Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Summarized Proof for Islam

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

    Originally posted by hatsoff View Post
    There's a lot to respond to here. Let me zoom in on just one subsection.



    My response here is going to be nothing new. Lots has already been said about the Qu'ranic challenge, as it has come to be known. So, let me just summarize the main points.

    (1) Accuracy. It is well known that there are many internal (contradictions) and external (scientific/historical) errors in the Qu'ran. Now, just like Christians refuse to admit that there are errors in the Bible, so too Muslims typically refuse to admit there are errors in the Qu'ran. But they are there, for anyone willing to be honest with themselves to look and see.

    (2) Aesthetics. Not only do some people fail to see beauty in the Qu'ran, some people actually find it to be very ugly. This should be no surprise, as aesthetics are highly subjective.

    (3) Opacity. The Qu'ran is notorious for being hopelessly vague and difficult to understand in many places. The Qu'ranic challenge itself is a perfect example. What, precisely, does it mean to produce a surah "like" the Qu'ran? Even Muslims disagree on this. Consequently, we have disagreement about whether or not the Qu'ranic challenge has already been met. In any case, many people value clarity over opacity, the latter constituting yet another flaw in the Qu'ranic text.

    (4) Inimitability. From a purely logical standpoint, inimitability is not a sufficient condition for miraculousness. (It's not even a necessary one!) To put it another way, it simply does not follow logically that if a text is inimitable, it must therefore be miraculous. Some additional argument is required to show that inimitability constitutes good evidence for miraculousness. After all, we aren't leaping to the conclusion that other inimitable works of literature or other art are divine!

    Again, none of this is new. But it's worth reminding Muslims how absurd their Qu'ranic challenge appears to non-believers.
    1. Show me the error, and let's see which one was error. Qur'an or your brain?!
    2. As you said : This should be no surprise, as aesthetics are highly subjective. Why do you mention this if you understand it subjective? Genius!
    3. It is a challenge for people who change the previous god's word. And they are all fail miserably like they did to Bible and Torah
    4. There is something that can't be explained with logic.

    Like:
    Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators.(Quran 23:13-14).

    If it is not from god how could the 7th centuries Arabian know this knowledge?
    Please use your brilliant brain and logic to answer that question.

    Thank You :)

    Comment


      #32
      Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

      Originally posted by hatsoff View Post
      There's a lot to respond to here. Let me zoom in on just one subsection.



      My response here is going to be nothing new. Lots has already been said about the Qu'ranic challenge, as it has come to be known. So, let me just summarize the main points.

      (1) Accuracy. It is well known that there are many internal (contradictions) and external (scientific/historical) errors in the Qu'ran. Now, just like Christians refuse to admit that there are errors in the Bible, so too Muslims typically refuse to admit there are errors in the Qu'ran. But they are there, for anyone willing to be honest with themselves to look and see.

      (2) Aesthetics. Not only do some people fail to see beauty in the Qu'ran, some people actually find it to be very ugly. This should be no surprise, as aesthetics are highly subjective.

      (3) Opacity. The Qu'ran is notorious for being hopelessly vague and difficult to understand in many places. The Qu'ranic challenge itself is a perfect example. What, precisely, does it mean to produce a surah "like" the Qu'ran? Even Muslims disagree on this. Consequently, we have disagreement about whether or not the Qu'ranic challenge has already been met. In any case, many people value clarity over opacity, the latter constituting yet another flaw in the Qu'ranic text.

      (4) Inimitability. From a purely logical standpoint, inimitability is not a sufficient condition for miraculousness. (It's not even a necessary one!) To put it another way, it simply does not follow logically that if a text is inimitable, it must therefore be miraculous. Some additional argument is required to show that inimitability constitutes good evidence for miraculousness. After all, we aren't leaping to the conclusion that other inimitable works of literature or other art are divine!

      Again, none of this is new. But it's worth reminding Muslims how absurd their Qu'ranic challenge appears to non-believers.
      Hello.

      1) You have appeared to misunderstand the argument presented in what you have quoted.

      2) Are you competent in defending all your points coherently?

      Comment


        #33
        Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

        Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
        Hello.

        1) You have appeared to misunderstand the argument presented in what you have quoted.
        How so?

        2) Are you competent in defending all your points coherently?
        I will do my best, to the extent you want to discuss them.
        Last edited by hatsoff; 09-11-17, 05:34 PM.

