Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MysticKnight

The Quran Challenge "bring A Surah Like It"

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I believe it was written by humans as a fact so im not arguing with you there. As for quality, like i said, theres really no objective criteria for this competition and i guess to a degree to judging suras within the quran. Some people here probably think that bad piece is beautiful, such is the nature of subjective things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copy paste time:

Is the Literary form based upon subjective criteria?

Some Qur’an critics often claim that the Qur’anic challenge is subjective and is based upon aesthetic criteria. This

is a false accusation. The Qur’an can either be described as prose, poetry or unique. Literary forms are not based

upon aesthetic criteria; they are based upon the structural features of a text. It can be clearly seen above that

literary forms are defined and can be distinguished from one another.

The Qur’an is a unique form of Arabic speech. The form of its language can not be described as prose or poetry. It

achieves this unique literary form by:

1. Intermingling metrical and non-metrical speech

2. Transcending the defining features of saj’

3. Using literary and linguistic devices that render it stylistically distinct

The totality of every chapter has a special character, with its own unique form, and its unique use of literary

devices. These features of the Qur’an are part of the reason of why it has not been emulated to this day. The

highly acclaimed Professor and Arabist Hamilton Gibb states,

“.…the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle, and with remarkable boldness and self confidence Muhammad

appealed as a supreme confirmation of his mission to the Koran itself. Like all Arabs they were connoisseurs of

language and rhetoric. Well, then if the Koran were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them

produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not), then let them accept the Koran

as an outstanding evidential miracle”

There are many Muslim and Non-Muslim Scholars who testify that the Qur’an is indeed unique and inimitable.

An interesting and useful analysis by Aisha Abd al-Rahman entitled “At-Tafsir al-Bayani li-Qur’an al-Karim”,

which built upon the works of many Islamic Scholars throughout the decades, supports the conclusion voiced by

Taha Hussein that ‘Arabic composition should be divided into three categories, prose, verse and Qur’an, saj’

forming a part of prose but the Qur’an being a category of its own.

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

Source: http://www.theinimit...iquelitform.pdf

MysticKnight, after that previous senseless [and bias] raging of yours, I never expected you to cause another senseless [and bias] havoc. Seriously, I'm not a Muslim myself, but at least don't be so damn bias. It's like you're selectively filtering out everything that destroys your little rant, obfuscating the face of discussion, and then grasping on bloody straws to make your point. Do you really expect a honest discussion like this?

Edited by The Exalted One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read such articles.

If you can show how Suratal Falaq or Suratal Abu Lahab is this superior unique type of writting then do it. Making general statements of Quran being of high literature that is unique is ambigious.

If I quote a verse, and ask you to tell me, what makes it unique, that no one can write it, you won't be able to. The same is true of ten verses.

I told you the inherent problem, 10 verses of Quran are not that great, there is nothing so great about any given 10 verses of Quran, so if you write 10 verses like them, they will not deemed great.

Also it will always be argued it's different and not similar.

If some Arabs did write like the Quran and brought Surah like it, we wouldn't come to know of it, it's called winner side history. And basically Mohammad would not admit it's like Quran, would he now?

If you can show me what I wrote is not similar to Suratal Falaq or Suratal Nas, go ahead. To me it's very similar.

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can show how Suratal Falaq or Suratal Abu Lahab is this superior unique type of writting then do it.

I already did.

Making general statements of Quran being of high literature that is unique is ambigious.

How are they ambiguous when there are specific, measurable criteria given for judgment?

If I quote a verse, and ask you to tell me, what makes it unique, that no one can write it, you won't be able to. The same is true of ten verses.

Please read the article again. let me copy and paste what makes it unique:

The argument posed by Muslim Theologians and Philosophers is that if, with the finite set of Arabic linguistic tools at

humanity’s disposal, there is no effective challenge; then providing a naturalistic explanation for the Qur’an’s

uniqueness is incoherent and doesn’t explain its inimitability. This is because the natural capacity of the text

producer, or author, is able to produce the known literary forms in the Arabic language. The development of an

entirely unique literary form is beyond the scope of the productive nature any author, hence a supernatural entity,

God, is the only sufficient comprehensive explanation [...]

