-
1/ “So Mountains ,rather than preventing the Earth shaking are the result of shaking” England my lionheart
2/ “, it became clear that the mountains are responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates.”Geologist Van Anglin, Geomorphology.
3/ “And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you”Quran

Statements 1/ and 2/ are clearly contradictory and incompatible- "maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates" must mean the mountains >are< "preventing the Earth shaking"...Not totaly...but sufficiently for us to survive.

Statements 2/ and 3/ are compatible and folk are welcome, as far as I am concerned, to quibble about wether &#8220;would not shake with you&#8221; means &#8216;would not shake at all, not one little bit&#8217; or means &#8220;mountains are responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates&#8221;- without those &#8220;set firm mountains in the earth&#8221; we and the earth would be shaken to bits.
The &#8220;amazing&#8221; "Mountains as pegs" Brigade rules and rocks and I see no reason in the light of contemporary geological science not to expect it &#8220;to be taken seriously&#8221;

 

[England my lionheart]

Its pretty straightforward Wombat,we still get Earthquakes (shaking) and all thats associated with them like Tsunamis,we know Mountains are the result of Tetonic plates moving against each other or are the result of Volcanic activity,they are not set in the Earth they rise from the Earth,therefore &#8220;And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you&#8221;Quran is not the case,the Qur'an is a book of faith,its not a book of facts.

 

[openyourmind]

I believe that both book are the word of god. Muslims few Christianity as infidels due to the "Christian Crusades" when they attempted to steal the "Holy Land". I guess greed and envy made early Christians, after the death of Jesus, to blind to see thier land was just as holy as it was a gift to them from god. Look at the crimes around the world in the name of Christianity. It makes it difficult for me as a Christian to hold my head up high, knowing all it's wrongs. I still stand and confess my acceptance of Jesus Christ, and I ask that god forgive the church of it's sins so that it's followers no longer bare the burden of those that came before us, that gave in to temptation of the devil.

 

[Wombat]

Dear England my lionheart......I note that given the second opportunity to say something/anything to your initial prior gambit-
“Truly amazes me when someone joins the "Mountains as pegs" Brigade and expects to be taken seriously,in this case Dr Baucille is truly amazing”
...you decline to do so.
Rendering any expectation “to be taken seriously,” problematic.

Its pretty straightforward Wombat,we still get Earthquakes .

Ah huh....And because “the Qur'an is a book of faith, its not a book of facts” and not a scientific text book it is unreasonable in the extreme (one might say “truly amazing”) to expect scientific precision and detail rather than mere consistent broad scientific alignment and accuracy.

In fact >this< is the crux and the core of the issue...by any standards of logic, reason, historical comparison and base probability we ought to expect >any text< revealed/written around 610AD in the Arabian Peninsula to be >absolutely full of bold and glairing errors in science<. Especially if it is going to be such a lengthy text dedicating itself to so many matters that are subject to scientific scrutiny- Geology, Biology, Astronomy...
In such a text from such a time the law of avererages demands that we aught to see quite a few real scientific clangers- reference to the flat earth, stars drawn through the heavens by dromedaries...>any< of the misconceptions of the day....and yet this is not the case and that fact alone is “truly amazing”.

So having “firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you” will not suffice?

You will ignore that it is in broad alignment with “mountains are responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates”
And is certainly more accurate than “Mountains ,rather than preventing the Earth shaking are the result of shaking...”

Because “we still get Earthquakes” the Quran ought read- “And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you as much as it would shake with you if the mountains were not there because mountains are responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates and though the earth and you will still occasionally shake, be cool, because it/you won’t shake anywhere near as much as it/you would if the tectonic plates had not been pegged by mountains ....”

It is “pretty straightforward” Lionheart...the Quran, even if not >precise< in its scientific language has at very least been more accurate in its geological science than you have in your last three posts.

When ,having wrongly dismissed “Mountains as pegs” and wrongly presented “Mountains ,rather than preventing the Earth shaking”, you offer Mountains-“are not set in the Earth they rise from the Earth”!

Did you even see the tables reproduced in #63, #66 and #67 or >read< the text?
#63-“President of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have underlying roots.1 These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg...”

