Hello & Welcome to our community. Is this your first visit? Register
Ads by Muslim Ad Network


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. #1
    Senior Member karkooshy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Quoted
    184 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    16

    A Summarized Proof for Islam



    Introduction

    All praise is due to Allah Lord of the worlds, and peace be upon our noble messenger Muhammed ﷺ. What follows is a summarized proof for Islam, simplified for average readers.

    The key to Islam is the testimony of faith, which is to bear witness that there is only One God and that Muhammed ﷺ is His messenger. Accordingly, the foundational claims of Islam are three: that God exists, that God is One, that Muhammed ﷺ is a prophet of God.


    Section 1 - The World is Emergent

    The existence of God is established by realizing that the bodies that make up the observable world around us, are all emergent. This necessitates the existence of a being that brought them into existence.

    “Emergent” meaning: their existence is preceded by their non-existence. In other words, they began to exist. That which is emergent will be called an “event”.

    “Body” meaning: that with dimensions (a height, width or depth) stretched out in space. Like stars, planets, mountains, oceans, plants, animals, humans...etc.

    All bodies are emergent because the alternative is absurd. The alternative being the existence of a body that is beginningless.

    It is impossible for a beginningless body to exist, because a body is inseparable from either the state of motion, or the state of rest. Meaning: it is impossible for a body to be neither at rest nor moving. So if a beginningless body existed, it would either have been:
    1. moving for eternity past
    2. at rest for eternity past
    3. alternating between motion and rest for eternity past

    All three of the above is impossible, and that which entails impossibility is impossible. So it is impossible for a beginningless body to exist. Proof for the impossibility of each category follows below.

    (1) a body that was moving for eternity past

    This is impossible because the state of motion exists contingently for a body. Meaning: a body that is moving, could have been not-moving. Since the state of motion exists contingently, this means it was brought into existence by some specifier that selected motion over the possible alternative. And since the state of motion was brought into existence, it could not have been beginningless. Therefore a body moving for eternity past is impossible.

    It is also impossible for a body to have been moving for eternity past, because motion is the body changing its location over time. Every transition from one location to another is an event in time, and it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past. And since the number of events in the past is finite, it is the case that the state of motion is emergent.



    The statement: “it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past” is true because “infinite” is equivalent to endlessness, while “completed” is equivalent to coming to an end. Therefore, an infinite sequence of events cannot be completed, since that is contradictory. It is like saying an endlessness came to an end. For this same reason, it is impossible for someone to finish counting all the negative numbers and finally reach zero. There’s an infinite number of negative numbers, you cannot “finish” counting them all.

    (2) a body that was at rest for eternity past

    This is impossible for the same two reasons the first category was impossible.

    The state of rest exists contingently. A body that is at rest, could have been not-resting. Accordingly, the state of rest could not have been beginningless.

    It is also impossible for a body to be at rest for eternity past, because rest is the body maintaining its same location over time. Every moment the body remains at rest in, is an event in time. And it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past.

    (3) a body that was alternating between motion and rest for eternity past

    This is impossible because each alternation from one state to another is an event in time, and it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past.

    Therefore, All Bodies are Emergent

    Given the impossibility of the three categories, it is the case that all bodies are emergent. This means all those bodies that make up the world around us - the sun, the moon, the trees..etc. - began to exist. From there, we can deduce the existence of God.


    Section 2 - The Existence of God

    “God” meaning: the beginningless creator.

    The emergence of all bodies necessitates the existence of a being that brought those bodies into existence. Let’s call this being “the creator”, since this being brings things into existence (and this is what “create” means).

    The creator that brought those bodies into existence is either without beginning, or is emergent.

    If the creator is without beginning, then the existence of God is established. Since a beginningless creator is what we intend when we say “God”.

    If the creator is emergent, then this creator would itself be contingent upon a second creator to have brought it into existence. This could not have regressed to the past infinitely, as that necessitates the completion of an infinite number of past events (which is impossible, as detailed above). It is therefore the case that a beginningless creator necessarily exist.

    Therefore, God necessarily exists.

    It is also necessary that the Creator of the emergent world be attributed with the ability to bring the emergent world into existence. Otherwise, there would be no sense in Him being the “Creator”. This ability to bring things into existence is what we call “Power”.

    God also, cannot be a mechanical cause for the existence of the world (such that the effect only exists because the cause exists), since God is beginningless while the world is emergent (a beginningless mechanical cause, would instead yield a beginningless effect). It is therefore necessary that the Creator of the emergent world be attributed with a quality that allows Him to select existence for this specific world (with all its specific properties) over the possible alternatives. This attribute is what is called “Will”.

    God is also necessarily attributed with Knowledge. In order for a being to volitionally select one choice over others, this being must possess knowledge of those choices. As such, it is impossible for a being attributed with Will to not also be attributed with Knowledge. And since the Creator is necessarily attributed with Will, He is therefore necessarily attributed with Knowledge.


    Section 3 - God is One

    God is necessarily One because the alternative is absurd. The alternative being a multiplicity of creators.

    If there was a second creator, then this second creator would either:
    1. be able to disagree with the first creator.
    2. be unable to disagree with the first creator.

    Both of the categories listed above are impossible. And that which entails impossibility is impossible. So if we can demonstrate the impossibility of the two categories, we can demonstrate the impossibility of partnership to the Creator.

    (1) The second creator is able to disagree with the first creator

    This is impossible because possibilities are mutually exclusive with their negations. So if the two creators could disagree with one another, this would lead to contradiction.

    For example: suppose there were two creators, and suppose the existence of some body. If we believe that those creators could disagree: this means one creator can move the body, while the other creator can keep the body at rest. Obviously however, this body cannot be both at rest and in motion (since rest and motion are mutually exclusive).

    (2) the second creator is unable to disagree with the first creator

    This is impossible because it means this second creator is forced to agree with the other. This entails contingency, which is impossible for a beginningless Creator who is necessarily non-contingent.

    For example: suppose there were two creators, and suppose the existence of some body. If we believe that those creators could not disagree: this means that if the first creator moved the body, the second creator cannot keep the body at rest. This second creator is helpless, weaker than the first, and forced to comply with what the first creator decides. It means this second creator’s will and power have been specified by the will and power of the first creator, and this is impossible.

    Therefore, God is One

    The impossibility of both categories was demonstrated above. Therefore, it is impossible for there to exist a partner to the One Creator. All events that emerge into existence, emerge by this One Creator’s Will and Power, and no one else’s.


    Section 4 - Prophethood

    God can choose to reveal certain commandments to a single man so that this man can then deliver those commandments to the rest of mankind. This is possible for God to do (not necessary nor impossible). This man would be called a prophet.

