Jump to content
Islamic Forum
wordVision Student

The Quran Is Not The Word Of Man

Recommended Posts

Apologies for this omnibus reply, but for some reason page refreshes are taking about 3 minutes on this site at the moment and I don't have time to reply individually.

 

 

They are conscious, but no, they don't think like we do. So it is ridiculous to judge their behaviour by human ethics.

 

Are you confused wattle?? I mean really because you said..ALL animals behave "better" than humans, because animals don't have a choice. ad now your saying it is ridiculous to judge their behaviour by human ethics

so how do you know that they behave better than humans

 

There's nothing at all "bad" about monkeys masturbating in public - it's what monkeys do. They are exactly conforming to Allah's plan for the, if you like

 

Thats right and im pretty sure that you wont have your daughter studying monkeys masterbating ...unless your sick minded. However you said that ALL animals behave better than humans so the behaviour of a monkey masterbating in public is better than how you behave or how your mother behaves or your father??

 

 

.

And if you think it's a sign of 'evil' that lions kill young buffalo rather than old ones, I take it that you prefer mutton to lamb.

 

Stop twisting my words i never said that these actions are evil, i said that there is a such thing as evil and good and that they come from belief in God You said that you dont believe in evil but you do believe in bad. However i asked you if there is no such thing as evil then how is a headache which is bad be along the same lines as a child molester as bad? A child molestor is not bad like a headache he is worse than that he is evil. But you dont believe in God but you believe in good, Im telling you that good only gets its definition because of religious people who believe in God. LOL and you cant spell good without GOD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

twoswords ali said:

Are you confused wattle?? I mean really because you said..ALL animals behave "better" than humans, because animals don't have a choice. ad now your saying it is ridiculous to judge their behaviour by human ethics

so how do you know that they behave better than humans

 

I put "better" in quotes to indicate that I was not using it in the usual sense. I meant that animal bevaviour and human behaviour cannot be judged by the same criteria. It makes no sense to apply ethics to animal behaviour. Animals cannot do bad things, humans can. Of course, animals cannot do good things either, whereas humans can.

 

 

Thats right and im pretty sure that you wont have your daughter studying monkeys masterbating ...unless your sick minded. However you said that ALL animals behave better than humans so the behaviour of a monkey masterbating in public is better than how you behave or how your mother behaves or your father??

 

If my daughter becomes a zoologist or a primate vet or studies certain aspects of sociology, anthropology or psychology she will probably study monkeys masturbating - why would I have a problem with that? Before then, if she happens to see monkeys masturbating at the zoo it will be a good time to talk to her about human masturbation.

 

 

Stop twisting my words i never said that these actions are evil, i said that there is a such thing as evil and good and that they come from belief in God You said that you dont believe in evil but you do believe in bad. However i asked you if there is no such thing as evil then how is a headache which is bad be along the same lines as a child molester as bad? A child molestor is not bad like a headache he is worse than that he is evil.[ But you dont believe in God but you believe in good, Im telling you that good only gets its definition because of religious people who believe in God.

 

I dont believe that evil or good exist as external forces - both concepts are human constructs. I don't "believe in bad", I believe in bad actions or bad thoughts. I don't use the word "evil" because it is melodramatic, and because human bad behaviour can be explained by internal pathologies or just different ethical systems. The first time I seriously considered 'good' was when I studied Plato, who wasn't particularly religious - and even if he was, you would not approve of his gods' behaviour.

Edited by wattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twoswords ali said:

I put "better" in quotes to indicate that I was not using it in the usual sense. I meant that animal bevaviour and human behaviour cannot be judged by the same criteria. It makes no sense to apply ethics to animal behaviour. Animals cannot do bad things, humans can. Of course, animals cannot do good things either, whereas humans can.

 

What??? then why do we put animals to death if they bite people?? Animals can exibit bad behaviour you ever seen the show the dog whisperer? And there are countless stories of dogs or peoples pets that saved their lives and this is not a good thing??? So when you look at the news and see things like this

 

Australian Dog Saves Child From Snake

A doberman in Australia that was rescued earlier from an animal shelter, repaid his new owners in time by saving their 17-month-old daughter from a deadly snake.