And you wish to tell me they are “not set in the Earth they rise from the Earth”?

 

[England my lionheart]

Dear England my lionheart......I note that given the second opportunity to say something/anything to your initial prior gambit-
“Truly amazes me when someone joins the "Mountains as pegs" Brigade and expects to be taken seriously,in this case Dr Baucille is truly amazing”
...you decline to do so.
Rendering any expectation “to be taken seriously,” problematic.

Its only Mythology presented as something else thats problematic

Ah huh....And because “the Qur'an is a book of faith, its not a book of facts” and not a scientific text book it is unreasonable in the extreme (one might say “truly amazing”) to expect scientific precision and detail rather than mere consistent broad scientific alignment and accuracy.

Umm,so are you saying your God isn't capable of precision or the Man that Authored the Qur'an didn't have the capability

In fact >this< is the crux and the core of the issue...by any standards of logic, reason, historical comparison and base probability we ought to expect >any text< revealed/written around 610AD in the Arabian Peninsula to be >absolutely full of bold and glairing errors in science<. Especially if it is going to be such a lengthy text dedicating itself to so many matters that are subject to scientific scrutiny- Geology, Biology, Astronomy...
In such a text from such a time the law of avererages demands that we aught to see quite a few real scientific clangers- reference to the flat earth, stars drawn through the heavens by dromedaries...>any< of the misconceptions of the day....and yet this is not the case and that fact alone is “truly amazing”.

So having “firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you” will not suffice?

No it doesn't suffice,like i said "its a book of faith

You will ignore that it is in broad alignment with “mountains are responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates”
And is certainly more accurate than “Mountains ,rather than preventing the Earth shaking are the result of shaking...”

Well unless you can show otherwise,please explain how Mountains came to be,are they result of Tectonic plate movement or the result of your God physically placeing them strategically aroundthe Earth.

Because “we still get Earthquakes” the Quran ought read- “And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you as much as it would shake with you if the mountains were not there because mountains are responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates and though the earth and you will still occasionally shake, be cool, because it/you won’t shake anywhere near as much as it/you would if the tectonic plates had not been pegged by mountains ....”

The Qur'an ought to say what one would expect from people of 1400 years ago which it does

It is “pretty straightforward” Lionheart...the Quran, even if not >precise< in its scientific language has at very least been more accurate in its geological science than you have in your last three posts.

I think we have a budding Zakir Naik here

When ,having wrongly dismissed “Mountains as pegs” and wrongly presented “Mountains ,rather than preventing the Earth shaking”, you offer Mountains-“are not set in the Earth they rise from the Earth”!

When building i have set many a Brick or stone in Mortar,this means i have taken said Brick or stone from elsewhere and set it in a new location,realistically do you think the same has been done with Mountains

Did you even see the tables reproduced in #63, #66 and #67 or >read< the text?
#63-“President of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have underlying roots.1 These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg...”

And you wish to tell me they are “not set in the Earth they rise from the Earth”?

If there is another way then please enlighten us

 

[Wombat]

Its only Mythology presented as something else thats problematic

Dear Lionheart
In the attempt to dismiss the Quran as nothing more than "Mythology" you raised the "Mountains as Pegs" issue and employed it to dismiss/ignore an entire volume of scientific investigation of the Quran (Bucaille’s).
Your response here represents opportunity No3 to say something/anything about being dead wrong regarding Mountains being ‘pegs’ yet you decline to do so...as you continue to avoid what I have actually said (and what you have actually said) throughout your non responses-

Umm,so are you saying your God isn't capable of precision or the Man that Authored the Qur'an didn't have the capability

No...Quite clearly I am saying “scientific precision and detail” aught not be expected because it is not a science text book...and yet, when it broadly refers to matters that may be verified or disproven by science it makes no glairing errors.
Which is “amazing” because even contemporary adults with a modern education and access to the net can get basic general principles of geological science completely wrong (See “Mountain pegs”, Mountains not “preventing” the earth shaking, Mountains not “set in the Earth”)