1. The Qur’an achieves this unique literary form by fusing metrical and non-Metrical speech. This fusion of metrical and non-metrical composition is present throughout the whole of the Qur’an and cannot be found in any Arabic text, past or present.

2. Qur’anic Saj’

The Qur’an shares similar features with saj’, specifically in the early Meccan surahs, but it completely transcends

many aspects of what defines saj’, hence western scholars describing the Qur’anic form as ‘Quranic saj’. What

makes the Quran unique in this context is,

1. Greater tendency to mono-rhyme,

2. Inexact rhyme,

3. Greater range of saj’ phrases

4. Higher frequency of rhetorical features.

iii. Qur’an bound stylistic variations

Theologians and Arab Linguists such as al-Ash’ari, al-Rummani and al-Baqillani held that the Qur’an does not

contain saj’ and is unique to all types of saj’. Their reasoning is that in the Qur’an, the use of language is

semantically orientated and its literary structure is distinct, whereas in saj’, conformity to style is a primary

objective. Furthermore the Qur’an uses literary and linguistic devices in such a way that has not been used before

and achieves an unparalled communicative effect. 32 This use of language, called stylistic variation or stylistic

differences, includes, but is not limited to,

Semantically driven assonance and rhyme,

1. Grammatical shifts (iltifaat, in Arabic),

2. Interrelation between sound, structure and meaning,

3. Choice of Words,

4. Unique linguistic genre,

5. Word order.

I told you the inherent problem, 10 verses of Quran are not that great, there is nothing so great about any given 10 verses of Quran, so if you write 10 verses like them, they will not deemed great.

What exactly are you basing your judgments on? What exactly is your criteria?

If some Arabs did write like the Quran and brought Surah like it, we wouldn't come to know of it, it's called winner side history. And basically Mohammad would not admit it's like Quran, would he now?

What the bloody hell ... ? Pagans of that times (and [Edited Out]s of these times) were DYING to come to know of someone who could prove Prophet Muhammad wrong. What makes you think "we wouldn't come to know of it"?

If you can show me what I wrote is not similar to Suratal Falaq or Suratal Nas, go ahead. To me it's very similar.

... I'm fairly sure what you wrote was not in Arabic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, put it straight, you are telling me every sentence of Quran is a unique form of Arabic?

So if it says

Say: O Disbelievers (Arabic), is that unique form of Arabic? قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ {1} this is trascends all Arabic styles? This the problem, you say "whole of Quran", then I bring one verse. Is it unique, I bring the next verse next to it, do the two verses make a unique style? The problem is it's very ambiguous.

If it's the connection between lines, can you show this transendence with Suratal Abu Lahab.

A sentence in Arabic and English can be similar, there is nothing in the criteria of bringing a Surah like it, that it has to be Arabic.

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of being so ambigious, why don't we look at one Surah, and talk about it's verses? A small Surah is easier to do that then a big Surah. I don't see specific criteria, it's so ambiguous, the statements about it. I can admit the Quran as a whole is a unique type of literature, basically because it has the style as if revealing verses from God. That's why it's unique, and if you were to write normal poetry or a normal book, you wouldn't write like it. However it doesn't prove it's great let alone that none of it's Surahs could have been produced by a human. In fact, it's none flow, spamming different things with no connection to one anohter is not beautiful to me, or great.

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, put it straight, you are telling me every sentence of Quran is a unique form of Arabic?

So if it says

Say: O Disbelievers (Arabic), is that unique form of Arabic? قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ {1} this is trascends all Arabic styles? This the problem, you say "whole of Quran", then I bring one verse. Is it unique, I bring the next verse next to it, do the two verses make a unique style? The problem is it's very ambiguous.

I'm fairly sure that the challenge is about either produce a book like it, or 10 chapters, or a single chapter. I don't know where, in the blue hell, are you making ... that^ up.

I don't see specific criteria, it's so ambiguous, the statements about it.