        Comment


          #34
          Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

          Originally posted by rahmat89 View Post
          1. Show me the error, and let's see which one was error. Qur'an or your brain?!
          Like:
          Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators.(Quran 23:13-14).

          If it is not from god how could the 7th centuries Arabian know this knowledge?
          Please use your brilliant brain and logic to answer that question.

          Thank You :)
          I have no idea what was going on in the author's mind when he wrote the passages you quote. I don't know what people of that day and age knew about human reproduction, or what myths and misconceptions they had. And I'm willing to bet, neither do you.

          What I do know is that nothing in 23:13-14 is miraculous, and some of it is outright wrong. For instance, the bones are not made first and then covered in flesh afterwards. Also, the sperm is not the only ingredient here, as the woman's egg must be combined with it to produce a new human life. The Qu'ran gets both points wrong.

          I believe this is called confirmation bias. You are overly-impressed by would-be evidence that confirms your pre-existing beliefs, and you overlook anything contradictory or challenging.

          Comment


            #35
            Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

            Can't quote you as effectively due to the device I am using.

            Originally posted by hatsoff View Post
            How so?



            I will do my best, to the extent you want to discuss them.
            The incompetence of the Pagan Arabs i.e Muhammad(saws) opponents , proves that the Quran is a linguistic miracle.

            -Arabic was at it's peak during that era.
            -His opponents highly desired to put an end to him and his 'New' religion.
            -They were inadequate - and resorted to calling him a liar , and the Quran , a work of sorcery ( Super natural ).

            If they could not bring forth anything and disprove Muhammad(saws) , then surely the Quran has maintained it's dominance and truthfulness.

            1) I do not believe the Quran has any real errors. Allah is the truth. That being said , I do not believe that the Quran must necessarily match our current theories and positions. What you engage in is either ,

            a) Incorrect understanding of the text.
            b) Incorrect science. As time progresses , so do the specific conclusions of the scientist.

            The Quran is correct in the majority of it's positions - to the point where it amazes the truth seeker. Coming across certain passages which may have confused you should not override the majority , which have divinely surpassed a 6th century Makkan sheep herder(saws).

            2) Ok maybe some people do not enjoy it. The majority of listeners are mesmerized by it's recitation. Obviously it's hard to quantify this , because it is related to perception - but I have witnessed non Muslim opponents become humbled after listening to the Quran and actually calling it magic ( coincidently ).

            3) The Quran is a book of guidance , revealed in clear Arabic. It is actually miraculously precise. The Prophet(saws) explains and lived out the Quran , in the Sunnah. I'm sure by vague you are referring to passages relating to science or something - given your perspective. Much of those passages were not interpreted by our religions authorities , so how precise our opinions are , may be effected by that. The Quran is timeless , and modern science can assist our understanding of certain passages , if language and context allow for that. But I would need to know what exactly you mean by vague , in order to respond correctly.

            4) inimitability can be a miracle and proof for the validity of a claim.

            a) Quran claims to be a divine revelation from Allah.
            b) Quran challenges those who disbelieve to bring forth something like it , to challenge it's authenticity.
            c) Those most linguisticly competent failed in their attempts.

            Therefore , The Quran is Truthful to it's claim of Divinity.
            Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 09-11-17, 06:37 PM.

            Comment


              #36
              Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

              Originally posted by hatsoff View Post
              I have no idea what was going on in the author's mind when he wrote the passages you quote. I don't know what people of that day and age knew about human reproduction, or what myths and misconceptions they had. And I'm willing to bet, neither do you.

              What I do know is that nothing in 23:13-14 is miraculous, and some of it is outright wrong. For instance, the bones are not made first and then covered in flesh afterwards. Also, the sperm is not the only ingredient here, as the woman's egg must be combined with it to produce a new human life. The Qu'ran gets both points wrong.

              I believe this is called confirmation bias. You are overly-impressed by would-be evidence that confirms your pre-existing beliefs, and you overlook anything contradictory or challenging.
              Thanks for comfirming that you CAN'T answer my question! THANK YOU! :)
              Yup, the author is god himself that's why the Arabian knows how the human reproduction works in the 7th century.
              Hi genius, Al-quran is not a scientific book! So please don't expect a detailed explanation. lol
              It gives you accurate and overall ideas about human reproduction.
              Please read the article below or click this link for a full article with the pics.
              THE MIRACLE OS THE QUR'AN - THE BIRTH OF A HUMAN BEING

              [B]