No it doesn't suffice,like i said "its a book of faith


Ah huh...and it is also a book of law, a book of social code and a book that makes many referances to matters verifiable by science. As I said (and you ignored)-“ we ought to expect >any text< revealed/written around 610AD in the Arabian Peninsula to be >absolutely full of bold and glairing errors in science<.”
Yet here we are, with you making three major/broad errors in basic geological science within three posts and expecting scientific precision and detail from the Quran.
here we are At each and every turn you are ignoring the point made and moving on to new/irrelevant ground-

“You will ignore that it is in broad alignment with “mountains are responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates”
And is certainly more accurate than “Mountains ,rather than preventing the Earth shaking are the result of shaking...”

Well unless you can show otherwise, please explain how Mountains came to be, are they result of Tectonic plate movement or the result of your God physically placeing them strategically aroundthe Earth.


The question of “how Mountains came to be” is an irrelevant distraction and non answer to the point/issue at hand- ie the role of Mountain ‘Pegs’ as stabilizers-“ responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates” . How many times will that key and authoritative point of Geological science have to be put to you before it is commented upon or conceded?
Having steadfastly ignored the geological science and your glairing errors thereof...you present me with a Straw Man false binary choice-“ how Mountains came to be, are they result of Tectonic plate movement or the result of your God physically placeing them strategically aroundthe Earth.”

I take the third option you leave out- that God employed “Tectonic plate movement” to create mountains that in turn are -“ responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates”.

The Qur'an ought to say what one would expect from people of 1400 years ago which it does

Are we to take such assertions on “faith”? Or examine the Quran logically, reasonably, in the light of science and without bias?

--sura 21, verse 30:​

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?"

That is- the >material< heavens, stars, moons, celestial objects and the earth all “joined together”, one ‘primordial atom’...then “clove asunder” to create the universe. Such an explosive event could have been described by the Author as a ‘Big Bang’...but given space is a vacuum and there was no “bang” such a description would be completely unscientific. Subsequently “got every living thing out of the water”?....lucky guess...they made em all the time back 1400 years ago

I think we have a budding Zakir Naik here


Once more and yet again says nothing to the point made-“ Quran, even if not >precise< in its scientific language has at very least been more accurate in its geological science than you have in your last three posts.”


When building i have set many a Brick or stone in Mortar,this means i have taken said Brick or stone from elsewhere and set it in a new location,realistically do you think the same has been done with Mountains


Oh please...When “building”(house or planet), if I have at my disposal the Omnipotent power of God I set the project in motion with a single word and allow the creation of Mountains to be subcontracted out to the Tectonic Plates- the plates divide, drift and collide, mountains driven up and down- “set” “deeply embedded in the ground” and the Mountains -“ responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates”.
Just because your brick building goes up and is seen doesn't mean it does not have unseen deep set foundations to maintain equilibrium...or does it?...I'm begining to wonder and worry.

With respect to “expects to be taken seriously” - How many times do you intend to completely ignore my questions, your errors of science and the authoritative conclusions of Geological Scientists?

 

[Autodidact]

In bible nowhere its written that Bible is free of mistakes
but In Quran on the first page its written That Quran is free of mistakes

This means Quran is a true book of GOD

Are you joking?

 

[Autodidact]

well just read Quran and find me a single inconsistency also thats what Quran challenges
"Haven't the unbelievers considered if this was from other than Allah, they would find within it many contradictions?" and "If you are in doubt about it, bring a chapter like it."

The qur'an is full of inconsistency. There is even a rule of interpretation to deal with them, "abrogation," meaning when two verses contradict each other, believers should follow the one written later.

 

[YmirGF]

Dear Lionheart
In the attempt to dismiss the Quran as nothing more than "Mythology" you raised the "Mountains as Pegs" issue and employed it to dismiss/ignore an entire volume of scientific investigation of the Quran (Bucaille’s).

Wow. Back up the truck, just a sec. Are you seriously suggesting that Maurice Bucaille's "QURAN, BIBLE AND SCIENCE" is actually worthy of being called "scientific investigation"?

:thud:

I do hope you are kidding.