 

Khan, as his new owners call him, picked up Charlotte Svillicic by his teeth and threw her over his shoulder.

 

In so doing, the dog took the bite from the king brown, the worlds third most venomous snake, instead.

 

Charlotte's mother, Catherine, said Khan leapt into action as the snake edged closer to Charlotte in her garden in Atherton near Cairns, Australia.

 

"He saved her life by risking his own. If I had not seen it with my own eyes I would never have believed it." Catherine said. "He grabbed her by the back of the nappy and threw her over his shoulder more than a meter, like she was a rag doll."

 

Khan, who received a shot of anti-venom from a vet after taking the snakebite has since made a full recovery.

 

 

that a dog went into a burning building and saved a little

 

you dont say that this is good huh??

 

 

If my daughter becomes a zoologist or a primate vet or studies certain aspects of sociology, anthropology or psychology she will probably study monkeys masturbating - why would I have a problem with that? Before then, if she happens to see monkeys masturbating at the zoo it will be a good time to talk to her about human masturbation.

 

Oh really and how does one explain to a little girl what human masterbating is?? That is really sick man. Not believing in evil makes you evil, i can explain to my daughter sex and how babies is made because that normal but your going to explain to a little girl what masterbating is...thats sick!!

 

 

I dont believe that evil or good exist as external forces - both concepts are human constructs. I don't "believe in bad", I believe in bad actions or bad thoughts. I don't use the word "evil" because it is melodramatic, and because human bad behaviour can be explained by internal pathologies or just different ethical systems. The first time I seriously considered 'good' was when I studied Plato, who wasn't particularly religious - and even if he was, you would not approve of his gods' behaviour.

 

wattle everything you know is of human constructs you know nothing without the aid of a human being. You dont believe in bad you believe in bad actions??? Honestly brother do you think that this sounds intelligent??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What??? then why do we put animals to death if they bite people?? Animals can exibit bad behaviour you ever seen the show the dog whisperer?

 

We certainly do not kill dangerous animals as punishment, we kill them to remove a danger. The same way that we would cut down a dead tree before it falls on someone. Animals *cannot* behave unethically or immorally, which is what you mean (or should mean) by "bad behaviour".

 

And there are countless stories of dogs or peoples pets that saved their lives and this is not a good thing???

 

It's a fortunate thing for the humans who were saved, but it is not a "good" thing in the sense that ethical behaviour was exhibited by the animals. Animals are incapable of moral or immoral behaviour.

 

Oh really and how does one explain to a little girl what human masterbating is?? That is really sick man. Not believing in evil makes you evil, i can explain to my daughter sex and how babies is made because that normal but your going to explain to a little girl what masterbating is...thats sick!!

 

How do you know how old she is? And if she asks what the monkey is doing, she'll have to be told something appropriate for her age. I wouldn't want her to get the idea that masturbation is unnatural or something to feel guilty about.

 

 

wattle everything you know is of human constructs you know nothing without the aid of a human being. You dont believe in bad you believe in bad actions??? Honestly brother do you think that this sounds intelligent??

 

I do not believe that there are any standards of 'good' and 'bad' outside what humans decide are 'good' and 'bad'. So to say that something is 'bad' is just a shorthand way of saying 'according to my value system I think that that is bad behaviour'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Animals are incapable of moral or immoral behaviour.

Why do you think animals are incapable of moral behavior? I would think such a thing would operate on a continuum, especially with higher order mammals that exhibit similar social structures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We certainly do not kill dangerous animals as punishment, we kill them to remove a danger. The same way that we would cut down a dead tree before it falls on someone. Animals *cannot* behave unethically or immorally, which is what you mean (or should mean) by "bad behaviour".