              Many diverse subjects are mentioned in the Qur'an while also inviting people to believe. Sometimes the heavens, sometimes animals, and sometimes plants are mentioned as evidence of Allah's existence. In many of these verses, people are called upon to consider their own creation. They are often reminded how man came into the world, which stages he has passed through, and what his essence is:

              It is We Who have created you. Why, then, do you not accept the truth? Have you ever considered that [seed] which you emit? Is it you who create it? Or are We the Creator? (Qur'an, 56:57-59)

              The miracle of man's creation is emphasised in many verses. Some of the information within these verses is so detailed that it was impossible for anyone living in the 7th century to have known it. Examples of these are as follows:

              1. Man is not created from the entire semen, but only a very small portion of it (sperm).

              2. It is the male that determines the sex of the baby.

              3. The human embryo adheres to the mother's uterus like a leech.

              4. The embryo develops in three dark regions in the uterus.

              The items of information just quoted were far above the level of learning of the people living at that time. The discovery of these facts could only become possible by the technology attained in the 20th century.

              Now, let us examine these items one at a time.

              A Drop of Semen


              In the picture to the left, we see semen ejected into the uterus. Only very few sperms out of 250 million sperms emitted from the male can make it to the ovum. The sperm that will fertilise the egg is the only one out of a thousand sperms that have managed to survive.
              The fact that man is made not from the entire semen—but only a small part of it—is related in the Qur'an with the expression, "a drop of ejected semen."

              Sperm undertake a journey into the mother's body until they reach the ovum. Only a thousand out of 250 million sperm succeed in reaching the ovum. At the end of this five-minute race, the ovum, half the size of a grain of salt, will let only one of the sperms in. That is, the substance of man is not the whole semen, but only a small part of it. This is explained in the Surat al-Qiyama as follows:

              Does man reckon he will be left uncontrolled [without purpose]? Was he not once a drop of ejected semen? (Qur'an, 75:36-37)

              As we have seen, the Qur'an informs us that man is made not from the entire semen, but only a small part of it. That the particular emphasis in this verse announces a fact only discovered by modern science is evidence that the Qur'an is the Word of Allah.

              The Mixture in the Semen


              In the Qur'an, it is said that masculinity or femininity are created out of "a drop of semen which has been ejected." Until fairly recently, it was believed that a baby's sex was determined by the mother's cells. Science only discovered this information given in the Qur'an in the 20th century. This and many other similar details about the creation of man were stated in the Qur'an centuries ago.

              The fluid referred to as semen, which contains the sperm, does not consist of sperm alone. On the contrary, it is made up of a mixture of different fluids. Seminal fluid is a collection of substances secreted from the testicles, the seminal vesicles, the prostate gland and glands linked to the urinary tract. A detailed analysis of this fluid shows that it consists of a great many separate substances, such as citric acid, prostaglandin, flavin, ascorbic acid, ergothioneine, cholesterol, phospholipids, fibrinolysin, zinc, phosphatase acid, phosphase, hyaluronidase and sperm. These fluids exercise different functions, such as containing the sugar necessary for providing energy for the sperm, neutralizing the acids at the entrance of the uterus, and providing a slippery substance for the easy movement of the sperm.

              When semen is mentioned in the Qur'an, this fact, which was discovered by modern science, is also referred to, and semen is defined as a mixed fluid:

              We created man from a mingled drop to test him, and We made him hearing and seeing. (Qur'an, 76:2)

              In other verses, semen is again referred to as a mixture, and it is stressed that man is created from the "extract" of this mixture:

              He Who has created all things in the best possible way. He commenced the creation of man from clay; then He made his progeny from an extract of discarded fluid. (Qur'an, 32:7-8)

              The Arabic word "sulala," translated as "extract," means the essential or best part of something. By either meaning, it refers to "part of a whole." This shows that the Qur'an is the Word of Allah, Who knows the creation of man to its minute details.

              The Sex of the Child

              Until fairly recently, it was thought that a baby's sex was determined by the mother's cells. Or at least, it was believed that the sex was determined by the male and female cells together. But, we are given different information in the Qur'an, where it is stated that masculinity or femininity is created out of "a drop of sperm which has been ejected."

              He has created both sexes, male and female from a drop of semen which has been ejected. (Qur'an, 53:45-46)

              Was he not a drop of ejaculated sperm, then a blood-clot which He created and shaped, making from it both sexes, male and female? (Qur'an, 75:37-39)

              The developing disciplines of genetics and molecular biology have scientifically validated the accuracy of this information given by the Qur'an. It is now understood that sex is determined by the sperm cells from the male, and that the female has no role in this process.