 

[Autodidact]

I also "believe" that after initial "blind faith" (which I put in inverted commas because I feel that there is certain innate justification in faith and it isn't truly entirely blind) in a religion, without sufficient logical reasoning to back it, in due course of time, there is an eye of the heart which opens up inside a person, and he gets knowledge which proves/establishes the validity of various religious ideas inside him or her. Then the Truth becomes self-evident for that particular person, and there is no need for further evidence.

And if other people have the exact same experience with an entirely different God, and an entirely different religion?

 

[Autodidact]

You are misquoting or misinterpreting these verses.

Misquoting? Please cite an instance when Pegg misquoted. As for misinterpreting, how do we know you're not the one misinterpreting? What is the criteria? Who decides which interpretation is correct, and how?

It seems to me that if the apparent meaning of the book is incorrect, and it takes some sort of special skill to "interpret" the text to make it consistent or reveal God's will, then the text is so inherently flawed it could not possibly be from God.

This is with reference to specific injunctions within the Quran, which were enforced gradually. For example 2:219 didnt forbid gambling and drinking, 4:43 forbade Muslims to come to prayer in a drunken state, and 5:93 prohibited drinking altogether. Since sudden application of many injunctions would have drastically affected the nascent Muslim community, a gradual approach was implemented.

The fact that you have a bizarre method for rendering obviously contradictory verses into consistent ones does not mean the book does not contradict itself.

It is that Muslims have to be peaceful with non-believers. The verses prescribing violence are in the context of a war period. Many anti-Muslims quote these verses to show their bias.

And many Muslims quote them to justify their violence.

The first Muslim in the sense of time is supposed to be Adam(pbuh) and not Abraham (pbuh). The first Muslim, in the sense of first as the epitome of a believer (like in Western countries we hear the notion of "first gentleman of the country", "first lady of the country") is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). That is not to say, that he is the only first person, or that Muhammad (pbuh) is better then other Prophets, for as he himself said "Do not give me preference over the other Prophets".(Source)

So God deliberately chose an ambiguous, confusing term that only A-Man can understand? Weird God.

All true religions lead to God (the idea of salvation being Christian in nature is improper to use here)
You are making a misinterpretation of the word Islam in the verse 3:85 (which you have stated as 3:79). In the Quranic setting, the word Islam didnt imply the religion or the whole system as such but simply submission. For example, this Quran translates 3:85 as follows: "For, if one goes in search of a religion other than self-surrender unto God, it will never be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the lost." Many Qurans even replace the word religion above by system or way of life, for the word deen used in the actual Arabic doesnt quite convey the sense of the word religion. The other verses you quoted are condemnations of putting up false Gods in the simplistic sense, which is how the Arabs of the 7th C understood the notion of more then 1 God. I think you need to read these verses more carefully yet.

So God chooses an obscure, archaic language that experts find difficult to translate? I would think if God wanted us to know Him, he would use a text at once available in every language perfectly. That right there makes it clear it doesn't come from God.

 

[Autodidact]

Quran is still the same
as it was revealed
thats big clue of his truthfulness

Actually, no. It isn't, and wouldn't be a clue if it was. I mean, The Hobbit is the same as its original version. It's still fiction.

 

[Autodidact]

The first test of a religious doctrine is "does it fit together logically, having no need to depend on smoke and mirrors or mindless rhetoric to bind it together" If not then it must be said that God is a God of confusion; any religion that must confess confusion cannot be of God for God is not a God of confusion. I did not have to dig very far to realize that the concepts supporting a belief in Allah are the most illogical and confusing doctrines the world has ever know; even Catholicism, the second most confusing dogma ever known, fares better under examination.

Not unlike LDS in that respect.

The second test must be "will you learn the same thing from the religious leadership of a given religion regardless of where you go to be taught within said religion", If not then there is no consistency in the doctrine and therefore it is in a constant state of flux never having a firm foundation. Any vehicle of religion wherein you will find servants of God legally authorized to act in the name of God will have a firm foundation, nothing wavering. Islam defends its points of doctrine individually as if they were bits of straw that cannot be cohesive enough to make broom nor bail.

Who says that's the test? That's a weird test.