    To convince mankind that a claimant to prophethood is truthful, God can aid this prophet with miracles. A miracle is an extraordinary event that God aids His prophet with in order to prove this prophet’s truthfulness to doubters. It is equivalent to God saying: “this man has told the truth about Me.” As such, if we know a miracle occurred for some claimant to prophethood, then we can know that this claimant to prophethood is truthful. A useful analogy to help conceptualize this:

    Imagine you were attending an important gathering at the Royal Palace. In the throne-room, you see the King sitting atop his throne. Surrounding the King are his guards, his viziers, as well as the noblemen of the kingdom.

    Suddenly a Stranger enters the throne-room, and begins offering a declaration to the crowd in a loud and clear voice. Everyone else falls silent and listens to this Stranger’s speech. The Stranger begins: “O people, I am a messenger from your King to you.” The Stranger points to the King, who is sitting on the throne in front of him. The Stranger continues: “The words which I will speak to you are not my own, but are the words of your King who sent me. Whatever I command, I command in your King’s name. And whatever I forbid, I forbid in your King’s name.”

    You notice that the King is silently sitting on his throne. The King is looking directly at this Stranger. He can clearly hear this Stranger make those claims. With a gesture of his hand, the King could order the guards to seize this Stranger and behead him where he stands to prove that he is a liar. But the King does not do that. The King continues to silently listen to the Stranger’s declaration.

    The Stranger continues: “Whoever obeys those commandments which I will deliver to you from your King, the King has promised to reward graciously tomorrow morning. And whoever disobeys those commandments, the King has threatened to behead tomorrow morning…”

    The King is still silently listening to the Stranger make his claims.

    The Stranger finishes his declaration by saying: “…And to prove that I really am a messenger from the King, the King has told me that he would stand up and then sit down three times consecutively after I complete this sentence.”

    Once the Stranger completes this sentence, all eyes turn to the King. Suddenly the King - and without uttering a word to the crowd - stands up then sits down, then stands up then sits down, then stands up then sits down.

    Now we ask: at this moment, and after witnessing what transpired in this gathering, can there be any doubt that this Stranger is a true messenger from the King? No. The sincere truth-seeker would hold no doubt. Even if the King verbally declared “He is my messenger” then this would not have been any more convincing. Rather, an observer to this scene would attain certainty that the Stranger was a messenger from the King.

    The King standing up and sitting down three times consecutively, was an extraordinary event that occurred upon the request of the Stranger who claimed to have been a messenger from the King. By knowing that this extraordinary event occurred, one attains certainty that this Stranger was indeed telling the truth. Similarly, we can be certain that a claimant to prophethood is truthful if this claimant is aided by an extraordinary event (i.e. a miracle).


    Section 5 - The Prophethood of Muhammed

    We can know with certainty that Muhammed ﷺ is a Prophet of God. This knowledge is established by Mass Transmitted proofs.

    Information relayed to us by Mass Transmission provides certainty because it is inconceivable for those relaying this information to all get together and conspire to tell the same lie. For example: a man today might not have personally visited Japan. However, this man can be certain that a country called Japan actually exists. This is because the information relayed to this man about Japan reached him from so many different sources, that it becomes inconceivable for all those people to have gotten together in a grand conspiracy to lie about the existence of Japan.

    We know Muhammed ﷺ claimed prophethood by Mass Transmission.

    We know Muhammed ﷺ is a true Prophet for several reasons, all supported by Mass Transmission. Three of which include:

    5.1 The Quran

    Muhammed ﷺ was aided with the Quran, which is a miracle in its own right. And a claimant to prophethood, who is aided by a miracle, is certainly a prophet.

    The Quran is a literary miracle. The language of the Quran is unlike any other Arabic text. Linguistically, it is vastly superior to anything that came before it, and vastly superior to everything that came after.

    The non-Arabic speaker might not be able to directly appreciate why the Quran is linguistically miraculous, but they can indirectly deduce this by considering the following facts:

    First: the Quran challenges the reader to produce a Chapter like it . This is a challenge that the Quran lays out for anyone who doubts its miraculousness. We know for certain that the Quran actually made this challenge, because we know the Quran has been preserved throughout history. We know it has been preserved, because it reached us by way of Mass Transmission.

    Second: the Arabs of Muhammed’s ﷺ time were expert poets. Likely, the best in the Arabic language in all of history. The Arabic language became diluted over time as Islam spread around the world. Non-Arabs learning Arabic were often not as proficient as native speakers, and quirky dialects for the language emerged all over the Muslim world. It is unlikely that Arabic - as a commonly spoken language - will ever return to the pristine condition it once enjoyed during the years of pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabia. All of the above is known by Mass Transmission. To this day, Arabic linguists use pre-Islamic and early Islamic poetry as a template for grammatical and linguistic rules.

    Third: the pagan Arabs of Muhammed’s ﷺ time were heavily invested in destroying Islam, and disproving the prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ. This is also known by Mass transmission. It is common knowledge that Muhammed ﷺ fought many wars against the Pagans.

    From the above, one can deduce the following: if the pagan Arabs were truly capable of fulfilling the Quranic challenge, and given their extreme desire to destroy Islam, they would have saved themselves the time, money, and manpower, and they would have simply cooperated with each other in order to produce a text which rivaled the Quran linguistically. But they did not, and Islam ultimately prevailed (this is also known by Mass Transmission). And this is despite the poetic proficiency of the pagan Arabs.

    With the above, the miraculousness of the Quran’s language can be appreciated, even by the non-Arabic speaker.

    5.2 Physical Miracles

    Muhammed ﷺ was aided by many physical miracles. Miracles including accurately prophesying future events, multiplication of food and water, and instantaneously healing wounds. In totality, there are hundreds upon hundreds of different narrations reporting the miracles Muhammed ﷺ was aided with.

    All those miracles, when taken collectively, provide Mass Transmitted proof that Muhammed ﷺ was aided by some miracle. And a claimant to prophethood, who is aided by a miracle, is certainly a prophet.

    5.3 His Life

    The Prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ can also be established by considering his life.

    Either Muhammed ﷺ was sincere, or he was a liar. “Sincere” meaning: he truly believed that he was recieving revelation from God. “Liar” meaning: he knew that he was not receiving revelation from God, and deliberately lied by claiming that he was.

    The second option (that he was a deliberate liar) is certainly false, so the first (that he was sincere) is certainly true. We know the second option is false, because we know (by Mass Transmission) that Muhammed ﷺ refused bribery and suffered through hardship in order to deliver the message of Islam. Muhammed ﷺ suffered persecution in Mecca. He risked his life fighting many wars to defend the cause of Islam. He also lived humbly, spending all his wealth to serve the religion. Those are not the qualities of a liar.

    We can only conclude that Muhammed ﷺ was - at the very least - personally convinced that he was a Prophet.