Dude, I've been posting the goddamn criteria for ages now. Let me do this the last time:

1. Intermingling metrical and non-metrical speech

2. Transcending the defining features of saj’

3. Using literary and linguistic devices that render it stylistically distinct

So, if you want to surmount the challenge given, you must produce a chapter that:

1. Intermingles metrical and non-metrical speech

2. Transcends the defining features of saj'

3. Uses literary and linguistic devices that render it stylistically distinct.

Look at the more detailed version of these unique traits. I'm uneducated in Arabic linguistic, but not everyone is and they have all done their home-work. Please, create a chapter that meets the given criteria, take it to some Arabic linguist [there are plenty of them, including non-Muslim], and create a revolution. Instead of using your personal preferences and going "this isn't beautiful to me, that isn't merciful to me" as if your opinion is a yard-stick for judgment.

Edited by The Exalted One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok let's look at Suratal Falaq. Can you explain how all your criteria applies to it. It really feels like it's just asserting, now show specifics. What does it mean to transcend Sarj? It's ambiguous as it get's.

If you can show all those criteria for Suratal Abu Lahab, Suratal Falaq, or Suratal Naas or Suratal Asr go ahead.

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, I'm uneducated at Arabic linguistic. I was simply showing that there is a criteria for judgment and Quran's uniqueness is not subjective. The source I posted gives more detail about saj' and stuff. Check it out. I might just try to scrutinize myself, but I can make mistake considering I'm no Arabic linguist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all very ambiguous. I've read these sort of article before.

People read all this ambigious stuff, and think it was objectively applied to all of Quran. It's all general statements of the whole Quran.

Then all these general statements are made about it, and you think it's objective criteria. To even prove this, you would have to go through the whole Quran and show the criteria on how it doesn't apply. But you just take the general statements as facts.

Your just falling into the trap of rhetoric and conjecture.

I can read Suratal Falaq and it's not beyond human capablity. I wrote something similar to it in English. There is nothing in that style that is beyond human to do.

You just read it, and can't even show how it applies to suratal Abu Lahab or Suratal Asr or Suratal Falaq but after reading all this ambigious statements about it, it must apply to it and you think the people that wrote stuff objectively analyzed every Surah with objective criteria.

It's a joke. Sorry this sort of conjecture by people about Quran can give people faith about it, but really is it logical to look at Suratal Abu Lahab and think no human could have possibly wrote it?

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MysticKnight seeing as your arabic isnt very good (as you admit yourself) how can you make an accurate assessment of eloquence? It's a joke that someone who has a poor grasp of arabic would so confidently make these sorts of claims about an Arabic text.

I can explain it, basically I can know meaning, and since I can read Arabic, I know how it sounds. There is nothing more to it then you need to know to assess the eloquence. Even if I couldn't know how it sounds (didn't know Arabic), if the meaning is bad, then it's enough to know it's not eloquent.

I can read suratal Abu Lahab and know it's a joke to think it's beyond capability and it is to great for humans to make. The same is true of Suratal Kaffiroon. And other Surahs.

But your argument, if your not super expert in Arabic, then you shouldn't believe in Quran, because you can't have an accurate assement of it's eloquence. So it would be illogical for anyone whom isn't an expert in Arabic to believe in Islam.

I also know enough of language to see Suratal Falaq is just seeking refuge in God from evil things, saying that, and it's not some transcendent type of speech humans cannot do.

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ dude are you like mentally challenged? Quran came in Arabic among Arabs who were experts in their language. There was no english in middle east, so why in hell are you making up a chapter in english. The translations have been done by humans so non arabs can understand the commands in it.

Example (even though its not worth explaining you), a person bring outs a script of book written in Shakespearean, and asks you that if you think its written by an average joe then write something like this. Will you write the script in the style you know or the style asked by the one put the challenge.

Quran is in Arabic, produce A CHAPTER IN A R A B I C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MysticKnight seeing as your arabic isnt very good (as you admit yourself) how can you make an accurate assessment of eloquence? It's a joke that someone who has a poor grasp of arabic would so confidently make these sorts of claims about an Arabic text.

If the words were translated to Arabic, they wouldn't even rhyme. I tried to translate them to Arabic, and was like "does this guy seriously have any idea" lol He's a very very angry young man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quran is in Arabic, produce A CHAPTER IN A R A B I C

That wasn't a criteria pointed in Quran, if person produces a chapter similar to it in English, it would be meeting the challenge. Plus you can translate what I wrote in Arabic anyways.

If the words were translated to Arabic, they wouldn't even rhyme. I tried to translate them to Arabic, and was like "does this guy seriously have any idea" lol He's a very very angry young man.

