Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Frank

Writing The Koran

Recommended Posts

*DISCLAIMER* This is a side-issue to whether or not the Koran is the word of god. I am talking entirely about whether or not an argument is a good one. I am not questionioning the veracity of the Koran in this thread.

 

I keep reading the argument that Mohammed was poor, uncultured and illiterate, and could not possibly have made-up the Koran, therefore it must have been disctated by an angel. Leaving aside the fact that this doesn't answer the possibility that it was dictated by a rich, literate human, there are big flaws in this.

 

Firstly, Mohammed wasn't especially poor and uncultured. He was married to a rich widow and he went on at least one long trading journey, during which he would almost certainly have met Jews and Christians. Secondly (and most importantly, IMHO), illiteracy is no bar to literary achievement. Homer was illiterate (yes, yes, 'Homer' might have been more than one person), as were the authors of most of the world's literature until comparatively recently. The idea that an illiterate person holds in their memory an enormous body of work which is perfectly coherent is not at all strange. In fact it's commonplace in pre-literate cultures.

Edited by Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Yeah been wondering too. Muslims say that Qur'an is perfect in complexity and cannot be re-done anywhere close by a mere human. My question is if any Muslims have read the Divine Comedy (in the original Italien). I dunno, to me the Comedy is much more complex as it uses a very unique type of verse as well as the fact that it is about x3 longer than the Qur'an.

 

Another thing bothering me is that I've heard that certain hadiths make referrences to passages of the Qur'an that dont exist. From an arguement Ive heard this could mean that at one pt there were several versions of the Qur'an about which would make claims that a. It is unchanged, and b. cannot be reproduced by man, very questionable

 

Was wondering if anyone could shed light on these issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Arabs at the time of prophet Muhammad were very much fascinated with poetry and eloquence in public speaking. When prophet Muhammad recited the the verses of the Qur'an in the manner that it was revealed to him, they did not call him a poet. They said it was magic, which was their reason for rejecting it. The reason is because Allah presented them with a miracle; words of the greatest power and influence that moved their hearts, all from the mouth of an illiterate man who had never uttered a word of poetry in his entire life. That is one of the reasons that the argument is strong, because had God chosen someone who was literate and poetic, they would have called him a great storyteller.

 

As for the "Divine Comedy", does it have a unique style of writing? Does it contain scientific revelations? Mathematical miracles? Historical facts?

 

Another thing bothering me is that I've heard that certain hadiths make referrences to passages of the Qur'an that dont exist. From an arguement Ive heard this could mean that at one pt there were several versions of the Qur'an about which would make claims that a. It is unchanged, and b. cannot be reproduced by man, very questionable

 

In all of my life as a Muslim, I've never come across verses that were removed or added to the Holy Qur'an. It cannot be changed, simply because there are too many people who are, and always were, Hafid-ul-Qur'an (memorizer of Qur'an). And when you have millions of people worldwide who have all memorized the same book, it is easy to spot lies and additions. This has been a trend that has been going on since the time the Qur'an was revealed until now.

 

My conclusion is that those are false Hadith. Unlike the Qur'an, there are many Hadiths floating around out there that are completely fabricated. There are a few trustworthy Hadiths, especially those by Bukhari (who took painstaking steps to verify the legitimacy of thousands upon thousands of Hadiths).

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the literary miracle of the Qur'an for those who are interested: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetislamic-awareness(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Quran/Miracle/ijaz.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetislamic-awareness(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Quran/Miracle/ijaz.html[/url]

 

As for some Hadiths making references to verses that are not in the Qur'an, I'll just say that not every Hadith is sound. There is a methodology for testing the aHadith. Also there are verses which have been abrogated from the Qur'an, but you have to know that the recitation of these verses were abrogated by the Prophet(pbuh) according to Divine Command, plus the only reason you're even hearing about these verses is because we are telling you so, we got nothing to hide.

 

PS: The authentic preservation of the Qur'an is fully documented.

 

PPS: Does "Divine Comedy" claim Divinity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the literary miracle of the Qur'an for those who are interested: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"http://############islamic-awareness######/Quran/Miracle/ijaz.html"]############islamic-awareness######/Quran/Miracle/ijaz.html[/url]

 

As for some Hadiths making references to verses that are not in the Qur'an, I'll just say that not every Hadith is sound. There is a methodology for testing the aHadith. Also there are verses which have been abrogated from the Qur'an, but you have to know that the recitation of these verses were abrogated by the Prophet(pbuh) according to Divine Command, plus the only reason you're even hearing about these verses is because we are telling you so, we got nothing to hide.