    Given Muhammed’s ﷺ sincerity: either he was a true Prophet, or he was madman. “True Prophet” meaning: He truly believed to have been communicating with God, and he actually was communicating with God. “Madman” meaning: He truly believed to have been communicating with God, but he actually was not communicating with God (i.e. he was a madman who was just hearing voices in his head, a man who thought himself a prophet when he actually wasn’t).

    The second option (that he was a madman) is certainly false, so the first (that he was a true Prophet) is certainly true. We know the second option is false, because we know (by Mass Transmission) that Muhammed ﷺ was an exceedingly successful man. To assume he was successful because of his madness (i.e. because of the voices in his head) is especially ludicrous. Muhammed ﷺ started out his life as an orphan without anything, and ended his life as ruler over all of Arabia. He was a military genius, diplomat and the leader of a successful nation. His Companions were able to - thanks to his leadership and example - conquer the two super powers of the world in their time (the Sassanids, and the Byzantines).

    It is inconceivable that someone as successful as Muhammed ﷺ was a madman. It is especially inconceivable that such a man was successful because of his madness. Therefore, we can only conclude that he truly was a Prophet of God.


    Section 6 - The Rest of Revelation

    Now that the existence and Oneness of God was established, and the Prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ was established, it becomes incumbent upon the sane and mature person to affirm everything that can be reliably traced back to Prophet Muhammed ﷺ.

    The sane and mature person must believe in: the finality of prophethood with Prophet Muhammed ﷺ, the day of resurrection, in the eternal reward for the believers, in the eternal punishment of the disbelievers, as well as belief in anything else that can be reliably traced back to the Prophet ﷺ.

    The sane and mature thinker must also submit to the Law that the Prophet ﷺ delivered from Allah سبحانه و تعالى (the name of God according to revelation), and instructed mankind to abide by.


    Conclusion

    The three core claims that the Islamic faith is founded upon have been proven above. The three claims being: the existence of God, the Oneness of God, and the prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ. Examining the arguments offered above in more depth, can also provide proof against many of the false religions in the world today.

    And Allah سبحانه و تعالى is the one who guides and leads astray. With His mercy, He guides whomsoever He wills from the darkness of disbelief and ignorance, to the light of faith and knowledge.

  2. #41
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    21 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by karkooshy View Post
    In literary quality. The Quranic challenge is not unknown. And this has also been explicitly mentioned, both in the OP and in my first response to you.
    Right, okay. But this is just way too vague. I need much more than that. Much, much more.

    Literary quality is a highly subjective thing. In my opinion, Ambrose Bierce's literature is the finest ever written. But he's a little obscure, so I tend to go with The Lord of the Rings as a fine example of literature, far superior to the Qur'an. Other people think the Bible is a superior piece of literature, and I tend to agree it has the Qur'an beat (although even the Bible pales next to Tolkien or Bierce).

    That's why I need something more than some vague nod to "literary quality." We need something with at least a modicum of objectivity.

    Those aren’t problems that exist. They’re just empty claims from someone who’s knowledge of the Quran is limited to reading the first result, after googling “contradictions in the Quran”. Most importantly, they don’t address the argument you quoted, so I’m not sure what the point was in your saying “let me zoom in on just one subsection”.
    I have explained how they are relevant.

    I don't mind dealing with your argument in due time, but I just don't want to get the cart before the horse. We need to be clear about the nature and function of the Qur'anic challenge, first, before we can get to your argument about it.

    Where was this claimed? Or did you think that nomic necessities are limited to natural laws?
    Nomic necessity refers to natural laws, yes.

    You argued that aesthetics are subjective and so cannot be used to objectively judge a literary piece. Then you claimed that inimitable literary works exist. But if inimitable literary works existed, then there does exist some objective standard by which you’ve been able to determine their being inimitable, and this contradicts your subjectivity claim.
    The last bit doesn't follow. And in fact, they could be inimitable in a subjective sense. But this is not essential to the main line of discussion, so maybe we should leave it be.
    Last edited by hatsoff; 13-11-17 at 05:44 AM.

  3. #42
    Senior Member karkooshy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Quoted
    184 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
    Right, okay. But this is just way too vague. I need much more than that. Much, much more.

    Literary quality is a highly subjective thing.
    There are standards by which you can distinguish a highly eloquent piece from one that is not. If there were no standards, and if the only factor in determining the superiority of one work was the subjective opinion of the listener, then distinguished writers and poets wouldn’t exist. It would mean that if you present a child’s short poem and a Shakespearean sonnet to a large group of professional judges, and asked them each to decide which text is more eloquent, you would roughly half of them going for the child’s poem, and half going for Shakespeare’s sonnet. Obviously not a realistic result. In reality: you would have nearly all (if not all) of the judges preferring Shakespeare’s work. Why would this be the case if there were no objective standards?

    Subjectivity in judgment only exists, when comparing two works of similar literary quality. And this is what was meant when you were told that there aren’t any other inimitable works of literature. Because for any other literary work, you will find another that rivals it.

    And if the above did not apply to the English language (and I doubt it doesn’t), then rest assured that it does apply in Arabic. There are objective standards for measuring eloquence, which is the subject of a distinct science known as “‘ilm Al-Balagha”, in particular one of its branches called “ilm Al-Badi’”. However, we obviously do not expect the average non-Muslim to specialize in Arabic before accepting Islam. Which is why the argument from the OP was offered. Since you don’t need to understand Arabic to know that the poets opposing the Prophet ﷺ, would rather have come together to write a short poem, than spend their wealth and risk their lives in war.

    Quote Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
    In my opinion, Ambrose Bierce's literature is the finest ever written. But he's a little obscure, so I tend to go with The Lord of the Rings as a fine example of literature, far superior to the Qur'an. Other people think the Bible is a superior piece of literature, and I tend to agree it has the Qur'an beat (although even the Bible pales next to Tolkien or Bierce).
    Let me repeat in case you didn’t catch it the first time:

    None of the above was written in Arabic.

    None of the above has anything to do with the argument you quoted from the OP, since none of the above was authored by the pagan Arabs of the Prophet’s ﷺ time. So the fact remains that it is nomically necessary for the pagan Arabs to have been able to address the Quranic challenge, and their inability to do so, is therefore a negation of nomic necessity.

    Quote Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
    Nomic necessity refers to natural laws, yes.
    Nomic necessity can refer to natural laws. Knowledge about any correlation, established by repeated perception, is conviction that is true by nomic necessity. It can refer to natural laws (since natural laws are discovered by repeated experimentation), but it is not limited to them. For example: you know that it is nomically necessary for a report supported by a large group of independent witnesses, to be more reliable than a report supported by only one witness. This isn’t a natural law, but it is affirmed for the same reason natural laws are affirmed (i.e repeatedly experiencing the correlation).