Suratal Falaq doesn't rhyme anyways. If a surah rhymes it's called something other then poetry because it can't be called poetry, that would mean something is like Quran. If it doesn't rhyme, it's beautiful anyways.

Does suratal Falaq rhyme.

It sounds fine in English, it's similar to it, there is nothing in the challenge that said it must be Arabic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can explain it, basically I can know meaning, and since I can read Arabic, I know how it sounds. There is nothing more to it then you need to know to assess the eloquence. Even if I couldn't know how it sounds (didn't know Arabic), if the meaning is bad, then it's enough to know it's not eloquent.

Eloquence doesnt = meaning. Eloquence is how you get the meaning across. This is a speciality in itself and there are many books on it, some of them studied in Hawza. Its Ilm alBalagha. Youve never studied it yet so confident in your assessment of the Qurans eloquence.

But your argument, if your not super expert in Arabic, then you shouldn't believe in Quran, because you can't have an accurate assement of it's eloquence. So it would be illogical for anyone whom isn't an expert in Arabic to believe in Islam.

How does my argument entail that? You are assuming that in order to believe in the Quran, one needs to be able to accurately assess its eloquence. That is not true, as you could believe in it for other reasons. My argument in no way contradicts this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: 7 replies were added behind my back, should edit some stuff.

MysticKnight, correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't know Arabic, do you? Then who are you to judge things as if you're an Arabic linguist? Let alone Arabic, you just made countless grammatical errors in your English post itself, yet you passing judgments and labels with regards to a language you don't know a [Edited Out] about? I don't like sticking my nose in matters I'm uneducated at, but if you're really being that head-strong, so be it.

It's all very ambiguous. I've read these sort of article before.

People read all this ambigious stuff, and think it was objectively applied to all of Quran. It's all general statements of the whole Quran.

Then all these general statements are made about it, and you think it's objective criteria.

You don't know that. Are you really certain about this or is this another jump at conclusion? I mean, let's look at how logical you really were:

If you can show all those criteria for Suratal Abu Lahab, Suratal Falaq, or Suratal Naas or Suratal Asr go ahead.
You just read it, and can't even show how it applies to suratal Abu Lahab or Suratal Asr or Suratal Falaq but after reading all this ambigious statements about it, it must apply to it and you think the people that wrote stuff objectively analyzed every Surah with objective criteria.

There's your logical fallacy. You see, that's your job. Considering how YOU'RE the one who is trying to disprove something no one could, it's your job disprove a disputed fact. Go ahead, and SHOW HOW all the three criterias I mentioned doesn't apply to Surah-ul-Abu Lahab, Surah-ul-Falaq, Surah-ul-Naas. Then, get it confirmed by Arabic linguist.

What does it mean to transcend Sarj? It's ambiguous as it get's.

Seriously? Sarj is ambiguous? Copy-paste time:

What is Arabic Prose?

Arabic Prose can be described as non-metrical speech, meaning it does not have a consistent rhythmical pattern

like poetry mentioned above. Arabic prose can be further divided into two categories; saj’ which is rhymed prose

and Mursal which is straight prose or what some may call ‘normal speech’.

Saj’

Von Denffer in his book ‘Ulum al-Qur’an: An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an’ provides the following description:

“A literary form with some emphasis on rhythm and rhyme, but distinct from poetry. Saj’ is not really as sophisticated as poetry, but has been employed by Arab poets, and is the best known of the pre-Islamic Arab prosodies. It is distinct from poetry in its lack of metre, i.e. it has not consistent rhythmical pattern, and it shares with poetry the element of rhyme, though in many cases some what irregularly employed.”

Although saj’ differs from poetry in that it lacks a consistent rhythmical pattern, there is some form of pattern based upon the accent in each division of saj’. Accent based rhythmical patterns are based upon stresses rather than the number of syllables. Accent based rhythmical patterns are exhibited in Nursery Rhymes in the English Language. The following poem, ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep’, has two stresses (shown in Bold) in each line, but with a varying number of syllables.

Baa, baa, black sheep,

Have you any wool?

