The Quran Is Not The Word Of Man in Refuting non-Muslims Posted November 19, 2009 How would we judge whether the Quran is more eloquent? And, to be frank, I fear that someone may very well need to call upon their courage to make such a claim, if not from the intimidating eloquence of the Quran, than at least from the intimidating zealotry of some who would seek to defend the honor of the Quran. I understand the idea behind your theory, but wasn't height of Christendom and its influence long after the corruption? This would seem to mitigate against such a theory. The corruption, as far as I can tell, would have had to have occurred fairly early in Christian history, since there is fairly good documentation later on for the continuity of the script. But who would arbitrate this contest? The problem of such a challenge is that I doubt either of you would be able to agree upon an arbitrator, and even if you did manage this, the losing party would certainly not accept the verdict (well, actually, I doubt there is any real compulsion felt by the non-religious to be right on this matter, but I think it would be difficult to impossible for a Muslim to admit error here, since it is an article of belief in the Islamic faith). Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000003089 StartFragment:0000000451 EndFragment:0000003073 As I have discussed in earlier posts, the challenge was made by the Quran 1400 years ago. The challenge was to produce even a single sura 'the like of it'. Though Wattle disputes it, the early Arabs were unable to do so. They did try - Musaylima the Liar was a notable person who tried to produce a verse which he claimed was also from Allah. But the Arabs were skilled in rhetoric and eloquence and could easily show, using objective criteria, that Musaylima's verse had nothing of the quality of the Quran's verses. Today, scholars of Arabic rhetoric can use objective criteria to judge the relative quality of various prose. Non-Muslim scholars of Arabic unanimously agree that the Quran is the best Arabic prose in existence. These same scholars could judge the relative quality of any new contenders. The challenge remains open. If any writing could be produced that is better than or even equal to the Quran in terms of eloquence, the Quran could be defeated. You see, no human writer in their right mind would make the claim that their work was, ever and anon, unbeatable. By doing so they open themselves up to ridicule should someone, one day, beat their work. But the Quran's author is not a man, but Allah. Only Allah could make such a claim without fear of being discredited. Again, those who dispute the claim that the Quran is unmatchable, have the onus of proving it. To paraphrase from the Quran, 'bring the like of it, if what you say is true'. The arguments here can be stated as follows. 1. The Quran is of extraordinary and superior eloquence. 2. This eloquence is beyond human ability to match. Conclusion: The Quran is not the word of man. You say that the non-religious and non-Muslims have no requirement, or perhaps no impetus, to show that the Quran's eloquence can be matched. But it seems disingenuous make such a claim. Whereas the means for attempting to disprove Premise 2 is freely available, you claim there is no need to avail oneself of it. So by default, you lose the argument.