  4. #43
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    21 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by karkooshy View Post
    There are standards by which you can distinguish a highly eloquent piece from one that is not. If there were no standards, and if the only factor in determining the superiority of one work was the subjective opinion of the listener, then distinguished writers and poets wouldn’t exist. It would mean that if you present a child’s short poem and a Shakespearean sonnet to a large group of professional judges, and asked them each to decide which text is more eloquent, you would roughly half of them going for the child’s poem, and half going for Shakespeare’s sonnet. Obviously not a realistic result. In reality: you would have nearly all (if not all) of the judges preferring Shakespeare’s work. Why would this be the case if there were no objective standards?

    Subjectivity in judgment only exists, when comparing two works of similar literary quality. And this is what was meant when you were told that there aren’t any other inimitable works of literature. Because for any other literary work, you will find another that rivals it.
    That there exist certain trends in people's literary tastes and opinions doesn't make them any less subjective.

    Now, you can always make up rulebooks and theories of literary criticism, and stuff like that, but they're all ultimately founded in people's subjective preferences. At the end of the day, people appreciate whatever they happen to appreciate. You may be impressed by the Quran. Others may not. Who is the arbiter of disagreement?

    And if the above did not apply to the English language (and I doubt it doesn’t), then rest assured that it does apply in Arabic. There are objective standards for measuring eloquence, which is the subject of a distinct science known as “‘ilm Al-Balagha”, in particular one of its branches called “ilm Al-Badi’”. However, we obviously do not expect the average non-Muslim to specialize in Arabic before accepting Islam. Which is why the argument from the OP was offered. Since you don’t need to understand Arabic to know that the poets opposing the Prophet ﷺ, would rather have come together to write a short poem, than spend their wealth and risk their lives in war.
    First of all, how do you know they didn't write something you'd love more than the quran? Almost none of the literature of the day has survived to the present.

    But either way, I doubt the opponents of Islam would have been too concerned about writing poems. That's not how battles are won, nor is it how to convert followers.

    Let me repeat in case you didn’t catch it the first time:

    None of the above was written in Arabic.

    None of the above has anything to do with the argument you quoted from the OP, since none of the above was authored by the pagan Arabs of the Prophet’s ﷺ time. So the fact remains that it is nomically necessary for the pagan Arabs to have been able to address the Quranic challenge, and their inability to do so, is therefore a negation of nomic necessity.
    It doesn't matter what language we use. The fact is, Lord of the Rings is far and away a better work of literature than the Quran. And so the quranic challenge, as you describe it as being purely about literary quality, has been met.

  5. #44
    Senior Member karkooshy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Quoted
    184 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
    That there exist certain trends in people's literary tastes and opinions doesn't make them any less subjective.

    Now, you can always make up rulebooks and theories of literary criticism, and stuff like that, but they're all ultimately founded in people's subjective preferences. At the end of the day, people appreciate whatever they happen to appreciate. You may be impressed by the Quran. Others may not. Who is the arbiter of disagreement?
    This discussion is not about opinions. It’s about literary quality. If a piece is eloquent, it is so in of itself. You make it sound like there’s nothing special about the Sonnets, and that the judges’ selecting it over the child’s poem, is out of sheer coincidence (i.e. those particular judges just happen to think the Sonnets are more eloquent). Ridiculous, even to you I hope.

    Eloquence is not “founded in people's subjective preferences”, but upon the standards that define the language in question.

    The arbiters would be those who understand the language best. In the case of the Quranic challenge, the poets of the Prophet’s ﷺ time.

    Quote Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
    First of all, how do you know they didn't write something you'd love more than the quran? Almost none of the literature of the day has survived to the present.

    But either way, I doubt the opponents of Islam would have been too concerned about writing poems. That's not how battles are won, nor is it how to convert followers.
    If the challenge were met, then Islam wouldn’t exist today. For if the pagans did fulfill the challenge, then they would have decisively disproven the Prophet’s ﷺ claims to prophethood right then and there. And the opponents of Islam would have sought to fulfill the challenge if they could, given that their only alternative in their battle against Islam, involved them risking their lives in physical war.

    Also the best poetry from that time did survive. The top poems that the pagans would hang on the walls of the Ka’bah, the seven Mu’alaqat, are freely available to read online. And there is a lot more poetry that did survive from pre-Islamic Arabia. Here’s a list of over 300 poems.

    Quote Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
    It doesn't matter what language we use. The fact is, Lord of the Rings is far and away a better work of literature than the Quran. And so the quranic challenge, as you describe it as being purely about literary quality, has been met.
    Apart from it being painfully obvious that you didn’t read the Quran in the first place, one does not need to be a genius to understand that one cannot compare the literary quality of two works, written in two completely different languages. Since the standards for eloquence obviously vary from one language to another.

    One also wonders how you’ve been able to establish this “fact”, when you do not believe objective standards for judging literature exist? Another contradiction? Or maybe “facts” are also subjective in hatsoff’s imaginary world?

  6. #45
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    21 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by karkooshy View Post
    This discussion is not about opinions. It’s about literary quality. If a piece is eloquent, it is so in of itself. You make it sound like there’s nothing special about the Sonnets, and that the judges’ selecting it over the child’s poem, is out of sheer coincidence (i.e. those particular judges just happen to think the Sonnets are more eloquent). Ridiculous, even to you I hope.

    Eloquence is not “founded in people's subjective preferences”, but upon the standards that define the language in question.

    The arbiters would be those who understand the language best. In the case of the Quranic challenge, the poets of the Prophet’s ﷺ time.



    If the challenge were met, then Islam wouldn’t exist today. For if the pagans did fulfill the challenge, then they would have decisively disproven the Prophet’s ﷺ claims to prophethood right then and there. And the opponents of Islam would have sought to fulfill the challenge if they could, given that their only alternative in their battle against Islam, involved them risking their lives in physical war.

    Also the best poetry from that time did survive. The top poems that the pagans would hang on the walls of the Ka’bah, the seven Mu’alaqat, are freely available to read online. And there is a lot more poetry that did survive from pre-Islamic Arabia. Here’s a list of over 300 poems.



    Apart from it being painfully obvious that you didn’t read the Quran in the first place, one does not need to be a genius to understand that one cannot compare the literary quality of two works, written in two completely different languages. Since the standards for eloquence obviously vary from one language to another.

    One also wonders how you’ve been able to establish this “fact”, when you do not believe objective standards for judging literature exist? Another contradiction? Or maybe “facts” are also subjective in hatsoff’s imaginary world?
    Again, that there are definite trends in people's values and opinions doesn't make them any less subjective. It just means they aren't random. So, yes, a majority of people might find a Shakespearean sonnet more eloquent---although eloquence isn't the only ingredient to literary quality---than a child's poem. But there's no objective measurement going on there beyond a head count.

    But in any case, there's nothing preventing us from comparing the literary quality of the Quran with Lord of the rings, the different languages notwithstanding. If you have an objective measurement for Arabic works that doesn't work for English ones, that might be one thing. But you don't. And so I'm perfectly free to judge Lord of the rings as so much better.