Yes sir, yes sir,

Three bags full;

One for the mas-ter,

And one for the dame,

And one for the lit-tle boy

Who lives down the lane

Additionally saj’ is distinct from poetry and other forms of Arabic speech due to its concentrated use of rhetorical

features. Rhetorical features are literary and linguistic devices intended to please or persuade, that differ from

normal speech. Examples of rhetoric include sound, rhythm, ellipsis and grammatical shift (iltifaat). Devin J.

Stewart in the Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an highlights this feature of saj’, “In addition, saj’ regularly involves the concentrated use of syntactic and semantic parallelism, alliteration, paronomasia and other rhetorical figures.”

In summary the definition of saj’ is that it has a,

1. Accentual rhythmical pattern

2. End rhyme

3. Concentrated use of rhetorical features

[There you have it, the SPECIFIC definition of saj'. Feel free to prove it 'ambiguous'.]

What is the Qur’ans Literary Form?

The Qur’an has its own unique form. It cannot be described as any of the known literary forms. However due to

similarities between saj’ and early Meccan chapters, some Western Scholars describe the Qur’an’s literary form as

saj’. Angelika Neuwrith states,

“Saj’ is given up completely in the later suras where the rhyme makes use of a simple –un/-in – scheme to mark

the end of rather long and syntactically complex verse….saj’ style is thus exclusively characteristic of the early

suras”

These scholars who categorise the Qur’an as saj’ do so on the basis that the Qur’ans uniqueness is acknowledged. To illustrate this R. A. Nicholson in his book ‘Literary History of the Arabs’ states,

“Thus, as regards its external features, the style of the Koran is modeled upon saj’, or rhymed prose…but with

such freedom that it may fairly be described as original.”

Although there is an attempt to try to describe the Qur’an as rhymed prose, western scholars concluded that it is a unique or an original form of saj’, thus supporting our hypothesis. To highlight this fact Bruce Lawrence states, “Those passages from the Qur’an that approach saj’ still elude all procrustean efforts to reduce them to an alternative form of saj’.”

There are three major opinions based upon modern and classical scholarship on how the Qur’an achieves this unique literary form and this unique form of saj’ ... etc etc etc

Please read the whole article.

Your just falling into the trap of rhetoric and conjecture.

Why don't you just prove it a damn trap already? Go ahead, create a revolution.

I can read Suratal Falaq and it's not beyond human capablity. I wrote something similar to it in English.

There's a WORLD of a difference between English language and Arabic language. You don't know the basic of linguistics and you're sticking your nose in it?

I can read suratal Abu Lahab and know it's a joke to think it's beyond capability and it is to great for humans to make.

And what exactly, SPECIFICALLY, makes it a joke? Let me guess, your emo issues with it?

Edited by The Exalted One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eloquence doesnt = meaning. Eloquence is how you get the meaning across. This is a speciality in itself and there are many books on it, some of them studied in Hawza. Its Ilm alBalagha. Youve never studied it yet so confident in your assessment of the Qurans eloquence.

I don't know to study it, I didn't say it equals meaning, but if you know meaning, you can see how he is getting the meaning across. If you can explain how Suratal Abu Lahab or Suratal Kaffiroon is something so eloquent and beyond humanity to do then do so, because to me, they both seem to be a joke.

How does my argument entail that? You are assuming that in order to believe in the Quran, one needs to be able to accurately assess its eloquence. That is not true, as you could believe in it for other reasons. My argument in no way contradicts this.

What's the proof of the Quran being true then?

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ why are you hiding the name of your religion? Or are you adhering to your own beliefs and haven't given it a title?

I'm interested to know more about your religion.

You seem to focus on hatred of Islam a lot. For someone who preaches 'love' and 'compassion', you show an awful lot of hate and anger.

So come on man, tell us more about your religion. What are its core beliefs. Is there the concept of God? Is He all powerful etc? Are there any Prophets etc. When was the message first revealed. Is there an heaven and a hell, what about judgement day, satan, etc. Do you guys fast, pray? Fill us in on the details please, don't just concentrate on the hatred and negatives, it's not making you very attractive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MysticKnight has really gone off the deep end with this thread. He is so caught up in his disbelief, that he is making objections to Islam for the sake of it, without really thinking about how much sense they make, or caring about much intellectual honesty he is showing.