 

You are full of it wattle, lol,Now is dangerous a good thing or a bad thing????? Well being that you dont believe in bad

 

It's a fortunate thing for the humans who were saved, but it is not a "good" thing in the sense that ethical behaviour was exhibited by the animals. Animals are incapable of moral or immoral behaviour

 

ok are human beings animals??? And the word good includes ethical behaviour but is not limited to it!!

 

How do you know how old she is? And if she asks what the monkey is doing, she'll have to be told something appropriate for her age. I wouldn't want her to get the idea that masturbation is unnatural or something to feel guilty about.

 

HAHAHAHA NO NO dont try and switch it up, now your back pedeling on your words now your saying that she will be told something appropriate for her age, if you dont believe in bad or "evil" then whats wrong with telling her excatly what the monkey is doing???? Why switch up your words and also you said and i qoute

Before then, if she happens to see monkeys masturbating at the zoo it will be a good time to talk to her about human masturbation

 

This is disgusting and filthy and nasty that you would speak to your little girl like that. People who are aware of evil speech or BAD speech would tell her nothing about masterbating they will tell her that their scratching themselves or something like that, but no way in hell would any decent person deem it a good time to talk to their young daughter about human masterbation. That wattle is sick very very sick!!

 

I do not believe that there are any standards of 'good' and 'bad' outside what humans decide are 'good' and 'bad'. So to say that something is 'bad' is just a shorthand way of saying 'according to my value system I think that that is bad behaviour'.

 

 

Well according to majority of decent people it is bad to speak to a little girl about human masterbating, and that it is sick to consider that if your little daughter sees a monkey masterbating to say that it is a GOOD TIME to teach her about human masterbation. Thats bad any way you flip it or turn it. This is what happens when you dont believe in evil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are full of it wattle, lol,Now is dangerous a good thing or a bad thing????? Well being that you dont believe in bad

 

We are talking about ethics. Animal behaviour is outside the scope of ethics. Tigers are not ethically bad because they are dangerous to humans. A dead tree is not ethically bad because it falls on a human.

 

HAHAHAHA NO NO dont try and switch it up, now your back pedeling on your words now your saying that she will be told something appropriate for her age, if you dont believe in bad or "evil" then whats wrong with telling her excatly what the monkey is doing???? Why switch up your words and also you said and i qoute

 

? You don't take the age of your children into account when you explain something to them? It would be silly to give her an explanation that she doesn't understand. Not a moral issue at all, just a matter of effective parenting.

 

This is disgusting and filthy and nasty that you would speak to your little girl like that. People who are aware of evil speech or BAD speech would tell her nothing about masterbating they will tell her that their scratching themselves or something like that, but no way in hell would any decent person deem it a good time to talk to their young daughter about human masterbation. That wattle is sick very very sick!!

 

Again, how do you know how old she is? She's pre-pubescent, but not by much. We will have to discuss masturbation at some stage, and quite soon.

 

Well according to majority of decent people it is bad to speak to a little girl about human masterbating, and that it is sick to consider that if your little daughter sees a monkey masterbating to say that it is a GOOD TIME to teach her about human masterbation. Thats bad any way you flip it or turn it. This is what happens when you dont believe in evil

 

Why do you keep insisting that she's "little"? She isn't. I suspect you're wrong about the majority view in my culture. Check any non-religious parenting site on the web and I'm sure you'll find that it encourages parents to discuss sexuality (and not just reproduction) with their children.

Edited by wattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sad clown said:

 

Why do you think animals are incapable of moral behavior? I would think such a thing would operate on a continuum, especially with higher order mammals that exhibit similar social structures.

 

Yep, just trying to keep it simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are talking about ethics. Animal behaviour is outside the scope of ethics. Tigers are not ethically bad because they are dangerous to humans. A dead tree is not ethically bad because it falls on a human.

 

Like i said ethics is included in the explanation of good and bad but it is not the only explanation. Evil is a term used to describe unmoral or unethical behaviour and so is bad, so bad and evil depending how you use either word can mean the same thing when describing a person or an action. You cant get away from that.