 

Hmm very interesting. Thank you for the link :sl:

 

As for the Divine Comedy, no it doesnt claim to be written by God, or even inspired by. Yet its author developed a unique and very difficult style in which he wrote his epic poem which covers history, religion and morality. It is laced with strong allegorical imagery and makes sense of important theological questions that even the church found impossible. (Like a *good* explination to the trinity)

 

I guess my point is that if a man could make such a wonderful and inspirational piece, is that the Qur'an being as it is doesnt necessarily mean it couldve only been made by God.

 

Anyway, check it out if you ever have a chance. It is a medieval christian piece, but hey, even I (essentially an atheist) felt a little spiritual reading it :sl: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"http://######en.wikipedia######/wiki/Divine_comedy"]######en.wikipedia######/wiki/Divine_comedy[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Arabs at the time of prophet Muhammad were very much fascinated with poetry and eloquence in public speaking. When prophet Muhammad recited the the verses of the Qur'an in the manner that it was revealed to him, they did not call him a poet. They said it was magic, which was their reason for rejecting it. The reason is because Allah presented them with a miracle; words of the greatest power and influence that moved their hearts, all from the mouth of an illiterate man who had never uttered a word of poetry in his entire life. That is one of the reasons that the argument is strong, because had God chosen someone who was literate and poetic, they would have called him a great storyteller.

 

Well, no. Even if you are right and Mohammed was not capable of producing such a work, the next most logical answer is not that a god did.

 

I'm not saying that it's not surprising that someone later in life produced a literary marvel, but it's not unknown, and, as I said, illiteracy means nothing one way or another. Great authors have been illiterate; mediocre authors have been literate.

 

Basically, I'm saying that these arguments do not show that liklihood of Mohammed and/or other human/s having composed the Koran is so low that the only alternative is a supernatural orign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're still missing my point. For prophet Muhammad to come up with the Qur'an, he would have had to be one of the most gifted poets at his time (who became gifted overnight), a mathematical genius incapable of making a mistake, and have powers to figure out the workings of the universe. The "Divine Comedy" might be inspirational, but it certainly can't claim to have historical, scientific, and mathematical accuraccy, which the Qur'an has had over 1400 years ago. Try reading brother Younes' link, it explains things in more detail.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're still missing my point. For prophet Muhammad to come up with the Qur'an, he would have had to be one of the most gifted poets at his time (who became gifted overnight), a mathematical genius incapable of making a mistake, and have powers to figure out the workings of the universe. The "Divine Comedy" might be inspirational, but it certainly can't claim to have historical, scientific, and mathematical accuraccy, which the Qur'an has had over 1400 years ago. Try reading brother Younes' link, it explains things in more detail.

 

SOMEONE had to be the most gifted poet in that corner of Arabia at that time. I agree it was a surprise that it turned out to be Mohammed (and that no doubt explains why he was so suddenly influential) but it is nowhere near approaching the impossible.

 

I'll read the link, but I think most of the 'science in the Koran' stuff has been debunked. (It was a Muslim scientist who told me.) Most holy books which have been pored over for centuries are found to contain material which apparently could not have been known at the time except by divine revelation. Large books of obscure, mystical or poetic writings lend themselves to pliable interpretation to fit the scientific facts of the day.

 

BTW, I'd be a lot more impressed about the literary qualities of the Koran (alas, I don't read Arabic) if told about them by someone whose opinion on English literature I respected. Do you know of anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm very interesting. Thank you for the link :sl:

 

You're welcome.

 

As for the Divine Comedy, no it doesnt claim to be written by God, or even inspired by. Yet its author developed a unique and very difficult style in which he wrote his epic poem which covers history, religion and morality. It is laced with strong allegorical imagery and makes sense of important theological questions that even the church found impossible. (Like a *good* explination to the trinity)

 

I guess my point is that if a man could make such a wonderful and inspirational piece, is that the Qur'an being as it is doesnt necessarily mean it couldve only been made by God.