Suffice to say that for someone who isn't an expert in Arabic to criticise literary quality of the Qur'an is ridiculous. Reading to English meaning is also not sufficient to fully grasp the meaning. I once read a (non-Christian) person saying that after learning Koine Greek he realised reading the New Testament in English was like seeing an image in 2D, while reading it in Greek was like seeing the image in 3D. If this can be said about comparisons between the Koine Greek of the New Testament (which is actually quite crude) and an English translation, which are both European languages, then what can be said about going from what everyone acknowledges to be the high level of Arabic in the Qur'an to such a different language as English? Not to mention that Arabic words have so many different meanings and nuances. I'm pretty sure there is plenty of non-Muslim Arabist testimony about the eloquence of the Qur'an, which is also a literary miracle from the point of view simply of the huge influence it had on the Arabic language and Arabic literature (which was non-existent before the Qur'an).

Regarding how the Qur'an 'sounds', I wonder if MysticKnight is even trained in Tajweed, otherwise it is doubtful he is getting much of the proper sound of the Qur'an either. Strange that so many non-Muslims and Muslims find the sound beautiful when it is properly recited, even if they don't understand a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

أعوذ بالله من الشيطان الرجيم

I am just simply going to type this [below] and not continue any argument furthermore:

A historical point:

- The Arabs at the time of the Prophet (SAWA) didn't assume that this book [the Qur'an] was great [like you assume] and didn't believe it was revealed by Allah, furthermore they lost the challenge given by Allah. Why did they submit to Allah and admit its [the Qur'an] greatness?

As for 'Kingpomba' you claimed that the Qur'an is so great because our [present] Arabic has changed, what did the previous do?

A scientific point:

- [13:12] It is He who shows you the lightning, as a fear (for travellers) and as a hope (for those who wait for rain). And it is He Who brings up (or originates) the clouds, heavy (with water). [surat al-Ra'd]

- [15:22] And We send the winds fertilizing (to fill heavily the clouds with water), then caused the water (rain) to descend from the sky, and We gave it to you to drink, and it is not you who are the... [surat Al-Hijr]

- [23:18] And We have sent down rain from the sky in a measured amount and settled it in the earth. And indeed, We are Able to take it away. [surat al-Mu'min'un]

- [24:43] ...see that Allah drives clouds? Then He brings them together, then He makes them into a mass, and you see the rain emerge from within it. And He sends down from the sky, mountains [of clouds] within which is hail, and... [surat al-Nur]

As for 'iSilurian' you claim to be a scientist and follow the rational thinking. Why do you deny every scientific prove of the Qur'an even though they have been proved through your measurement and instruments?

And as for 'MysticKnight' you should truly stop over thinking. Your curiosity is like that of children, they put everything in their mouth without any knowledge about it. You have fallen deep in the subject of proving the Qur'an is false to such extent that you would not believe in it even if an Angel would stand in front of your reciting it.

Before you assume anything about our book, seek knowledge through us [Muslims] not through our enemies. You even ignored the comments of my beloved brethren, for if you would have cared your would indeed not be haste to try prove us fault. Before any of you tries to takes us from the darkness to the light, have you seen to what extent you have fallen or have you even thought about your place towards your Lord.

Therefore, do not give any cognitive statements like 'if Suratal Abu Lahab was not in the Quran, and someone wrote it to be bring the Quran challenge, people will say "what is this, this is nothing like Quran, it's junk' and you yourselves had already determined that this book is false.

Lastly, someone [He knows himself] posted a topic regarding that the [current] Qur'an can be be based on faults because they found an old Qur'an which different. This is only a sign of how desperate you are to try prove this book is false. Have you not thought about how they found out this is the Qur'an?

And by the way, the Qur'an has been revealed as one [You can recite it in a single 'In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful]. Chapters is made for ease. Try not to contradict the Qur'an through it self, because you can't.

Edited by mun3t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for 'iSilurian' you claim to be a scientist and follow the rational thinking. Why do you deny every scientific prove of the Qur'an even though they have been proved through your measurement and instruments?

There are no existent published works on miracles in the Quran. Youre mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a religion.

Yes you do.

Get a pen.

Write down belief 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... n, in a book. Close the book. Think of a name. Write it on the cover.

That's your religion. You can probably start off by printing out all your threads/posts in here.

Just because you haven't given it a title yet, it doesn't mean you don't have a religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×