    Does that make my opinion into something objective? No. You might have a different opinion, and it would be no less valid.

    Finally, this idea that Islam wouldn't exist if the poets of Muhammad's time produced a good enough poem is, frankly, silly. Religious zealots are notoriously immune to persuasion. And anyway, the quranic challenge doesn't make sense as objective evidence because it's not objective. No matter how good some rival poem, you can always find people to disagree.
    Last edited by hatsoff; 14-11-17 at 09:39 PM.

  7. #46
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    21 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

    One last thing:

    Quote Originally Posted by karkooshy View Post
    And there is a lot more poetry that did survive from pre-Islamic Arabia. Here’s a list of over 300 poems.
    I stand corrected---I didn't realize there was quite this much pre-Islamic poetry still around. However, my general point still stands that it's a small fraction of the actual literary output of the day. We really don't know what kind of gems failed to survive.

    I'm also curious whether some people like the pre-Islamic poetry better than the Qur'an. I'm willing to bet yes.

    But anyway, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. There's no reason we need to limit ourselves to literary output in a certain language, much less a certain time period.

  8. #47
    striving to be sincere Abu Kamel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    5,621
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1579 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    182

    Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by karkooshy View Post


    Introduction

    All praise is due to Allah Lord of the worlds, and peace be upon our noble messenger Muhammed ﷺ. What follows is a summarized proof for Islam, simplified for average readers.

    The key to Islam is the testimony of faith, which is to bear witness that there is only One God and that Muhammed ﷺ is His messenger. Accordingly, the foundational claims of Islam are three: that God exists, that God is One, that Muhammed ﷺ is a prophet of God.


    Section 1 - The World is Emergent

    The existence of God is established by realizing that the bodies that make up the observable world around us, are all emergent. This necessitates the existence of a being that brought them into existence.

    “Emergent” meaning: their existence is preceded by their non-existence. In other words, they began to exist. That which is emergent will be called an “event”.

    “Body” meaning: that with dimensions (a height, width or depth) stretched out in space. Like stars, planets, mountains, oceans, plants, animals, humans...etc.

    All bodies are emergent because the alternative is absurd. The alternative being the existence of a body that is beginningless.

    It is impossible for a beginningless body to exist, because a body is inseparable from either the state of motion, or the state of rest. Meaning: it is impossible for a body to be neither at rest nor moving. So if a beginningless body existed, it would either have been:
    1. moving for eternity past
    2. at rest for eternity past
    3. alternating between motion and rest for eternity past

    All three of the above is impossible, and that which entails impossibility is impossible. So it is impossible for a beginningless body to exist. Proof for the impossibility of each category follows below.

    (1) a body that was moving for eternity past

    This is impossible because the state of motion exists contingently for a body. Meaning: a body that is moving, could have been not-moving. Since the state of motion exists contingently, this means it was brought into existence by some specifier that selected motion over the possible alternative. And since the state of motion was brought into existence, it could not have been beginningless. Therefore a body moving for eternity past is impossible.

    It is also impossible for a body to have been moving for eternity past, because motion is the body changing its location over time. Every transition from one location to another is an event in time, and it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past. And since the number of events in the past is finite, it is the case that the state of motion is emergent.



    The statement: “it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past” is true because “infinite” is equivalent to endlessness, while “completed” is equivalent to coming to an end. Therefore, an infinite sequence of events cannot be completed, since that is contradictory. It is like saying an endlessness came to an end. For this same reason, it is impossible for someone to finish counting all the negative numbers and finally reach zero. There’s an infinite number of negative numbers, you cannot “finish” counting them all.

    (2) a body that was at rest for eternity past

    This is impossible for the same two reasons the first category was impossible.

    The state of rest exists contingently. A body that is at rest, could have been not-resting. Accordingly, the state of rest could not have been beginningless.

    It is also impossible for a body to be at rest for eternity past, because rest is the body maintaining its same location over time. Every moment the body remains at rest in, is an event in time. And it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past.

    (3) a body that was alternating between motion and rest for eternity past

    This is impossible because each alternation from one state to another is an event in time, and it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past.

    Therefore, All Bodies are Emergent

    Given the impossibility of the three categories, it is the case that all bodies are emergent. This means all those bodies that make up the world around us - the sun, the moon, the trees..etc. - began to exist. From there, we can deduce the existence of God.


    Section 2 - The Existence of God

    “God” meaning: the beginningless creator.

    The emergence of all bodies necessitates the existence of a being that brought those bodies into existence. Let’s call this being “the creator”, since this being brings things into existence (and this is what “create” means).

    The creator that brought those bodies into existence is either without beginning, or is emergent.

    If the creator is without beginning, then the existence of God is established. Since a beginningless creator is what we intend when we say “God”.

    If the creator is emergent, then this creator would itself be contingent upon a second creator to have brought it into existence. This could not have regressed to the past infinitely, as that necessitates the completion of an infinite number of past events (which is impossible, as detailed above). It is therefore the case that a beginningless creator necessarily exist.

    Therefore, God necessarily exists.

    It is also necessary that the Creator of the emergent world be attributed with the ability to bring the emergent world into existence. Otherwise, there would be no sense in Him being the “Creator”. This ability to bring things into existence is what we call “Power”.

    God also, cannot be a mechanical cause for the existence of the world (such that the effect only exists because the cause exists), since God is beginningless while the world is emergent (a beginningless mechanical cause, would instead yield a beginningless effect). It is therefore necessary that the Creator of the emergent world be attributed with a quality that allows Him to select existence for this specific world (with all its specific properties) over the possible alternatives. This attribute is what is called “Will”.

    God is also necessarily attributed with Knowledge. In order for a being to volitionally select one choice over others, this being must possess knowledge of those choices. As such, it is impossible for a being attributed with Will to not also be attributed with Knowledge. And since the Creator is necessarily attributed with Will, He is therefore necessarily attributed with Knowledge.


    Section 3 - God is One

    God is necessarily One because the alternative is absurd. The alternative being a multiplicity of creators.

    If there was a second creator, then this second creator would either:
    1. be able to disagree with the first creator.
    2. be unable to disagree with the first creator.

    Both of the categories listed above are impossible. And that which entails impossibility is impossible. So if we can demonstrate the impossibility of the two categories, we can demonstrate the impossibility of partnership to the Creator.

    (1) The second creator is able to disagree with the first creator

    This is impossible because possibilities are mutually exclusive with their negations. So if the two creators could disagree with one another, this would lead to contradiction.

    For example: suppose there were two creators, and suppose the existence of some body. If we believe that those creators could disagree: this means one creator can move the body, while the other creator can keep the body at rest. Obviously however, this body cannot be both at rest and in motion (since rest and motion are mutually exclusive).