              The Y chromosome carries characteristics of masculinity, while the X chromosome carries those of femininity. In the mother's egg, there is only the X chromosome, which determines female characteristics. In the semen from the father, there are sperms that include either X or Y chromosomes. Therefore, the sex of the baby depends on whether the sperm fertilising the egg contains an X or Y chromosome. In other words, as stated in the verse, the factor determining the sex of the baby is the semen, which comes from the father. This knowledge, which could not have been known at the time when the Qur'an was revealed, is evidence to the fact that the Qur'an is the Word of Allah.

              Chromosomes are the main elements in determining sex. Two of the 46 chromosomes that determine the structure of a human being are identified as the sex chromosomes. These two chromosomes are called "XY" in males, and "XX" in females, because the shapes of the chromosomes resemble these letters. The Y chromosome carries the genes that code for masculinity, while the X chromosome carries the genes that code for femininity.

              The formation of a new human being begins with the cross combination of one of these chromosomes, which exist in males and females in pairs. In females, both components of the sex cell, which divides into two during ovulation, carry X chromosomes. The sex cell of a male, on the other hand, produces two different kinds of sperm, one that contains X chromosomes and the other Y chromosomes. If an X chromosome from the female unites with a sperm that contains an X chromosome, then the baby is female. If it unites with the sperm that contains a Y chromosome, the baby is male.

              In other words, a baby's sex is determined by which chromosome from the male unites with the female's ovum.

              None of this was known until the discovery of genes in the 20th century. Indeed, in many cultures, it was believed that a baby's sex was determined by the female. That was why women were blamed when they gave birth to girls.

              Fourteen centuries before human genes were discovered, however, the Qur'an revealed information that denies this superstition, and referred to the origin of sex lying not with women, but with the semen deriving from men.

              The " Alaq" Clinging to the Uterus


              In the first phase of its development, the baby in the mother's womb is in the form of a zygote, which clings to the uterus in order to take nourishment from the mother's blood. In the picture above is a zygote, which looks like a piece of flesh. This formation, which has been discovered by modern embryology, was miraculously stated in the Qur'an 14 centuries ago with the word "alaq," which means "a thing that clings to some place" and is used to describe leeches that cling to a body to suck blood.

              If we continue to examine the facts announced to us in the Qur'an, about the formation of human beings, we again encounter some very important scientific truth.

              When the sperm of the male unites with the ovum of the female, the essence of the baby to be born is formed. This single cell, known as a "zygote" in biology, will instantly begin reproducing by dividing, and eventually become a "piece of flesh," called an embryo. This, of course, can only be seen by human beings with the aid of a microscope.

              The embryo, however, does not spend its developmental period in a void. It clings to the uterus, with something like roots that is firmly fixed to the earth by its tendrils. Through this bond, the embryo can obtain the substances essential to its development from the mother's body.85

              Here, an important miracle of the Qur'an is revealed. While referring to the embryo developing in the mother's womb, Allah uses the word "alaq" in the Qur'an:

              Recite: In the name of your Lord Who created man from alaq. Recite: And your Lord is the Most Generous. (Qur'an, 96:1-3)

              The meaning of the word "alaq" in Arabic is "a thing that clings to some place." The word is literally used to describe leeches that cling to a body to suck blood.

              Certainly, the use of such a specific word for the embryo developing in the mother's womb, proves once again that the Qur'an is the Word of Allah, the Lord of all the Worlds.

              The Wrapping of Muscles over the Bones

              Another important item of information provided in the verses of the Qur'an is the developmental stages of a human being in the mother's womb. It is stated in these verses that in the mother's womb, the bones develop first, and then the muscles form which wrap around them.

              [We] then formed the drop into a clot and formed the clot into a lump and formed the lump into bones and clothed the bones in flesh; and then brought him into being as another creature. Blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators! (Qur'an, 23:14)


              The bones of the baby completing its development in the mother's womb are clothed with flesh during one particular stage exactly as stated in the Qur’an.

              Embryology is the branch of science that studies the development of the embryo in the mother's womb. Until very recently, embryologists assumed that the bones and muscles in an embryo developed at the same time. Yet, advanced microscopic research conducted by virtue of new technological developments has revealed that the revelation of the Qur'an is word for word correct.