 

The Divine Comedy presents no challenge whatsover, the Qur'an does. The Quran's miracle is similar to Moses(pbuh)'s showdown with Pharaoh's magicians; after the magicians lose to Moses(pbuh) they admit that their magic is nothing compared to Moses(pbuh) miracles. The Qur'an brought a challenge to the experts of the Arab language and they couldn't meet it and similarly they accepted Islam or went as far as to say that the Qur'an was forged by a sorcerer.

 

Anyway, check it out if you ever have a chance. It is a medieval christian piece, but hey, even I (essentially an atheist) felt a little spiritual reading it :sl: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"http://######en.wikipedia######/wiki/Divine_comedy"]######en.wikipedia######/wiki/Divine_comedy[/url]

 

I remember wanting to read the Divine Comedy a few years ago, maybe I'll read it someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately quoting magic to back up your argument damages the argument. If you could show that magic exists I would have no problem in believing that a god dictated a book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately quoting magic to back up your argument damages the argument. If you could show that magic exists I would have no problem in believing that a god dictated a book.

 

The Arabs said that the Qur'an was magic, so that they could dismiss its claim as the Word of God.

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll read the link, but I think most of the 'science in the Koran' stuff has been debunked. (It was a Muslim scientist who told me.)

 

Yes, they were debunked. With the absurd claim that it's all "one big coincidence".

 

SOMEONE had to be the most gifted poet in that corner of Arabia at that time. I agree it was a surprise that it turned out to be Mohammed (and that no doubt explains why he was so suddenly influential) but it is nowhere near approaching the impossible.
Gifted wouldn't begin to describe the author of the Qur'an.

 

BTW, I'd be a lot more impressed about the literary qualities of the Koran (alas, I don't read Arabic) if told about them by someone whose opinion on English literature I respected. Do you know of anyone?

 

Many westerners have written books on the Qur'an. Unfortunately, only pieces of their writings will be available online. For example, Neal Robinson writes on something that puzzles non-Muslims when reading the Qur'an: The constant changing of pronouns. He explains in an excerpt from his book "Discovering the Qur'an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text":

For European readers, one of the most disconcerting features of Qur'ānic style is the frequent occurrence of unexpected (and apparently unwarranted) shifts from one pronoun to another. Non-Muslim scholars have tended either to regard these changes as solecisms or simply to ignore them. Muslim specialists in Arabic rhetoric, on the other hand, refer to this phenomenon as iltifāt - literally 'conversion', or 'turning one's face to' - and define it as:

 

the change of speech from one mode to another, for the sake of freshness and variety for the listener, to renew his interest, and to keep his mind from boredom and frustration, through having the one mode continuously at his ear.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetislamic-awareness(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Quran/Text/Grammar/robinson.html"]Link[/url]

 

Here's an article on the writing style of the Qur'an. It uses sources from many western writers on the Qur'an as well as Arab ones.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yettheinimitablequran(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/IntroQuranLiteraryExcellence.pf"]The Inimitable Qur'an[/url]

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams peeps,

 

Also the way it was revealed.....over two decades. To write a work over 23 years and stay consistent is a tall order.

 

peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josh, that's anpother argument that puzzles me. WHY is it a tall order? Doing it over 23 years means that you get a very long time to think about it and make sure it's consistent. If it was composed in 6 months I would be much more impressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Arabs said that the Qur'an was magic, so that they could dismiss its claim as the Word of God.

 

I know, but you quoted magic performed by Moses.

 

Anyway, I don't distinguish between forms of supernaturalism - I don't believe in magic or gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, they were debunked. With the absurd claim that it's all "one big coincidence".

 

No, they were debunked with solid arguments. The few I've seen are conclusive.

 

Here's an article on the writing style of the Qur'an. It uses sources from many western writers on the Qur'an as well as Arab ones.

 

Thanks. But just because someone was (apparently - the Muslims quoted are not exactly impartial and the non-Muslims quoted are oreintalists rather than literary critics) the best author does not mean that a god dictated his writing. Except in a metaphorical sense, which I assume was what Mohammed meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they were debunked with solid arguments. The few I've seen are conclusive.

Thanks. But just because someone was (apparently - the Muslims quoted are not exactly impartial and the non-Muslims quoted are oreintalists rather than literary critics) the best author does not mean that a god dictated his writing. Except in a metaphorical sense, which I assume was what Mohammed meant.