    (2) the second creator is unable to disagree with the first creator

    This is impossible because it means this second creator is forced to agree with the other. This entails contingency, which is impossible for a beginningless Creator who is necessarily non-contingent.

    For example: suppose there were two creators, and suppose the existence of some body. If we believe that those creators could not disagree: this means that if the first creator moved the body, the second creator cannot keep the body at rest. This second creator is helpless, weaker than the first, and forced to comply with what the first creator decides. It means this second creator’s will and power have been specified by the will and power of the first creator, and this is impossible.

    Therefore, God is One

    The impossibility of both categories was demonstrated above. Therefore, it is impossible for there to exist a partner to the One Creator. All events that emerge into existence, emerge by this One Creator’s Will and Power, and no one else’s.


    Section 4 - Prophethood

    God can choose to reveal certain commandments to a single man so that this man can then deliver those commandments to the rest of mankind. This is possible for God to do (not necessary nor impossible). This man would be called a prophet.

    To convince mankind that a claimant to prophethood is truthful, God can aid this prophet with miracles. A miracle is an extraordinary event that God aids His prophet with in order to prove this prophet’s truthfulness to doubters. It is equivalent to God saying: “this man has told the truth about Me.” As such, if we know a miracle occurred for some claimant to prophethood, then we can know that this claimant to prophethood is truthful. A useful analogy to help conceptualize this:

    Imagine you were attending an important gathering at the Royal Palace. In the throne-room, you see the King sitting atop his throne. Surrounding the King are his guards, his viziers, as well as the noblemen of the kingdom.

    Suddenly a Stranger enters the throne-room, and begins offering a declaration to the crowd in a loud and clear voice. Everyone else falls silent and listens to this Stranger’s speech. The Stranger begins: “O people, I am a messenger from your King to you.” The Stranger points to the King, who is sitting on the throne in front of him. The Stranger continues: “The words which I will speak to you are not my own, but are the words of your King who sent me. Whatever I command, I command in your King’s name. And whatever I forbid, I forbid in your King’s name.”

    You notice that the King is silently sitting on his throne. The King is looking directly at this Stranger. He can clearly hear this Stranger make those claims. With a gesture of his hand, the King could order the guards to seize this Stranger and behead him where he stands to prove that he is a liar. But the King does not do that. The King continues to silently listen to the Stranger’s declaration.

    The Stranger continues: “Whoever obeys those commandments which I will deliver to you from your King, the King has promised to reward graciously tomorrow morning. And whoever disobeys those commandments, the King has threatened to behead tomorrow morning…”

    The King is still silently listening to the Stranger make his claims.

    The Stranger finishes his declaration by saying: “…And to prove that I really am a messenger from the King, the King has told me that he would stand up and then sit down three times consecutively after I complete this sentence.”

    Once the Stranger completes this sentence, all eyes turn to the King. Suddenly the King - and without uttering a word to the crowd - stands up then sits down, then stands up then sits down, then stands up then sits down.

    Now we ask: at this moment, and after witnessing what transpired in this gathering, can there be any doubt that this Stranger is a true messenger from the King? No. The sincere truth-seeker would hold no doubt. Even if the King verbally declared “He is my messenger” then this would not have been any more convincing. Rather, an observer to this scene would attain certainty that the Stranger was a messenger from the King.

    The King standing up and sitting down three times consecutively, was an extraordinary event that occurred upon the request of the Stranger who claimed to have been a messenger from the King. By knowing that this extraordinary event occurred, one attains certainty that this Stranger was indeed telling the truth. Similarly, we can be certain that a claimant to prophethood is truthful if this claimant is aided by an extraordinary event (i.e. a miracle).


    Section 5 - The Prophethood of Muhammed

    We can know with certainty that Muhammed ﷺ is a Prophet of God. This knowledge is established by Mass Transmitted proofs.

    Information relayed to us by Mass Transmission provides certainty because it is inconceivable for those relaying this information to all get together and conspire to tell the same lie. For example: a man today might not have personally visited Japan. However, this man can be certain that a country called Japan actually exists. This is because the information relayed to this man about Japan reached him from so many different sources, that it becomes inconceivable for all those people to have gotten together in a grand conspiracy to lie about the existence of Japan.

    We know Muhammed ﷺ claimed prophethood by Mass Transmission.

    We know Muhammed ﷺ is a true Prophet for several reasons, all supported by Mass Transmission. Three of which include:

    5.1 The Quran

    Muhammed ﷺ was aided with the Quran, which is a miracle in its own right. And a claimant to prophethood, who is aided by a miracle, is certainly a prophet.

    The Quran is a literary miracle. The language of the Quran is unlike any other Arabic text. Linguistically, it is vastly superior to anything that came before it, and vastly superior to everything that came after.

    The non-Arabic speaker might not be able to directly appreciate why the Quran is linguistically miraculous, but they can indirectly deduce this by considering the following facts:

    First: the Quran challenges the reader to produce a Chapter like it . This is a challenge that the Quran lays out for anyone who doubts its miraculousness. We know for certain that the Quran actually made this challenge, because we know the Quran has been preserved throughout history. We know it has been preserved, because it reached us by way of Mass Transmission.

    Second: the Arabs of Muhammed’s ﷺ time were expert poets. Likely, the best in the Arabic language in all of history. The Arabic language became diluted over time as Islam spread around the world. Non-Arabs learning Arabic were often not as proficient as native speakers, and quirky dialects for the language emerged all over the Muslim world. It is unlikely that Arabic - as a commonly spoken language - will ever return to the pristine condition it once enjoyed during the years of pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabia. All of the above is known by Mass Transmission. To this day, Arabic linguists use pre-Islamic and early Islamic poetry as a template for grammatical and linguistic rules.

    Third: the pagan Arabs of Muhammed’s ﷺ time were heavily invested in destroying Islam, and disproving the prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ. This is also known by Mass transmission. It is common knowledge that Muhammed ﷺ fought many wars against the Pagans.

    From the above, one can deduce the following: if the pagan Arabs were truly capable of fulfilling the Quranic challenge, and given their extreme desire to destroy Islam, they would have saved themselves the time, money, and manpower, and they would have simply cooperated with each other in order to produce a text which rivaled the Quran linguistically. But they did not, and Islam ultimately prevailed (this is also known by Mass Transmission). And this is despite the poetic proficiency of the pagan Arabs.

    With the above, the miraculousness of the Quran’s language can be appreciated, even by the non-Arabic speaker.

    5.2 Physical Miracles

    Muhammed ﷺ was aided by many physical miracles. Miracles including accurately prophesying future events, multiplication of food and water, and instantaneously healing wounds. In totality, there are hundreds upon hundreds of different narrations reporting the miracles Muhammed ﷺ was aided with.

    All those miracles, when taken collectively, provide Mass Transmitted proof that Muhammed ﷺ was aided by some miracle. And a claimant to prophethood, who is aided by a miracle, is certainly a prophet.