 

 

? You don't take the age of your children into account when you explain something to them? It would be silly to give her an explanation that she doesn't understand. Not a moral issue at all, just a matter of effective parenting.

 

It would be silly to try to explain masterbation to a little girl, and it is a moral matter because if you cant tell your daughter what masterbation is and what that monkey is doing and what human masterbation is ,if you cant tell your daughter that then it becomes an ethical matter and good ethics wouldnot allow you to talk to your child about human masterbation. And effective parenting has ethics in how to parent. And taking the age into consideration shows good ethical thinking. Why do you argue against something that you practice??.....Oh because you dont believe in God.....lol or evil

 

 

 

Again, how do you know how old she is? She's pre-pubescent, but not by much. We will have to discuss masturbation at some stage, and quite soon.

 

Hey thats very good im pretty sure she is a beautiful little girl and that your a proud father, now if your pre-pubescent little girl was out side your house with her clothes off naked talking to some strange man and he was touching her, would you tell her that thats a bad thing would you want to half kill the man?. Being that you dont believe in evil or bad or in ethics or morals what would be the problem if your daughter was naked outside siting on a strangers lap. I'm sure as hell that ethics and morals and bad and evil would come into play then.

 

Why do you keep insisting that she's "little"? She isn't. I suspect you're wrong about the majority view in my culture. Check any non-religious parenting site on the web and I'm sure you'll find that it encourages parents to discuss sexuality (and not just reproduction) with their children.

 

Not just reproduction??? you see this is evil, where is sad clown i believe that he is not religious either..hey sad clown you agree with this as well, do you teach your little ones about materbating when they was young?? Most adults have never discussed that with their parents when they was young when you discuss those types of behaviours with children it makes a society of people with monkey behaviour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twoswordali

Like i said ethics is included in the explanation of good and bad but it is not the only explanation. Evil is a term used to describe unmoral or unethical behaviour and so is bad, so bad and evil depending how you use either word can mean the same thing when describing a person or an action. You cant get away from that.

 

If you want to use a melodramatic ord like "evil" to describe bad actions, go ahead. As I said, I agree there are bad actions and bad thinking - I just don't believe that the concept has an existence independent of the human mind.

 

 

It would be silly to try to explain masterbation to a little girl, and it is a moral matter because if you cant tell your daughter what masterbation is and what that monkey is doing and what human masterbation is ,if you cant tell your daughter that then it becomes an ethical matter and good ethics wouldnot allow you to talk to your child about human masterbation. And effective parenting has ethics in how to parent. And taking the age into consideration shows good ethical thinking. Why do you argue against something that you practice??.....Oh because you dont believe in God.....lol or evil

 

You keep on saying "little girl". Why? My value systm says that it IS good ethics to talk about masturbation to a child who is about to experience adult sexualitry. They need to know that masturbation is normal and OK.

 

 

Hey thats very good im pretty sure she is a beautiful little girl and that your a proud father, now if your pre-pubescent little girl was out side your house with her clothes off naked talking to some strange man and he was touching her, would you tell her that thats a bad thing would you want to half kill the man?. Being that you dont believe in evil or bad or in ethics or morals what would be the problem if your daughter was naked outside siting on a strangers lap. I'm sure as hell that ethics and morals and bad and evil would come into play then.

 

What on earth are you on about? I said that I believe that immoral actions and immoral thought happens.

 

Not just reproduction??? you see this is evil, where is sad clown i believe that he is not religious either..hey sad clown you agree with this as well, do you teach your little ones about materbating when they was young?? Most adults have never discussed that with their parents when they was young when you discuss those types of behaviours with children it makes a society of people with monkey behaviour

 

How is it evil? How else to children learn about appropriate behaviour if their parents don't tell them? And AGAIN you say "little"! A girl about to undergo puberty is not a "little girl"!

 

And I suspect that you're a hypocrite - I bet you think it's a good idea to tell children about the evils of homosexuality and exposing the wrong bits of skin. We just happen to have different value systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Basic qualities" such as rhyme (especially when the proportion of rhymes is stipulated), rhetorical devices and conciseness ARE the Koran's style. A unique style would have to deliberately NOT use them.