 

I would have to agree. I think literary complexity is a weak arguement for divinity for any book. First off because it can be relative and because non-'inspired' texts can be just as complex (ie. Divine Comedy, Metamophesis, Rig Veda etc) or even more complex in ides (brief history of time, papers on string theory, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention 'Ulysses', which also took Joyce over a decade to write, is entirely self-consostent and achieved something entirely new. Or 'A la recherche du temps perdu' which also took over a decade and is also internally consistent and also achieved something new. And that's jsut the 20th century. People are pretty amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so according to this, Muhammad ######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_i26.11chan(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/albums/c132/pedantic_gu/pbuh.gif[/img] learned on his trade journeys about the Jews and the Christians, and then complied all tht he knew in one place, and made a Quran out of it, with no flaws.

 

Firstly, how did Muhammed ######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_i26.11chan(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/albums/c132/pedantic_gu/pbuh.gif[/img] manage to know the right from wrong, if he did write the Quran himself? You are assuming tht he collected the stories from the majority of saints or something? *No offence please* How'd he had known tht whatever he was writing down was the truth?

 

And how do you refute the medical & scientific miracles mentioned in the Quran? Scientific miracles mentioned in Quran that cannot be told by a human 1400 years ago. Those scientific miracles are being confirmed today by the scientists. One of the miracles is given in brief below:

 

Reproduction

 

And indeed We created man [Adam] out of an extract of clay. Thereafter We made him as a Nutfah [mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge] [and lodged it] in a safe lodging [woman's womb]. Then We made the Nutfah into a leech [or leech-like structure] then We made the leech into a chewed lump, then We made out of the chewed lump bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators. [Quran, 23:12-14; Al-Mu'minun, The Believers]

 

 

It has been confirmed by the doctors and embryologists NOW: : The zygote forms by the union of a mixture of the sperm and the ovum (The mixed drop). The word alaqah refers to a leech or bloodsucker. This is an appropriate description of the human embryo from days 7-24 when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus, in the same way that a leech clings to the skin. Just as the leech derives blood from the host, the human embryo derives blood from the decidua or pregnant endometrium. It is remarkable how much the embryo of 23-24 days resembles a leech. As there were no microscopes or lenses available in the 7th century, doctors would not have known that the human embryo had this leech-like appearance. In the early part of the fourth week, the embryo is just visible to the unaided eye because it is smaller than a kernel of wheat.

 

 

 

The Arabic word mudghah¡ means chewed substance or chewed lump. Toward the end of the fourth week, the human embryo looks somewhat like a chewed lump of flesh. The chewed appearance results from the somites which resemble teeth marks. The somites represent the beginnings or primordia of the vertebrae... Out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm.

----------

 

 

Hearing and Sight

 

Allah also states in the Quran the correct order in which the senses of hearing, seeing and understanding develop:

And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding. [Quran, 32:9; Al-Sajdah, The Prostration]

 

 

-What is the reason tht hearing is mentioned before seeing in the Quran?

 

 

1.Hearing develops before sight in the embryo stage , and it is the first sense that functions in life. The function of hearing starts immediately with the baby after deliver, in contrary to the eye which does not function the time the baby is brought to life. In other words, Allah the Almighty conveys to us that it is hearing that functions at first. If a disturbing sound is produced near the newly born baby, he/ she feels terrified and cries. But if a hand is approached near the same baby, he/ she does not move or sense any sort of danger.

 

2. Ear is preferred over and more superior than the eye, as it does not stop function by sleep. Since the very beginning of life, the ear functions at the first instance after delivery, while some other organs may wait days, or years to function. The eye needs light to see. Rays of light are reflected on things, then enter the eye to see things. If it is dark, the eye cannot function, but the ear can function day and night.

 

------------

 

How did Muhammad ######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_i26.11chan(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/albums/c132/pedantic_gu/pbuh.gif[/img] come to know about this aswell?

Creation

 

Then inquire of them: Is it they who are stronger in structure or other things We have created? We created them from sticky clay " (Quran 37:11)

 

or "We created man from an extract of clay" (Quran 23:12)

 

The Arabic word "sulala," translated as "extract" in the verse, means "representative example, essence." As we have seen, the information revealed in the Quran 1,400 years ago confirms what modern science tells us-the fact that the same elements as those found in the soil are employed in the human creation .

 

----------

Breastfeeding

“And We enjoined on man concerning his parents- his mother bore him in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning was in two years.†(31:14)

This too, has been understood recently; the benefits of a child being breat-fed I mean..