              These observations at the microscopic level showed that the development inside the mother's womb takes place in just the way it is described in these verses. First, the cartilage tissue of the embryo ossifies. Then, muscular cells that are selected from amongst the tissue around the bones come together and wrap around the bones.

              This event is described in a scientific publication titled Developing Human in the following words:

              … [T]he shape of the skeleton determines the general appearance of the embryo in the bones stage during the 7th week; muscles do not develop at the same time but their development follows soon after. The muscles take their positions around the bones throughout the body and therefore clothe the bones. Thus, the muscles take their well known forms and structures… The stage of clothing with muscle occurs during the 8th week…86

              In short, developmental stages of man, as described in the Qur'an, are in perfect harmony with the findings of modern embryology.


              Many stages of a baby's development in the mother's womb are related in the Qur'an. As described in Surat al-Muminun 14, the cartilage of the embryo in the mother's womb ossifies first. Then these bones are covered with muscle cells. Allah describes this development with the verse: "… [We then] formed the lump into bones and clothed the bones in flesh."

              Three Dark Stages of the Baby in the Womb

              In the Qur'an, it is related that man is created through a three-stage process in the mother's womb.

              ... He creates you stage by stage in your mothers' wombs in threefold darkness. That is Allah, your Lord. Sovereignty is His. There is no god but Him. So what has made you deviate? (Qur'an, 39:6)

              The expression "fee thulumatin thalathin," translated into English as "a threefold darkness," indicates three dark regions involved during the development of the embryo. These are:

              The darkness of the abdomen

              The darkness of the womb

              The darkness of the placenta

              As we have seen, modern biology has revealed that the embryological development of the baby takes place in the manner revealed in the verse, in three dark regions. Moreover, advances in the science of embryology show that these regions consist of three layers each.

              The lateral abdominal wall comprises three layers: the external oblique, the internal oblique, and transverses abdominis muscles.87

              Similarly, the wall of the womb also consists of three layers: the epimetrium, the myometrium and the endometrium.88

              Similarly again, the placenta surrounding the embryo also consists of three layers: the amnion (the internal membrane around the fetus), the chorion (the middle amnion layer) and the decidua (outer amnion layer.)89

              It is also pointed out in this verse that a human being is created in the mother's womb in three distinct stages.

              Indeed, modern biology has also revealed that the baby's embryological development takes place in three distinct regions in the mother's womb. Today, in all the embryology textbooks studied in departments of medicine, this subject is taken as an element of basic knowledge. For instance, in Basic Human Embryology, a fundamental reference text in the field of embryology, this fact is stated as follows:

              The life in the uterus has three stages: pre-embryonic; first two and a half weeks, embryonic; until the end of the eight week, and fetal; from the eight week to labor.90

              These phases refer to the different developmental stages of a baby. In brief, the main characteristics of these developmental stages are as follows:

              - Pre-embryonic Stage

              In this first phase, the zygote grows by division, and when it becomes a cell cluster, it buries itself in the wall of the uterus. While they continue growing, the cells organize themselves in three layers.

              - Embryonic Stage

              The second phase lasts for five and a half weeks, during which the baby is referred to as an "embryo." During this stage, the basic organs and systems of the body start to appear from the cell layers.

              - Foetal Stage

              From this stage onward, the embryo is called a "foetus." This phase begins at the eighth week of gestation, and lasts until the moment of birth. The distinctive characteristic of this stage is that the foetus looks much like a human being, with its face, hands and feet. Although it is only 3 cm long initially, all of its organs have become apparent. This phase lasts for about 30 weeks, and development continues until the week of delivery.

              Information on the development in the mother's womb became available only after observations with modern devices. Yet, just like many other scientific facts, in a miraculous way, Allah draws our attention to these items of information in the verses of the Qur'an. The fact that such detailed and accurate information was given in the Qur'an at a time when people had scarce information on medical matters is clear evidence that the Qur'an is the Word of Allah.


              In Surat az-Zumar 6, it is pointed out that man is created in the mother's womb in three distinct regions. Indeed, modern embryology has revealed that the baby's embryological development takes place in three distinct regions in the mother's womb.