 

As I have previously said, a challenger may try to use the Quran's style if it wishes, or it may come up with a wholly unique style. But in any case, your statement above is completely invalid. Two books could have different literary styles, but both be concise. Conciseness does not go to style, it is a basic quality of good writing.

 

Also and more fundamentally, I suspect that if you really did precisely define what the challenge involved (such as actually stipulating the ratio of ideas:words - as you must if you are to judge by objective criteria), you would end up stipulating that any challenger must BE the Koran - any deviation from it would be regarded as being inferior.

 

Scholars could determine the numbers you seek. It's irrelevant that I have not stipulated all of these. What is relevant is that the numbers are obtainable, should someone put in the time and effort to obtain them. I have already told you, for example, that 50% of all the Quran's verses rhyme with the sound nun. So clearly, someone has gone to the effort of analyzing this particular point. Scholars of literature have remarked that no writer employing rhyme in a work of comparable length, in any language, has ever managed to rhyme 50% of all their verses with a single sound. And remember, the Quran does this whilst still delivering its intended meaning.

 

Just what books have non-Muslim experts judged to be inferior to the Koran (other than all later works in Classical Arabic)? Did they judge books in other languages? Does a book have to specifically say that it is challenging the Koran to be included? No-one is arguing that the Koran is not the best book in Classical Arabic - I'm saying that it does not follow that it as not written humans. Joyce's Ulysses is generally regarded the best Modernist English book. No-one claims that it was written by a god, even though no-one will ever write a better Modernist novel.

 

No one will ever write a better modernist novel than Ulysses? You can say this with certainty can you?

 

As you have said yourself, the Quran is the best book in Arabic. This is agreed. But if the Quran is the word of man, it should not remain the best for all time. It should be possible to better it, yet still, this has not been done.

 

 

If they are "objective and verifiable fact", then the actual numbers must be available. Once the word:idea ratio is known the "miracle" disappears.

 

No, the miracle disappears when it can be demonstrated that another piece of literature betters it on those 'numbers'.

Edited by wordVision Student

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if the Quran is the word of man, it should not remain the best for all time. It should be possible to better it, yet still, this has not been done.

Why couldn't it remain the best for all time, even if it were (and I'm not saying it is) the word of man? This isn't even contradictory with the claim that it is possible to better it, since that possibility also has the possibility of never being realized. There is no contradiction in claiming that something is the best and will remain the best for all time, and yet could still be bettered.

Edited by the sad clown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why couldn't it remain the best for all time, even if it were (and I'm not saying it is) the word of man? This isn't even contradictory with the claim that it is possible to better it, since that possibility also has the possibility of never being realized. There is no contradiction in claiming that something is the best and will remain the best for all time, and yet could still be bettered.

 

You are quite right. The fact that the Quran is considered the best, and has remained so for 1400 years, does not of its own force us to believe in its divine origin, even if it continues to be the best for another 14000 years. A person is left free to ponder why it has remained the best. And from there, the person may choose to believe or not believe in its divine origin.

 

A person's freedom to believe is in keeping with what I see as the wisdom in the creation of the universe. But what is this wisdom? For me, this question is among the most worthwhile things a human being can ask. If the universe and everything in it, including me, was willed and created by Allah, what is the purpose in it? I think a thread on this topic would be useful, as I would be interested in people's views on this. What is the 'meaning of life', if there is any meaning? This is a vitally important matter, on a number of fronts. If believers can not offer a coherent answer to the question, it will cast doubt on their claims that the universe was created by God. After all, if there is no real purpose in the creation of man and the universe, why should God have bothered creating them? And if there is a purpose or purposes, what are the implications of these for man?

 

My view is that if we can satisfactorily resolve these questions in our minds, we can obtain a properly informed basis for belief, or unbelief, as the case may be.