---------------

 

Carrion , Blood & Pork

 

“Forbidden to you are carrion, blood and flesh of swine, and that which has been hallowed to other than Allah, and that which has been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; and that which has been partly eaten by a wild animal-excepting that you have sacrificed duly…†(4:3)

 

 

 

What is the reasoning of totally forbidding dead meat?

 

 

 

It has been proved on a conclusive scientific basis that the body of a dead animal reserves blood with all sediments and toxins, particularly which are in the arterial blood. Blood could then prevail in the tissues and thus the toxins start to function in all body cells, thus the dead body changes colour to darker and the superficial veins are filled with blood, and blood circulation stops with no chance of leaking any amount of blood outside the body. The dead body becomes a spoilt deposit for diseases and microbes. The work of decay then starts in the body, affecting the meat in colour, taste and smell. So meat of dead bodies is foul and un-good. Allah says; “They will question thee what is permitted them. Say; ‘The good things are permitted you….’†(4:4)

---------------------

 

 

The Barrier Between the Two Seas

 

It is He Who has unloosed both seas – the one sweet and refreshing,

the other salty and bitter – and put a dividing line between them, an

uncrossable barrier. And it is He Who created human beings from

water and then gave them relations by blood and marriage. Your Lord

is All-Powerful. (Surat al-Furqan, 53-54)

 

 

Allah Created Everything From Water

 

Do those who disbelieve not see that the heavens and the earth

were sewn together and then We unstitched them and that We made

from water every living thing? So will they not believe? (Surat al-Anbiya',

30)

 

 

 

 

**There are alot of other miracles mentioned in the Quran but I'd like to stop here quoting this Ayah from the Quran; the statement made by Allah for the whole mankind:

 

There is instruction in their stories for people of intelligence.

This is not a narration which has been invented but confirmation

of all that came before, a clarification of everything, and a

guidance and a mercy for people who believe. (Surah Yusuf, 111)

That is the Book, without any doubt. It contains guidance for

those who guard against evil. (Surat al-Baqara, 2)

 

 

 

 

**There are alot of other miracles mentioned in the Quran but I'd like to stop here quoting this Ayah from the Quran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll answer the rest later, I'm on my way to work ..

 

Firstly, how did Muhammed manage to know the right from wrong, if he did write the Quran himself? You are assuming tht he collected the stories from the majority of saints or something? *No offence please* How'd he had known tht whatever he was writing down was the truth?

 

LOL! If he made it up it isn't the truth! You only think it's the truth because you believe it's what a god said. If a god didn't say it, it isn't the truth. I'm suggresting that he made up the Koran, therefore he invented the Islamic concept of right and wrong. Not so hard to believe - except that it has an extremely legalistic interpretation which has lead to an awful lot of rules, the essentials of Islamic morality don't differ much from Judaism or Christianity. In fact it's exactly what you'd expect from someone modifying an imperfect knowledge of those two religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh, that's anpother argument that puzzles me. WHY is it a tall order? Doing it over 23 years means that you get a very long time to think about it and make sure it's consistent. If it was composed in 6 months I would be much more impressed.

 

How does one find it hard to be consistent in a short period of time? I think you're only trying to find excuses now, and this is a really pathetic one.

 

Consistency is determined by many things that are affected by time. These things can range from memory and experience, to moods. If one is writing a made-up book in a short period of time, it is easier to remain in the same mood and to be able to remember what and why the person wrote what they did. Being consistent over six months is hard, but 23 years is near impossible.

 

LOL! If he made it up it isn't the truth! You only think it's the truth because you believe it's what a god said. If a god didn't say it, it isn't the truth. I'm suggresting that he made up the Koran, therefore he invented the Islamic concept of right and wrong

 

"If he made it up"

"If a god didn't say it"

 

For someone who's so sure he's right, you sure are using a lot of If's.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they were debunked with solid arguments. The few I've seen are conclusive.

 

No, they were not. The few that I've seen are pretty sloppy and use a weak basis for their arguments.

Thanks. But just because someone was (apparently - the Muslims quoted are not exactly impartial and the non-Muslims quoted are oreintalists rather than literary critics) the best author does not mean that a god dictated his writing. Except in a metaphorical sense, which I assume was what Mohammed meant.