    5.3 His Life

    The Prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ can also be established by considering his life.

    Either Muhammed ﷺ was sincere, or he was a liar. “Sincere” meaning: he truly believed that he was recieving revelation from God. “Liar” meaning: he knew that he was not receiving revelation from God, and deliberately lied by claiming that he was.

    The second option (that he was a deliberate liar) is certainly false, so the first (that he was sincere) is certainly true. We know the second option is false, because we know (by Mass Transmission) that Muhammed ﷺ refused bribery and suffered through hardship in order to deliver the message of Islam. Muhammed ﷺ suffered persecution in Mecca. He risked his life fighting many wars to defend the cause of Islam. He also lived humbly, spending all his wealth to serve the religion. Those are not the qualities of a liar.

    We can only conclude that Muhammed ﷺ was - at the very least - personally convinced that he was a Prophet.

    Given Muhammed’s ﷺ sincerity: either he was a true Prophet, or he was madman. “True Prophet” meaning: He truly believed to have been communicating with God, and he actually was communicating with God. “Madman” meaning: He truly believed to have been communicating with God, but he actually was not communicating with God (i.e. he was a madman who was just hearing voices in his head, a man who thought himself a prophet when he actually wasn’t).

    The second option (that he was a madman) is certainly false, so the first (that he was a true Prophet) is certainly true. We know the second option is false, because we know (by Mass Transmission) that Muhammed ﷺ was an exceedingly successful man. To assume he was successful because of his madness (i.e. because of the voices in his head) is especially ludicrous. Muhammed ﷺ started out his life as an orphan without anything, and ended his life as ruler over all of Arabia. He was a military genius, diplomat and the leader of a successful nation. His Companions were able to - thanks to his leadership and example - conquer the two super powers of the world in their time (the Sassanids, and the Byzantines).

    It is inconceivable that someone as successful as Muhammed ﷺ was a madman. It is especially inconceivable that such a man was successful because of his madness. Therefore, we can only conclude that he truly was a Prophet of God.


    Section 6 - The Rest of Revelation

    Now that the existence and Oneness of God was established, and the Prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ was established, it becomes incumbent upon the sane and mature person to affirm everything that can be reliably traced back to Prophet Muhammed ﷺ.

    The sane and mature person must believe in: the finality of prophethood with Prophet Muhammed ﷺ, the day of resurrection, in the eternal reward for the believers, in the eternal punishment of the disbelievers, as well as belief in anything else that can be reliably traced back to the Prophet ﷺ.

    The sane and mature thinker must also submit to the Law that the Prophet ﷺ delivered from Allah سبحانه و تعالى (the name of God according to revelation), and instructed mankind to abide by.


    Conclusion

    The three core claims that the Islamic faith is founded upon have been proven above. The three claims being: the existence of God, the Oneness of God, and the prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ. Examining the arguments offered above in more depth, can also provide proof against many of the false religions in the world today.

    And Allah سبحانه و تعالى is the one who guides and leads astray. With His mercy, He guides whomsoever He wills from the darkness of disbelief and ignorance, to the light of faith and knowledge.
    for excellent post. Also, don't waste anymore of your time and energy on this filth hatsoff.
    Allahumma, aranee al haqqu haqqan wa arzuqnee itiba`ahu, wa aranee al baatilu baatilaan wa arzuqnee ijtinaabahu.Oh Allah! show us the truth as true, and inspire us to follow it. Show us falsehood as falsehood, and inspire us to abstain from it.
    " Do you know what destroys Islam? A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray

  9. #48
    Senior Member karkooshy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Quoted
    184 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Kamel View Post
    for excellent post. Also, don't waste anymore of your time and energy on this filth hatsoff.
    Wa Iyakum. It is a little tedious, but let’s give him one more chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
    Again, that there are definite trends in people's values and opinions doesn't make them any less subjective. It just means they aren't random. So, yes, a majority of people might find a Shakespearean sonnet more eloquent---although eloquence isn't the only ingredient to literary quality---than a child's poem. But there's no objective measurement going on there beyond a head count
    Quote Originally Posted by karkooshy View Post
    This discussion is not about opinions. It’s about literary quality. If a piece is eloquent, it is so in of itself.
    To make matters super simple for you: imagine if you typed up a sequence of random Arabic letters that made no sense in the Arabic language. And you were told by Arabic speakers that what you typed is meaningless. Would an appropriate retort be: “I’m writing meaningful Arabic… in my opinion!”? No. Because your opinion doesn’t matter. Arabic, like all other languages, is defined by standards. And those standards are what’s used to judge literature. Not a difficult concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
    If you have an objective measurement for Arabic works that doesn't work for English ones, that might be one thing. But you don't. And so I'm perfectly free to judge Lord of the rings as so much better.
    Quote Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
    There's no reason we need to limit ourselves to literary output in a certain language
    Trolling again? There are vast differences between the considerations taken when judging works in Arabic versus English. Amongst them are the idioms that are unique to each language, the utilization of transfixes (given that Arabic words are based on tri-consonantal roots, unlike English words), the set meters (“Bihar”) that Arabic poems fall into…etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
    Does that make my opinion into something objective? No. You might have a different opinion, and it would be no less valid.
    Your opinion is irrelevant, as is mine.

    Your opinion is especially irrelevant given the fact that you didn’t even read the text in question.

    Quote Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
    Finally, this idea that Islam wouldn't exist if the poets of Muhammad's time produced a good enough poem is, frankly, silly. Religious zealots are notoriously immune to persuasion.
    The early Muslims remained a persecuted minority for most of the Prophet’s ﷺ mission. They had no reason to follow him unless they sincerely believe in his prophethood, and every reason to abandon his cause had they even suspected that he was a false prophet (which would have been the case, had the Quranic challenge been met). Not to mention of course, all those Arabs who converted to Islam because of the Quran’s being a literary miracle. So yes, if the challenge was met, then this religion wouldn’t exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
    But anyway, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. There's no reason we need to limit ourselves to literary output in a certain language, much less a certain time period.
    There is reason for one who has not specialized in ‘ilm Balagha, which was the whole point of the argument in the OP.

    The prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ can be proven by establishing that he was aided by some miracle. Any miracle will do. And we do not need to prove that the Quran surpasses all the works that came before and after it (which it does), in order to achieve this. Since the inability of the pagan poets of the Prophet's ﷺ time, to produce a work that rivals the Quran, is a miracle in of itself. It is therefore sufficient proof for prophethood, without needing to take anything else into consideration.

    Al-Baqilani compares it to a prophet who challenges his opponents to move their hands, when Allah ﷻ prevents them from this act for the timeframe of the prophet’s challenge. This is a negation of nomic necessity for those people, and is as such miraculous. Likewise, Allah ﷻ preventing the pagans from being able to address the Quranic challenge, is a negation of nomic necessity for them, and is as such miraculous.