Edited by wordVision Student

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind participating in such a discussion, although my insight into the matter is sorely inadequate to lead anyone into an informed belief, or unbelief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't mind participating in such a discussion, although my insight into the matter is sorely inadequate to lead anyone into an informed belief, or unbelief.

 

Not at all, your views are always of value in these forums. I will commence a thread tomorrow, Allah willing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not denying that there might be wisdom in the Koran. I'm questioning the source of this wisdom.

 

I like your metaphorical interpretation of the verse.

 

Please read this article as you will find it very interesting and thought provoking:

 

[/b] Who Wrote the Holy Qur'an?[using large font size is not allowed]

 

By Method of Elimination

 

Qur'an, in Arabic, could only have been written by ONE of 3 possible sources:

 

 

1 The Arabs

 

2 Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him)

 

3 Allah (GOD)

 

 

Besides the above mentioned sources, Qur'an couldn't possibly have been written by ANYONE else. No other source is possible, because Qur'an is written in pure, rich, and poetic Arabic, which was not known to anyone other than the above mentioned sources, at that time. The Arabic language was at its peak in expression, richness, vocabulary, artistic, and poetic value during the time the Qur'an was being revealed. Anyone speaking the classical Arabic ( the Arabic of Qur'an at the time it was revealed) would argue that a non-Arab entity couldn't possibly have written such an extensive and brilliant piece of literature in the Arabic language. Qur'an could only have been written by an Arabic speaking entity.

 

An entity, who's knowledge, style, vocabulary, grammar, and way of expression was so powerful that it impacted the entire Arabian peninsula, the east, the west, and continues to impact people all over the globe today!

 

At no other time, in the history of Arabic language, had it ever achieved its peak in expression, literature, and development, than the time of Arabia during the 6th Century, the time when Qur'an was being revealed. With the Arabic language at its peak, and the best of Arabic writers, poets present in Arabia, it is impossible that a non-Arabic speaking entity would write a book like Qur'an and have such a dynamite impact on the Arabs!

 

Lets examine the three choces one by one.

 

(1) Arabs Wrote it ?

 

What Qur'an teaches goes DIRECTLY against the pagan Arab culture, religion, and gods, that existed before the Qur'an was revealed. Qur'an condemns idol worshipping, but the Arabs, loved their idol gods, and worshipped them regularly. Qur'an raised the status of women; the Arabs treated women next to animals. The Arabs would never write something that goes against their most important belief of idol worshipping. Qur'an goes against most of the social habbits (such as backbiting, slandering, name calling, etc) which the Arabs were heavily indulged into. For example, the Arabs would call insulting nicknames such as Abu Jahal (the father of ignorance). Qur'an condemns and prohibits taking interest on money, whereas, the Arabs freely levied heavy interest rates in loans and businesses. Qur'an condemns and prohibits Alcohol drinking, whereas, the Arabs consumed alcohol freely. The Qur'an condemns and prohibits gambling, whereas, the Arabs were some of the worst gamblers. The Arabs would never write something so comprehensively against just about all of their customs and culture and religious beliefs, as the Qur'an is.

 

During the time of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), the Arabs would indulge in all the social habits that the Qur'an condemns and prohibits. How can Arabs then write something that would negate their entire society's norms and ideologies ?

 

Did a group of Arabs or an individual Arab write Qur'an? Perhaps a rebel Arab beduoin, or a society's misfit, or someone with different ideals and norms decided one day to write Qur'an? The answer to those questions are also 'no'. Because, if we read Qur'an, we notice that there is no author ! No individual has his/her name written on the cover of Qur'an! No one in the history of the world has EVER claimed to have written the Qur'an, No one in the world has ever been accused of writing the Holy Qur'an, except the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), by non-muslims.

 

The Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) was the only Arabian who first practiced, explained, and preached Qur'an, and ended up making a lot of Arab tribes enemies. Any historian, Muslim or non-Muslim would argue that the only possible source of Qur'an can be the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), the man responsible to recite it, teach it, and expalin it to the people of Arabia. In fact, many historians today still think that only Mohammad (pbuh) could possibly have written it.