              85. Keith L. Moore, et al., Human Development as Described in the Qur'an and Sunnah (Makkah: Commission on Scientific Signs of the Qur'an and Sunnah, 1992), 36.
              86. Keith L. Moore, Developing Human, 3rd ed. (W. B. Saunders Company: 1982), 364a.
              87. http://anatomy.med.unsw.edu.au/cbl/e...otes/git4.htm; and http://www.yoursurgery.com/Procedure...m?BR=1&Proc=74.
              88. http://virtual.yosemite.cc.ca.us/uye...AP50/Repro.htm.
              89. Kazi, 130 Evident Miracles in the Qur'an, 84.
              90. Williams P., Basic Human Embryology, 3rd ed., 1984, 64.
              Last edited by rahmat89; 10-11-17, 02:11 AM.

              Comment


                #37
                Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                The incompetence of the Pagan Arabs i.e Muhammad(saws) opponents , proves that the Quran is a linguistic miracle.

                -Arabic was at it's peak during that era.
                In what sense was Arabic at its "peak"?

                -His opponents highly desired to put an end to him and his 'New' religion.
                -They were inadequate - and resorted to calling him a liar , and the Quran , a work of sorcery ( Super natural ).
                You're going to have to help me out here, because I'm not familiar with Islamic history like I am with Christian history. What are the historical sources for the opponents of Islam calling the Qu'ran a work of sorcery? Not that it matters a whole lot---there are plenty of reasons they might have done so. But I am curious.

                If they could not bring forth anything and disprove Muhammad(saws) , then surely the Quran has maintained it's dominance and truthfulness.
                But that doesn't follow. I can't disprove Islam any more than I can disprove Christianity or Buddhism---or any more than you can disprove atheism. That doesn't make all these things true.

                1) I do not believe the Quran has any real errors. Allah is the truth. That being said , I do not believe that the Quran must necessarily match our current theories and positions. What you engage in is either ,

                a) Incorrect understanding of the text.
                b) Incorrect science. As time progresses , so do the specific conclusions of the scientist.

                The Quran is correct in the majority of it's positions - to the point where it amazes the truth seeker. Coming across certain passages which may have confused you should not override the majority , which have divinely surpassed a 6th century Makkan sheep herder(saws).
                You can always tie yourself in knots explaining away the apparent errors in the Qu'ran. And at the end of the day, nobody can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there really are errors. The same kind of thing goes for the Bible, the Vedas, etc. But in order to maintain this view, you have to throw out all your common sense.

                2) Ok maybe some people do not enjoy it. The majority of listeners are mesmerized by it's recitation. Obviously it's hard to quantify this , because it is related to perception - but I have witnessed non Muslim opponents become humbled after listening to the Quran and actually calling it magic ( coincidently ).
                People called Uri Gellar's tricks magic, too. I'm interested in hard evidence, not the testimony of emotional and/or religiously-moved people.

                3) The Quran is a book of guidance , revealed in clear Arabic. It is actually miraculously precise. The Prophet(saws) explains and lived out the Quran , in the Sunnah. I'm sure by vague you are referring to passages relating to science or something - given your perspective. Much of those passages were not interpreted by our religions authorities , so how precise our opinions are , may be effected by that. The Quran is timeless , and modern science can assist our understanding of certain passages , if language and context allow for that. But I would need to know what exactly you mean by vague , in order to respond correctly.
                No, I'm not referring to science. As far as I'm aware, there is no science in the Qu'ran.

                I gave an example of its vagueness in the Qu'ranic challenge. It challenges skeptics to produce a Surah "like" the Qu'ran. This is about as vague as it gets.

                It's also vague as to the purpose and function of the challenge.

                4) inimitability can be a miracle and proof for the validity of a claim.

                a) Quran claims to be a divine revelation from Allah.
                b) Quran challenges those who disbelieve to bring forth something like it , to challenge it's authenticity.
                c) Those most linguisticly competent failed in their attempts.

                Therefore , The Quran is Truthful to it's claim of Divinity.
                That's a logical nonsequitur. It also overlooks the vagueness problem I mentioned.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                  Originally posted by hatsoff View Post
                  There's a lot to respond to here. Let me zoom in on just one subsection.
                  You start your post with “there's a lot to respond to here. Let me zoom in on just one subsection”, but then all you have to offer are generic claims that have little to do with what you quoted. If you cannot be trusted to read the few short paragraphs that you’re responding to, how can you be trusted to have read the Quran so that a real discussion can happen?