    Trying to compare the Quran to other literary works that were not authored by the pagans, therefore completely misses the point of the argument.

  10. #49
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    21 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by karkooshy View Post
    To make matters super simple for you: imagine if you typed up a sequence of random Arabic letters that made no sense in the Arabic language. And you were told by Arabic speakers that what you typed is meaningless. Would an appropriate retort be: “I’m writing meaningful Arabic… in my opinion!”? No. Because your opinion doesn’t matter. Arabic, like all other languages, is defined by standards. And those standards are what’s used to judge literature. Not a difficult concept.
    Well, meaning is different from literary quality. I'd rather not open up that can of worms, as there is a lot of controversy over what constitutes meaning in language, and how meaning works, etc.

    Trolling again? There are vast differences between the considerations taken when judging works in Arabic versus English. Amongst them are the idioms that are unique to each language, the utilization of transfixes (given that Arabic words are based on tri-consonantal roots, unlike English words), the set meters (“Bihar”) that Arabic poems fall into…etc.
    Okay, and so what? How does that prevent us from comparing the literary quality of Lord of the Rings versus the Quran?

    Your opinion is especially irrelevant given the fact that you didn’t even read the text in question.
    To be perfectly honest, I haven't read all of the Quran. I haven't even read most of it. Why not? Because it was awful. Truly terrible. And when I try reading a book only to discover that it's really bad, I put it down so as to not waste my time.

    Now, it's possible I missed some good parts deeper into the Quran. But even if the last 3/4 of the Quran is spectacular, the fact that the first 1/4 of it is so awful will prevent it from being as good as other, far better works of literature, like Lord of the Rings.

    However, I'm pretty darn sure it doesn't suddenly get better where I stopped reading. Most probably, it's terrible all the way through.

    The early Muslims remained a persecuted minority for most of the Prophet’s ﷺ mission. They had no reason to follow him unless they sincerely believe in his prophethood, and every reason to abandon his cause had they even suspected that he was a false prophet (which would have been the case, had the Quranic challenge been met). Not to mention of course, all those Arabs who converted to Islam because of the Quran’s being a literary miracle. So yes, if the challenge was met, then this religion wouldn’t exist.
    Who is to say they would have recognized that the challenge was met? Who is to say they had no other reason to follow him? Who is to say they didn't realize he was a false prophet but followed him anyway, for their own private reasons? Who is to say any of the stuff you want to say about them?

    There is reason for one who has not specialized in ‘ilm Balagha, which was the whole point of the argument in the OP.

    The prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ can be proven by establishing that he was aided by some miracle. Any miracle will do. And we do not need to prove that the Quran surpasses all the works that came before and after it (which it does), in order to achieve this. Since the inability of the pagan poets of the Prophet's ﷺ time, to produce a work that rivals the Quran, is a miracle in of itself. It is therefore sufficient proof for prophethood, without needing to take anything else into consideration.

    Al-Baqilani compares it to a prophet who challenges his opponents to move their hands, when Allah ﷻ prevents them from this act for the timeframe of the prophet’s challenge. This is a negation of nomic necessity for those people, and is as such miraculous. Likewise, Allah ﷻ preventing the pagans from being able to address the Quranic challenge, is a negation of nomic necessity for them, and is as such miraculous.

    Trying to compare the Quran to other literary works that were not authored by the pagans, therefore completely misses the point of the argument.
    You're saying that it would be irrelevant if the Quranic challenge had been met later on? That seems very odd.

  11. #50
    Muslim
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Boy Male
    Posts
    2,380
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Quoted
    1754 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    126

    Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
    Well, meaning is different from literary quality. I'd rather not open up that can of worms, as there is a lot of controversy over what constitutes meaning in language, and how meaning works, etc.



    Okay, and so what? How does that prevent us from comparing the literary quality of Lord of the Rings versus the Quran?



    To be perfectly honest, I haven't read all of the Quran. I haven't even read most of it. Why not? Because it was awful. Truly terrible. And when I try reading a book only to discover that it's really bad, I put it down so as to not waste my time.

    Now, it's possible I missed some good parts deeper into the Quran. But even if the last 3/4 of the Quran is spectacular, the fact that the first 1/4 of it is so awful will prevent it from being as good as other, far better works of literature, like Lord of the Rings.

    However, I'm pretty darn sure it doesn't suddenly get better where I stopped reading. Most probably, it's terrible all the way through.



    Who is to say they would have recognized that the challenge was met? Who is to say they had no other reason to follow him? Who is to say they didn't realize he was a false prophet but followed him anyway, for their own private reasons? Who is to say any of the stuff you want to say about them?



    You're saying that it would be irrelevant if the Quranic challenge had been met later on? That seems very odd.
    I just wanted to mention some points to consider , in response to some of your contentions.

    1) The Quran is not a fictitious novel-story. Comparing the Quran with the Lord Of The Rings is not even the same form of expression / literature. The Quran is claiming to be the direct Speech of Allah. It is a book of Truth and Guidance - not a book of entertainment.

    2) The Arabs at the time of Muhammad(pbuh) were in an era where the language was at its pinnacle. One of the wisdoms of Allah granting the Prophet(pbuh) a language-based miracle - was due to the condition of the Arabs , and the importance they gave to poetry/expressions.

    The Quran - being Allah's Speech , is an expression of Perfection. The Arabs of that time could not explain what these words were - and how persuasive and Godly this Speech was.

    The Quran was admonishing the leaders of Arabia and the culture of idolatry. Muhammad was persecuted to the point of exile - and he eventually emigrated to another city - along with his believing companions. They engaged in constant warfare with the pagan Arabs - until they ended up conquering Makkah and they established the Theology and Rulings of Allah as supreme over the peninsula.

    The Quran is God's First Person Speech , teaches Theology , morality , laws for daily life / society , purpose of life , spirituality , stories of previous Prophets/generations , afterlife , Prophecies , etc ..

    Beyond the importance of its content , and it's perfection in expressions - it was revealed in a manner which is easy to memorize - and it is recited , day and night. And on top of this , it was revealed to an illiterate Sheppard (pbuh).

    The Arabs of old were challenged repetitively to bring forth a Divine scripture , and to call upon their witnesses -and outdo the Quran. They had to no sound response to this Book - and ultimately satisfied themselves by slandering it as magic.

    Pce
    Last edited by AmantuBillahi; Yesterday at 05:19 PM.

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.2.7 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com

MPADC.com Islamic Web Hosting | Muslim Ad Network | Islamic Nasheeds | Islamic Mobile App Developement Android & iPhone | Islamic Web Hosting : Muslim Designers : Labbayk Nasheeds : silk route jilbab: Hijab: : Web Islamic Newsletter: Islamic Web Hosting

Students of Arabic Forum | Hijab Shop