 

This leads one to conclude that the Prophet (pbuh) must have written it !

 

(2) Mohammad (PBUH) wrote it ?

 

First, he was illiterate !! How can an illiterate person come up with such a rich, poetic, intellectual, and inspiring text that it rocked the entire Arabia ? Mohammad (pbuh) never went to school ! No one taught him. He had no teacher of any kind in any subjects. How can he have the knowledge of all the science, astronomy, oceanography, etc that is contained in the Qur'an ? ( For example, the mention of ocean currents, stars, earth, moon, sun and their fixed paths in Soorah Rahman; and many other scientific statements that are found in Qur'an, that cannot be stated in this short article)

 

When Qur'an was revealed, the Arabic language was at its peak in richness, poetic value, literature, etc. Qur'an came and challenged the best literature in Arabic, the best poetry in Arabic of the time to produce a single chapter like that of the Qur'an.

 

And if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 2,Verse 23

 

Mohammad (PBUH) being illiterate couldnt possibly have come up with something so immaculate that it even exceded the best of poetry, and literature in Arabic at the time of the language's PEAK development. Arabic language had never been so rich in expression, poetic value, vocabulary, and variety in literature, as it was in the time of Qur'an. At a time like this, Qur'an came and exceeded the best of Arabic in all aspects of the language: poetry, literature, expression, etc. Any classical Arabic speaker would appreciate the unbeatten, unchallenged, and unmatched beauty of the language of Qur'an.

 

Mohammad (PBUH) had no reason to come up with something like Qur'an, and cause the entire society of Arabia to become his enemy. Why would he do something like that? Why would he write something going against almost all of the norms of the society, and lose his family, relatives, friends, and other loved ones , and not to mention all the wealth he lost ?

 

Qur'an was revealed over a period of 23 years ! A very long time! Is it possible for someone to maintain the same exact style of Arabic speech , as demonstrated in Qur'an, for over 23 years ?

 

Also, what the prophet Mohammad (PBUH) used to say is recorded in what we call his hadeeth (sunnah). If we look at the Arabic style of the hadeeth, and compare it with the style of Qur'an, we can clearly see that they are clearly DIFFERENT, and DISTINGUISHABLE Arabic styles. The Prophet (PBUH) spoke in public. It does not make sense that a man has two UNIQUE, Distinguishable, and completely different styles of speech in public. Yet another reason why Mohammad (PBUH) couldn't possibly have written Qur'an.

 

It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered a messenger from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom, although they had been, before, in manifest error The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 62,Verse 2

 

The Conclusion: Qur'an is Allah (God)'s word.

 

The Qur'an has retained its original pure form for over 14 centuries not a word has changed. Allah has promised to safeguard it from corruption

 

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 15,Verse 9

 

No falsehood can approach it from before or behind it: It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of all Praise. The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 41,Verse 42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please read this article as you will find it very interesting and thought provoking:

It was interesting and thought provoking the first time it was posted as well:

 

(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 yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=727679"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=727679[/url]

 

I'll post a comment over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, there is absolutely no proof it is NOT the word of man.

 

You're essentially saying, that your holy books, among other holy books, is the right one, the only one that was actually written by a divine being among all the other religious scriptures.

 

I would believe you, if you offered valid scientific and empirical evidence to backup your claims.

 

Until then, anybody who claims the Quran is the one true holy book from God, they are no different to me than a christian missionary, or a buddhist, or a hindu, or anybody else who claims that their religion is the correct one. There is absolutely no difference and I'm not convinced one bit.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is, there is absolutely no proof it is NOT the word of man.

 

there is plenty of proof you just deny the proof

 

You're essentially saying, that your holy books, among other holy books, is the right one, the only one that was actually written by a divine being among all the other religious scriptures.

 

wrong this is not what Islam is saying

 

I would believe you, if you offered valid scientific and empirical evidence to backup your claims.

 

Your an atheist no matter what is given to you as proof you will deny deny deny no matter what.