                  The only point worthy of a response is your fourth:

                  Originally posted by hatsoff View Post
                  Inimitability. From a purely logical standpoint, inimitability is not a sufficient condition for miraculousness. (It's not even a necessary one!) To put it another way, it simply does not follow logically that if a text is inimitable, it must therefore be miraculous. Some additional argument is required to show that inimitability constitutes good evidence for miraculousness. After all, we aren't leaping to the conclusion that other inimitable works of literature or other art are divine!
                  A miracle by definition, involves the negation of nomic necessity (what we mean by “extraordinary”), such that we know that the one who was aided by the miracle has God's favor. This is because God is the creator of all events, so His negation of nomic necessity signals His support for the one who was aided by this negation. See Section 4 for a useful analogy to help you conceptualize this.

                  Given the above, inimitability is indeed a necessary condition for miraculousness. For if an event were imitable, then it wouldn’t be extraordinary. For example: imagine someone claimed prophethood, and then this person claimed his miracle was the clapping of his hands. Is this really a miracle? No. Because anyone can clap their hands (i.e. this act is imitable), so it isn’t miraculous.

                  As for the sufficient conditions for miraculousness, then they are three:
                  1. the event must negate nomic necessity (which entails its being inimitable).
                  2. the event must occur for a claimant to prophethood (if an extraordinary event occurs for someone who does not even claim to be a prophet in the first place, then it obviously isn’t proof for prophethood).
                  3. the event must aid the claimant to prophethood, not disgrace him (e.g. when Musaylima the liar claimed that he can perform miracles, and that a well of water would overflow by his command, Allah سبحانه وتعالى disgraced him by causing the well to suddenly dry up… this is an extraordinary event, but it did not signal God’s support- it signaled the exact opposite- so it is not a miracle).

                  If you actually read what you quoted, you'd realize that the argument was that the pagan Arabs’ inability to address the Quranic challenge- despite their competence in the Arabic language, and their desire to destroy Islam- is a negation of nomic necessity. For it is nomically impossible for Muhammed ﷺ, a single man, to author a text which the collective efforts of the rest of his community of professional poets could not even rival (let alone surpass). The Quran is, by virtue of this fact, miraculous.

                  Also, there aren’t any “other inimitable works of literature”***. Any other literary work has its rivals, and you will find professionals (within the relevant field) that have judged another piece to being superior. And that is what makes the Quran extraordinary. Amongst those with professional understanding of classical Arabic, there were none that were able to point to a work that rivals the Quran’s literary quality, and this is precisely what the argument you quoted proves.

                  ***Actually by making such a claim, you have contradicted yourself. You earlier argue that inimitability cannot be reached, given that aesthetics are “highly subjective”… and yet here you are affirming inimitability to other works of art and literature!

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                    Karkooshy,

                    Thanks for the response. Your thread was kinda old, and so I appreciate you taking the time to type up some thoughts despite that. Let me see if I can address some of your concerns.

                    Originally posted by karkooshy View Post
                    You start your post with “there's a lot to respond to here. Let me zoom in on just one subsection”, but then all you have to offer are generic claims that have little to do with what you quoted. If you cannot be trusted to read the few short paragraphs that you’re responding to, how can you be trusted to have read the Quran so that a real discussion can happen?
                    My initial comments were very general, yes, just as your initial comments were very general. It seemed like a good way to introduce my point of view. But I didn't think they were irrelevant. On the contrary, they cut right to the heart of the issue as to whether the Qu'ran is miraculous.

                    Even now, there's only a limited amount I can say in direct response to your argument. That's not because I haven't read it, but because you haven't been clear about what it is you are arguing. In particular, you need to explain what it means to produce a Surah "like" the Qu'ran. Like in what sense? In aesthetic value? In historical accuracy? In emotional power? In linguistic precision? Etc.

                    The problem is, until you produce a clear standard by which to measure the Qu'ran against its imitators, we haven't any hope of judging your claims about people trying and failing to imitate it.

                    The only point worthy of a response is your fourth:
                    Really? So, you don't think it's a problem that the Qu'ran (1) has internal and external errors, (2) fails to be aesthetically pleasing, and (3) is unclear in its basic message? I can sort of see why you might be willing to concede (2), but surely (1) and (3) are good evidence against the Qu'ran's alleged miraculousness.

                    A miracle by definition, involves the negation of nomic necessity (what we mean by “extraordinary”), such that we know that the one who was aided by the miracle has God's favor.
                    Not at all. In fact, presumably Muhammad didn't break any natural laws when he wrote the Qu'ran. (He didn't blink it into existence with a magic wand or something.)