 

I'm sure that you're an expert on who literary critics are and who "orientalists" are. It seems like you're making weak attempts to field off any indepth look into the writings of any westerners that I might even list by dismissing them as "orientalists". A pretty pathetic ploy on your part. However, it does prove to me that you're not interested in getting answers so much as you are in holding onto your own narrow-minded pre-conceived notions and misconceptions (this is evident in all of the topics you've created so far).

 

You started off this topic with the claim that you're not interested in discussing whether or not the Qur'an is the word of God, and then say "LOL! If he made it up it isn't the truth! You only think it's the truth because you believe it's what a god said. If a god didn't say it, it isn't the truth. I'm suggresting that he made up the Koran, therefore he invented the Islamic concept of right and wrong."

 

What sparked this outburst? Why, nothing more than the answer that YOU asked for; a reason as to why Muhammad couldn't have made-up the Qur'an. And the most you can reply with is "He made it up!".

 

Good job.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does one find it hard to be consistent in a short period of time? I think you're only trying to find excuses now, and this is a really pathetic one.

 

Consistency is determined by many things that are affected by time. These things can range from memory and experience, to moods. If one is writing a made-up book in a short period of time, it is easier to remain in the same mood and to be able to remember what and why the person wrote what they did. Being consistent over six months is hard, but 23 years is near impossible.

 

I really don't get this argument. Obviously people DO manage to be consistent over a very long time. As I said, 'Ulysses' and 'In search of lost time" are very consistent books which are many times longer than the Koran and which took well over a decade to write. The Koran is quite short as far as books go, and 23 years means quite a low workrate. Plenty of time to research the story and polish the style.

 

 

"If he made it up"

"If a god didn't say it"

 

For someone who's so sure he's right, you sure are using a lot of If's.

 

You are familiar with the concept of a hypothesis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure that you're an expert on who literary critics are and who "orientalists" are. It seems like you're making weak attempts to field off any indepth look into the writings of any westerners that I might even list by dismissing them as "orientalists". A pretty pathetic ploy on your part. However, it does prove to me that you're not interested in getting answers so much as you are in holding onto your own narrow-minded pre-conceived notions and misconceptions (this is evident in all of the topics you've created so far).

 

I'm going by the description in the piece. None of them describe themselves as literature experts and at least one is described as an orientalist. Given their fields of study it's reasonable to assume that many of them are also orientalists. I am not dismissing them, I am wondering if people with experience and qualifications in English Lit. have written about the Koran as a work of art.

 

What sparked this outburst? Why, nothing more than the answer that YOU asked for; a reason as to why Muhammad couldn't have made-up the Qur'an. And the most you can reply with is "He made it up!".

 

Please. You made the incredibly circular argument that the Koran must have been written by god because Mohammed could not have known enough about "the truth" of morailty to have written it. But the Koran is the source of your moral teaching. What it says IS right. You can't stand outside it and check whether something is right or wrong because there is no other standard. That's the case no matter who wrote it. You argument is just nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has been confirmed by the doctors and embryologists NOW: : The zygote forms by the union of a mixture of the sperm and the ovum (The mixed drop). The word alaqah refers to a leech or bloodsucker. This is an appropriate description of the human embryo from days 7-24 when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus, in the same way that a leech clings to the skin. Just as the leech derives blood from the host, the human embryo derives blood from the decidua or pregnant endometrium. It is remarkable how much the embryo of 23-24 days resembles a leech. As there were no microscopes or lenses available in the 7th century, doctors would not have known that the human embryo had this leech-like appearance. In the early part of the fourth week, the embryo is just visible to the unaided eye because it is smaller than a kernel of wheat.
Well, right off the bat we have something that is dubious - the mixing of male and female fluids might be a very loose way of describing conception, but it's certainly not an accurate way. And you don't need divine help to come up with the idea.

 

The leech? Yes, it might be a good metaphor for an embryo at that stage. But it isn't very specific. It could equally be a metaphor for completely innacurate ideas.

 

 

The Arabic word mudghah¡ means chewed substance or chewed lump. Toward the end of the fourth week, the human embryo looks somewhat like a chewed lump of flesh. The chewed appearance results from the somites which resemble teeth marks. The somites represent the beginnings or primordia of the vertebrae... Out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm.

 

Why do you need divine help to know what fetuses look like at various stages of development?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×