 

Until then, anybody who claims the Quran is the one true holy book from God, they are no different to me than a christian missionary, or a buddhist, or a hindu, or anybody else who claims that their religion is the correct one. There is absolutely no difference and I'm not convinced one bit.

 

Well your just one amongst what millions of other people that believe that it is a holy book. Again muslims donot claim that the Quran is the only holy book from God, it is a Holy Book that has yet to be tampered with.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, indeed.

 

if thats the case then prove that you exist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your an atheist no matter what is given to you as proof you will deny deny deny no matter what.

I realize our new friend needs some lessons on how to win friends and influence people, but please don't dismiss him (or others) based solely on their religious beliefs, even if they are religious unbeliefs. Nothing good will come of that if this were to be the established behavior, especially in a place like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize our new friend needs some lessons on how to win friends and influence people, but please don't dismiss him (or others) based solely on their religious beliefs, even if they are religious unbeliefs. Nothing good will come of that if this were to be the established behavior, especially in a place like this.

 

I came here to post, not to make friends or influence people. If they wish to dismiss what I say and persist to bask in their delusional fanatasies that Islam is a man made fallacy just like any other religion and they refuse to accept that we are all food for the worms after we die, that's their fault.

 

My post stands as a solid, unmovable brick wall until someone can provide some scientific or empirical evidence to knock down that wall. Until then, all I'll see is "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah........".

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is plenty of proof you just deny the proof

wrong this is not what Islam is saying

Your an atheist no matter what is given to you as proof you will deny deny deny no matter what.

Well your just one amongst what millions of other people that believe that it is a holy book. Again muslims donot claim that the Quran is the only holy book from God, it is a Holy Book that has yet to be tampered with.

if thats the case then prove that you exist!

 

What scientific and emprical evidence is there? I have seen absolutely no valid content, that's for sure.

What is it saying? Isn't it saying that the Quran is the one true book from God? Hmmm?

No proof has been given to me so far. None.

It could be tampered with. Islam comes prepackaged in all sorts of flavours. You cannot say for sure it has not been modified, and many muslims in Dawah say that to loop in uneducated, ignorant and gullible kaffir into converting to your religion.

I exist because I am typing to you right now and replying to your posts. I exist because I am consciously aware of myself right now as I am typing this.

 

Prove your God exists and your religion is the right one. Go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I came here to post, not to make friends or influence people. If they wish to dismiss what I say and persist to bask in their delusional fanatasies that Islam is a man made fallacy just like any other religion and they refuse to accept that we are all food for the worms after we die, that's their fault.

 

My post stands as a solid, unmovable brick wall until someone can provide some scientific or empirical evidence to knock down that wall. Until then, all I'll see is "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah........".

My mistake. I confused you for a fellow who said (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 yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?act=findpost&pid=1209348"]he wanted to learn in his introductory post[/url].

Edited by the sad clown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but you said "make friends" and "influence people".

 

I said, "learn" and be "used for debate".

 

I don't know everything, but I do know that I didn't come here to make buddies with anyone or win over hearts and minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but you said "make friends" and "influence people".

 

I said, "learn" and be "used for debate".

 

I don't know everything, but I do know that I didn't come here to make buddies with anyone or win over hearts and minds.

(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 yetamazon(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/gp/product/1439167346/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0671723650&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0YRXZDR5006PXWGZB2NK"]How to win friends and influence people[/url]; it's a cultural reference. I thought you would have caught it. Basically, you are new here, and a little tact goes a long way towards developing the necessary rapport to have a debate. You can't have a discussion if no one is interested in what you have to say. People have limits to their time, and they aren't going to give it to people they think are nothing but irritating pricks (not saying you are, but you certainly could do a better job of letting people get to know you). Try going a little slower, ask more questions, and reduce the prognostication until you have a base of knowledge built up. And if you think you already have that base, you are either someone well educated in Islamic studies, which makes me wonder why you would be wasting your time debating on a internet forum, or else you need an extra helping of humility.

Edited by the sad clown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×