                    This is because God is the creator of all events, so His negation of nomic necessity signals His support for the one who was aided by this negation. See Section 4 for a useful analogy to help you conceptualize this.

                    Given the above, inimitability is indeed a necessary condition for miraculousness. For if an event were imitable, then it wouldn’t be extraordinary. For example: imagine someone claimed prophethood, and then this person claimed his miracle was the clapping of his hands. Is this really a miracle? No. Because anyone can clap their hands (i.e. this act is imitable), so it isn’t miraculous.
                    Consider a simple example: People make exact copies of the Qu'ran all the time. If inimitability were necessary for miraculousness, that would be immediate disproof.

                    If you actually read what you quoted, you'd realize that the argument was that the pagan Arabs’ inability to address the Quranic challenge- despite their competence in the Arabic language, and their desire to destroy Islam- is a negation of nomic necessity. For it is nomically impossible for Muhammed ﷺ, a single man, to author a text which the collective efforts of the rest of his community of professional poets could not even rival (let alone surpass). The Quran is, by virtue of this fact, miraculous.
                    Again, until you are clear about how we are supposed to "rival" or "surpass" the Qu'ran, this is an empty claim. I might as well say that The Lord of the Rings is better than the Qu'ran. Who are you to tell me differently?

                    Also, there aren’t any “other inimitable works of literature”***. Any other literary work has its rivals, and you will find professionals (within the relevant field) that have judged another piece to being superior. And that is what makes the Quran extraordinary. Amongst those with professional understanding of classical Arabic, there were none that were able to point to a work that rivals the Quran’s literary quality, and this is precisely what the argument you quoted proves.
                    I pointed to the Lord of the Rings. Other people have pointed to the Bible. Others have pointed to still other books. How do you determine who is right and who is wrong?

                    ***Actually by making such a claim, you have contradicted yourself. You earlier argue that inimitability cannot be reached, given that aesthetics are “highly subjective”… and yet here you are affirming inimitability to other works of art and literature!
                    I never argued that inimitability can't be reached. I'm not even saying the Qu'ran isn't inimitable in some sense. (Although, in other senses, it can be imitated quite easily, e.g. by making an exact copy.)
                    Last edited by hatsoff; 12-11-17, 04:43 PM.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                      Originally posted by hatsoff View Post
                      Even now, there's only a limited amount I can say in direct response to your argument. That's not because I haven't read it, but because you haven't been clear about what it is you are arguing. In particular, you need to explain what it means to produce a Surah "like" the Qu'ran. Like in what sense? In aesthetic value? In historical accuracy? In emotional power? In linguistic precision? Etc.
                      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.

                      Originally posted by hatsoff View Post
                      Really? So, you don't think it's a problem that the Qu'ran (1) has internal and external errors, (2) fails to be aesthetically pleasing, and (3) is unclear in its basic message? I can sort of see why you might be willing to concede (2), but surely (1) and (3) are good evidence against the Qu'ran's alleged miraculousness.
                      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”.

                      Originally posted by hatsoff View Post
                      Not at all. In fact, presumably Muhammad didn't break any natural laws when he wrote the Qu'ran. (He didn't blink it into existence with a magic wand or something.)
                      Where was this claimed? Or did you think that nomic necessities are limited to natural laws?

                      Originally posted by hatsoff View Post
                      Consider a simple example: People make exact copies of the Qu'ran all the time. If inimitability were necessary for miraculousness, that would be immediate disproof.
                      Not sure if trolling, or what exactly. On the off chance that you were being serious: when people print the Quran, they’re printing the Quran. They’re not printing a different work that rivals the literary quality of the Quran.

                      Originally posted by hatsoff View Post
                      I pointed to the Lord of the Rings. Other people have pointed to the Bible. Others have pointed to still other books. How do you determine who is right and who is wrong?
                      Neither are works written in classical Arabic, and the Arabic translations that exist of the Bible pale in comparison to the Quran.

                      Furthermore, the existence of those works doesn’t impact the argument you quoted from the OP, since neither was authored by the pagan Arabs of the Prophet’s ﷺ time.

                      Originally posted by hatsoff View Post
                      I never argued that inimitability can't be reached. I'm not even saying the Qu'ran isn't inimitable in some sense. (Although, in other senses, it can be imitated quite easily, e.g. by making an exact copy.)
                      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.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                        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, 05:44 AM.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                          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.

                          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.

                          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).

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                            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.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                              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.

                              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.

                              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?

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                                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, 09:39 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X